FAIR announced its review of MormonThink.com during its annual conference held the first week of August. A response to that review was recently posted at that site. What follows are some of my observations, which are not necessarily shared by other FAIR volunteers, about the response
MormonThink does a good job at posing questions to their readers to get them to reconsider the plausibility of LDS truth claims. The authors, a coalition of Mormon and ex-Mormon skeptics [1] (some operating under a cloak of anonymity while accusing the Church of less than complete transparency), find previous faithful attempts by unofficial apologists to answer similar questions “unsatisfactory.” A FAIR review demonstrated that MormonThink’s own predominately negative answers were ill-informed, highly slanted (not objective as advertised), and fail to more than superficially engage faithful answers. MormonThink’s response to FAIR’s rebuttal is a mixed. On one hand, the response shows a commitment to accuracy and correcting some of its more egregious errors. On the other hand, the response justifies its failure to take FAIR more seriously by making an appeal to authority. MormonThink seeks the attention of General Authorities and they believe FAIR is usurping the Brethren’s role. This suggests to me that they are less concerned about answers and more concerned about getting attention for dissent.
While in the future the MormonThink site might correct misinformation and engage Mormon scholarship more adequately, it will likely remain slanted towards convincing their readers to come to negative conclusions about Mormon truth claims. Nevertheless, the response to FAIR’s review is not all that encouraging that the writers will make rapid progress in first two areas. Let us look at a deficient response to one of the questions FAIR reviewed that MormonThink initially posed. The question is in italics, FAIR’s response in bullet points, MormonThink’s rejoinder is blockquoted, and my discussion follows. I invite commenters on this blog to address anything that I fail to in MormonThink’s rejoinder.
If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.
- If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
- The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
- Joseph did not regard the stone as “common”—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
Staring into a dark hat pulled over one’s face, looking into a rock, could be characterized as “a spiritual growing experience” or it can also raise questions because it looks like a lot of hocus pocus to many intelligent, reasonable and objective investigators. Most of the fair minded and good people in the world would likely agree that it looks like a scam in progress. So it’s a reasonable question and the rock-in-the-hat-process will be subject to ridicule and critical questioning until it can be demonstrated that it is a viable method of translating ancient documents. We are unaware of any credible scholars or linguists who use this method. Church employees who provide translation services indicate that they do not use the rock-in-the-hat-method either.
It is also important to point out that early scribes of J Smith describe his activities as a reader, not a translator. He saw English text on the rock in the bottom of his hat, the plates were never in view, and he dictated English sentences as they appeared. Those who reported this reading method were Emma Hale Smith (wife), Isaac Hale (father-in-law), Michael Morse (brother-in-law), Martin Harris, and Joseph Knight Sr. (For Primary sources and an excellent discussion of this issue, Grant H. Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Signature Books, pages 2-5, and footnotes).
The responsibility to prove that J Smith was actually translating something is left with the church leaders. At this point, the accumulated evidence after 180 years indicates that there were no golden plates, that Smith translated nothing, and God did not put sentences in English on the rock in his hat. The first edition Book of Mormon provides ample evidence of that, due to the thousands of grammatical errors and contradictions. An admission by Smith that this is true is evidenced by his campaign to clean up the book’s grammar and publish a revised and heavily-edited version in 1837.
Smith’s edited book, from 1830 to the present, has corrected approximately 4,000 errors in: (1) punctuation, (2) uneducated grammar (they was a runnin), (3) editing out obvious mistakes, and (4) changing 2 Nephi 11 to coincide with Smith’s evolving belief system about God. The Book itself is why critics and skeptics wonder why Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the “most correct book of any on earth.” Thousands of revisions, is not evidence in favor of J Smith’s claims. And investigators should not be belittled if they choose to keep asking “Did J Smith translate golden plates?” It’s a reasonable question.
If God gave J Smith revelations about the ancient Americas, why does the Book of Mormon reflect 19th century American myths about American Indians? Why don’t the large Nephite cities in the Americas turn up Nephite artifacts to support the book’s claims? Why was Smith wrong about America’s language, culture, mode of transportation (horses and chariots), flora and fauna? Why do the errors in the King James Version of the Bible that J Smith used (1796 version), show up in the Book of Mormon? Why do unofficial apologists put BOM geography on coasters to be rolled all over the Americas to try and find a place for them that makes sense? The official authorities say the Bom events occurred exactly where Smith said they did – North and South America.
Apostle Marion G. Romney reminded zealous apologists like FAIR to remember this. “I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting, I drove him home. … When we got to his home I got out of the car and went up on the porch with him. Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'” (Marion G. Romney, in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78.) How do you reconcile the counsel from an esteemed apostle with all the errors in the foundational sacred text of Mormonism?
FAIR has no valid reason to complain that members ask legitimate and reasonable questions regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, especially when unofficial answers contradict the answers of the general authorities and past presidents of the church. Most of the humans on the planet who have considered the church’s claims as presented by the missionaries, also find them without merit.
I agree that FAIR shouldn’t complain when legitimate questions are asked. As a volunteer who spends many hours each week answering Ask the Apologist questions, I am concerned with providing faithful and factual answers. I am always looking for ways to improve my ability to help those who have encountered criticism that may shake faith. However when questions assume invalid premises, they are not necessarily legitimate.
In the FAIR review, a corrective was suggested for one such faulty assumption. FAIR pointed out that Joseph did not consider his seer stone “common.” MormonThink defends the question’s premise by arguing that Joseph’s seer stones share more in common with ordinary rocks than with the Nephite interpreters. They point out (using prejudicial, anachronistic language) that the Urim and Thummim [2] was found in a box and another stone used in translation was found in a well). Later they point out accounts that the box was found by Joseph receiving a vision with the aid of a seer stone. These two data points (its miraculous finding — though MormonThink would have their readers believe it is hocus pocus– and its intentional burial as a relic) suggest that the Nephite interpreters are to be considered uncommon.
However MormonThink has not been thorough in their analysis of the circumstances of which Joseph’s seer stones were found. There are accounts that he miraculously found both his white and brown seer stones through seer stone aided visions [3]. For the brown stone (the stone most attested to in the latter stages of the translation process), there are indications that it was buried as a relic. So while the Nephite interpreters have a more storied history and finding, this criteria MormonThink suggests does not sharply distinguish one set of seer stones as being common in contrast to the other set. Both discovery sequences tend to set both sets above commonly found stones, however.
In arguing against a data point of Martin swapping stones on Joseph caused him to not be able to translate, the MormonThink writers reverse their premise that the stone was common. The stone was apparently distinguishable enough for Joseph to detect the switch at the bottom of a “dark hat” that he reportedly used in a manner to eliminate all outside light. MormonThink also suggests that Joseph may have used the seer stone as a focusing device without addressing why the same would not be true of his use of the Nephite interpreters (if so, by this criteria both devices would be equally common or uncommon.)
I get the impression that the use of the hat is also used to support the notion that a seer stone might be common, in contrast to the interpreters. Accounts are mixed, but the majority that comment on the use of the spectacles in detail also indicate that Joseph put them in a hat to translate as well [4].
Another distinction that MormonThink appears to make is that the Nephite interpreters were in Moroni’s possession (giving the use of that object a sense of divine approval) while God (or any rational, objective being) would not approve of the use of a seer stone. Later in the response they cite agreement with FAIR to put stock in the accounts that Joseph saw the location of the plates in vision. However they fail to bring up accounts that Moroni instructed Joseph as to the plates’ location [5].
When they do bring the issue up elsewhere on their site they try to force their readers into forming a false dichotomy between the two data points, whereas FAIR synthesizes the two ideas. The result is that Moroni condoned the Prophet Joseph’s use of a seer stone. Once again, while MormonThink is entitled to their own opinions, they have failed to responsibly engage data and arguments that challenge their position. A more important data point that is ignored is found in accounts that Moroni took possession of Joseph’s seer stones after the loss of the 116 pages (there is one account Joseph got in trouble on another occasion as well). So both the Nephite interpreters and seer stones were in Moroni’s possession and it could thus be argued that both sets of devices were used under Moroni’s supervision and hence both were used with divine approval. Joseph Knight also indicated that Joseph Smith looked into his seer stone to learn who he should marry following Moroni’s command. [6]
Later the MormonThink response asks why Joseph didn’t use his seer stones to locate the lost manuscript, oblivious to the likelihood that his seer stones had all been taken away. This further illustrates that MormonThink asks questions for the rhetorical purpose of convincing their readers of an absurdity, when the real problem is that the question assumes facts not in evidence. When these types of non-legitimate questions accumulate, it seems clear to me that they are expressly designed to raise doubts and asked not for sake of intellectual exploration. We see very little attempt to answer such questions beyond the citation of a few pages of Grant Palmer’s critical book.
The response acknowledges, but fails to engage the brief response that FAIR offers for Joseph using different objects during the translation process. FAIR response deserves more consideration as does Mark Ashurst-McGee’s A Pathway to Prophethood. Brant Gardner’s FAIR conference address is also a valuable contribution. MormonThink makes no attempt to try to understand why rational, objective people in Joseph Smith’s time would not automatically consider Joseph to be a scam artist. They appeal to presentist values to condemn Joseph Smith. Making comparisons with translations done by modern Church employees in a non sequitar. Modern church employees work with modern languages that they can learn from living people.
The nature of Book of Mormon’s translation as Joseph’s role as a translator is an interesting question to explore, but this is tangential to the originally posed questions. Yes investigators should feel free to ask such a question, but I have seen no indication that MormonThink is equipped to provide answers.
There is a nice body of literature that studies the subject that MormonThink writers show no sign of mastering. In consulting these, they would realize the data point they obtain from Palmer from multiple witnesses is among the least important ones to take into consideration about the translation process. The witnesses can neither report, first hand, what Joseph saw; nor is it likely that he told them given his reservation about describing the process beyond it being done by the gift and power of God. Therefore the accounts of Joseph seeing English text that tightly corresponded to characters on the plates is a matter of conjecture in those accounts.
Much more important is analysis of the received text itself. If Joseph was dictating text, why would the person or mechanism responsible for producing the English text care about punctuation if neither Joseph or his scribe were? Not even Oliver Cowdery, though a school teacher, was concerned much about grammar at the time according to one account [7]. More can be said of Joseph’s use of the word of translation, which had a wider connotation in 1830 or more could be said about speculative models that have been proposed about the translation process. I do not find MormonThink to be a helpful resource for someone investigating these issues.
[1] While the author of MormonThink’s rejoinder prefers to be considered a skeptic to being considered a critic, it is clear that the result of this professed skepticism is to consistently take a position against the Church of Jesus Christ’s truth claims. The skeptic in me believes that the few exceptions to that trend is primarily a strategy to gain credibility for their overall critical agenda. If MormonThink was truly more of a skeptical than critical site, they would spend a comparable amount of text introspectively scrutinizing their own positions and assumptions.
[2] MormonThink uses the term Urim and Thummim interchangeably with the Nephite interpreters. They have an article that makes this mistake in analyzing a quote from Lucy Smith and accuse FAIR of contradicting a 2008 manual containing that quote. However, it is clear the early saints sometimes used the term Urim and Thummim to refer to Joseph’s seer stones. One example comes from David Whitmer: “Finally, when Smith had fully repented of his rash conduct, he was forgiven. The plates, however, were not returned, but instead Smith was given by the angel a Urim and Thummim of another pattern, it being shaped in oval or kidney form.” “The Book of Mormon;’ Chicago Tribune, December 17, 1885, 3 cited in John Welch as the 93rd of 203 translation accounts in his compilation found in Opening the Heavens. Note this account challenges another premise found in the original question, that of Moroni returning the plates.
[3] One such account is quoted in Mark Ashurst-McGee’s A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet,” (Master’s Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000) p. 202 “Preside[n]t Young also said that the seer stone
which Joseph Smith first obtained He got in an Iron kettle 15 feet under ground. He saw it while looking in another seers stone which a person had. He went right to the spot & dug & found it” Wilford Woodruff’s Journal 5:382-3. Ashurst-McGee introduces and analyzes many other accounts of Joseph finding his seer stones. A summary statement is found on page 198. ” These are the methods Joseph Smith used in his acquisition of seer stones. He looked into a neighbor’s seer stone to find his first seer stone-a brown rock. Then Smith used this stone to find a white stone. This second stone is the well known seer stone that was unearthed on the property of Willard Chase under the pretense of digging a well. Next, at the angel Moroni’s direction, he used his white stone to find the Nephite “interpreters”-a large pair of clear, white, seer stone spectacles. Joseph Smith’s gradual development as a seer can be traced in part through his succession of seer stones and seer stone discoveries.”
[4] As can be seen by surveying the 203 accounts that Welch has compiled. A few accounts where Joseph is reported to have put the Nephite interpreters in the hat can be found in the FAIR wiki: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method
[5] The historical synthesis in FAIR wiki is far superior than anything that can be found on MormonThink’s site. See http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones
[6] Dean C. Jessee, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History,” Brigham Young University Studies 17:1 (August 1976)
[7] For example the cousin of Pomeroy Tucker the printing shop foreman when the Book of Mormon was published declared “Oliver Cowdery, the scribe of the prophet, was a young man of about twenty-four or twenty-five, about age of Smith. I had never known him previous to my return to Palmyra. He had been a school-teacher in country schools, and I am certain had little or no acquaintance with English grammar at that time.” Stephen S. Harding in Thomas Gregg’s 1890 publication The Prophet of Palmyra
I don’t think you can use this argument: “If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation?”
The reason I say that is because people back then would not think anything strange of putting a seer stone in a hat; they were very superstitious. I realized this for the first time when I read my ancestor’s autobiography.
think I made a new realization as I read your post about the seer stone in the hat; I visualized a fortune teller looking at a crystal ball with her head under a black cloth covering the ball. Isn’t that what they do? It has to be dark around to see into the stone, I guess because the light would reflect off of it making a person unable to see into it.
I think if MormonThink came to same conclusion that you did, the FAIR writer who posed the Socratic question would consider it mission accomplished. The idea being that the question helps the interlocutor identify a contradiction in their own position.
I don’t follow you. I think the FAIR writer was saying Joseph had to use the method that worked, whether people thought it ridiculous or not, so it must be a true method if he was willing expose himself to so much scrutiny. But really Joseph used the method that was not considered ridiculous to the people then. The question isn’t whether it was believable back then, but now.
>But really Joseph used the method that was not considered ridiculous to the people then. The question isn’t whether it was believable back then, but now.
Exactly. As you can see from my response in Green above. I personally took issue with the “presentist” assumptions that the MormonThink writer(s) critique the Joseph Smith with. While I didn’t write the question, I had an opportunity to change it, but did not. Why? because the question points out an absurdity that arises with using modern values to judge Joseph Smith. The conclusion that it is wished the readers and critics would draw from it is that they need to try harder at understanding Joseph Smith in terms of his culture, not our’s. The critics could still make a case that Joseph could be considered a fraud in standards of his own time, like Dan Vogel and Dale Broadhurst do; but then I would hope they take into account Gardner’s, Ashurst-McGee’s, Gordon Madsen’s, and my own writings. http://www.fairblog.org/2008/05/05/seer-or-pious-fraud/
As a quasi-historian (a puny undergraduate degree), I recognize the danger of “presentism.” The New Left historians who went around in the 1970s drawing mustaches, figuratively speaking, on the statues of great men because their conduct didn’t conform to the standards of the enlightened post-sixties moral consensus made fools of themselves, as more thoughtful modern historians are making clear.
And yet I think in many cases, the charge of “presentism” is at most a plea in mitigation: Even though, for example, the practice practice of slavery in Thomas Jefferson’s time was more acceptable to contemporary standards, the fact remains that it was horribly immoral by *objective* standards. We are not moral relativists here. It was not impossible for a conscientious person in the late 1700s to arrive at a conclusion that slavery was wrong; in fact, many people did, and in that, they were morally superior to those who continued (for reasons of self-interest, moral weakness, or imprudence) to allow themselves to be morally deceived.
In other words, the ghost of a man from an earlier time may plead “presentism” to reduce his time in the figurative, historical equivalent of Purgatory. But it will not do to say that because judging a slave trader of the 1700s as if he were a human trafficker in the 2000s is improper “presentism,” the 1700s slave trader’s conduct was actually *moral*.
Those are some great thoughts, Thomas. I agree with making a distinction between absolute and relative morality in judging the past. I am not quick to conflate my (or society’s) modern values with absolute morality. Furthermore, I believe that men will be judged according to the light that they received. A pre-Civil War slave owner won’t be denied ultimate entrance to heaven (where presumably the absolute morality we idealize will become morality) but may have to change, progress, and make amends for his sub-optimal behavior in this life before he can live by the absolute standard. I think this is what you are saying as well.
Therefore I can shelve my modern values or ideals for absolute values and evaluate Joseph Smith by the “little tradition” standards of his times. Do I think that the Holy Ghost can inspire men to act in accordance with a higher standard ahead of their times and thus make them more accountable? Yes, but I think that such inspiration that influenced Joseph Smith to transcend that culture and use his spiritual gifts with an eye single to the glory of God took some time to kick in. It took negative experiences like Moroni denying him the plates for several years, the 1826 trial, and lost manuscripts to help drive home that Joseph needed to put the Lord first–above his fear of men, above peer pressure, and above the pecuniary interests of his family.
Thanks for this write-up it’s contributed even more to my current reading of Opening the Heavens.
Keller, the May ’09 post you referenced quoted Richard Bushman as follows:
“In Brodie’s narrative, Mormon believers inevitably become simpleminded dupes. If Smith was a charlatan, everyone who followed him was deluded—including myself and all my Mormon friends.”
Dupes, yes; “simpleminded,” not necessarily. Smart people do get taken in from time to time. And people don’t always (often?) approach religion with the same analytical tools they apply to other matters. Bushman is using some sharp rhetorical tools here, suggesting that to question Joseph’s accounts is to call his own magnificently educated self a fool, and how dare anyone do that.
I would hesitate to stack my intellectual chops up against Joseph Ratzinger’s, but I still think he’s wrong about the Catholic Church having an exclusive Magisterium. Our differences — which are largely a function of each of us deciding to stop questioning certain things — don’t make either of us fools; it just means the respective things we’ve decided to stop questioning aren’t the same.
Tod, I am glad to hear that people are reading Opening the Heavens. I encountered a lot of new ideas, but the joy of discovery surpassed any disorientation that resulted. Now I see it as big puzzle to put together where some of the pieces have to be reshaped (by prioritizing information by its credibility). My primary interests are the priesthood and translation documents, but the other subjects (First Vision, prophetic succession, temple experiences) present their own mysteries that are worth exploring. Making all these accounts of experiences with the divine available gives unprecedented access to ordinary Saints to vicariously experience the same.
Thomas, I like your observation. A model of Mormonism as producing intelligent dupes would be much more challenging to me as an alternative to my current outlook. Such a model would at least attempt to explain why intelligent people like Bushman, Rigdon, Nibley, the Pratt brothers, Covey, Fletcher, etc. find Mormonism attractive.
But that isn’t the alternative that Brodie, Vogel, Palmer, and MormonThink pursue(d). MormonThink especially comes from the school of George Carlin and Bill Maher when it comes to disrespecting theists of any religion. It is much easier for such critics to pursue their agenda by mocking opponents and promoting their self-perceived intellectual superiority.
oinka: think I made a new realization as I read your post about the seer stone in the hat; I visualized a fortune teller looking at a crystal ball with her head under a black cloth covering the ball.
——–
Isn’t that presentism? I think Joseph’s use of the stone, whether a U&T or seer stone, is consistent with ancient practice. I am more concerned with that than what his contemporaries thought because they are constrained by their realm of experience as much as we are.
“We have seen that when the UT are identified with the gems of the breastpiece, light is often associated with them. 4QpIsad I 4-6 can be interpreted in this way. Josephus clearly links a miraculous light with the divine revelation (Ant. 3.216-18). The oracular shining or dimming of a stone on the breastpiece is also found in subsequent Jewish and Samaritan tradition.”
Cornelis VanDam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 31.
VanDam concludes,
“According to my theory and interpretation of the biblical evidence respecting the identity of the UT, the UT probably consisted of a single gem, and the name can best be understood as ‘perfect light’. A miraculous light verified that the message given by the high priest was indeed from God.” (p230)
Juliann,
I don’t think what I said was “presentism”. Fortune tellers existed in OT times. Whether it had to be dark to see into the stone, I don’t know, but apparently that was how it was done in Joseph Smith’s time, and scrying was a common practice.
Joseph Smith had one seer stone that he put in a hat (described as dark brown) and another he used with sunlight or candle light (described as a white stone). Joseph’s contemporary, Sally Chase, had two stones as well, one she put in a hat to exclude light and the other one utilized light. Accounts are mixed on how Joseph used the Nephite interpreters with the majority portraying the dark method. But that could have been because Moroni did not want to let others see the interpreters so he couldn’t use them out in open light very conveniently in the presence of a scribe.
I haven’t seen a lot of info on crystal balls. Ashurst-McGee has a few scattered references to European use from 1200-1700, but nothing in America until 1900, and then to note how expensive they were.
Oinka, is there any record of fortune tellers in OT times looking into a “crystal ball” with black cloths over their heads? That is presentism. You are not addressing ancient practices and you are conflating whatever you currently envision as “fortune telling” with the seer stone or U&T. When there is available evidence about a U&T I think it is appropriate that it be acknowledged.
Juliann,
Like I said previously, “Whether it had to be dark to see into the stone [in OT times], I don’t know, but apparently that was how it was done in Joseph Smith’s time…” You sound a little defensive.
“But that isn’t the alternative that Brodie, Vogel, Palmer, and MormonThink pursue(d). MormonThink especially comes from the school of George Carlin and Bill Maher when it comes to disrespecting theists of any religion. It is much easier for such critics to pursue their agenda by mocking opponents and promoting their self-perceived intellectual superiority.”
Bill Maher is on record as rejecting the “germ theory of medicine.”
The lesson is that many (most?) of the intellectually proud, mistake acceptance of the approved conventional wisdom with intellectual strength. The vast majority of the people who look down their noses at the rubes who reject the theory of evolution, couldn’t come close to explaining how natural selection actually operates, summarizing the evidence for the theory, or define “punk eek” even if you threatened them with a handful of Heiki crabs. And if you poke around their closed minds a bit, you’ll find they give credence to all kinds of politically-correct scientific absurdity.
Bill Maher, in other words, is a shallow, brittle-minded twerp. Fools mock, but they shall mourn.
But FAIR never really answered the question. Why didn’t the angel return the urim and thummim along with the plates after Joseph was forgiven for losing the 116 pages?
I can’t think of any reason why the angel wouldn’t return the instrument that was carefully preserved for 1400 years for the sole purpose of translating the plates.
Was the Angel trying to punish Joseph? I thought he was forgiven?
Brian,
Perhaps a little closer reading is in order? I think the question was indeed answered. MormonThink even acknowledged FAIR’s answer without seriously engaging it. I apologize if I come across as a little defensive in repeating myself.
First, to be coherent the question would have to be reformulated. “Why didn’t the angel return the urim and thummim along with the plates after Joseph was forgiven for losing the 116 pages?” gets things 180 degrees backwards. After the 116 pages were lost it is most likely that the plates weren’t given back to Joseph but the Urim and Thummim (using the early Saints’ term that included Joseph’s seer stones) were given back.
Of course sometimes when apologist answers the question that should have been asked rather than the one that was, he or she sometimes gets accused of less than forthrightness. Be that as it may FAIR’s answer is worth repeating:
“The critic ignores the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.”
Which MormonThink acknowledge in their opening statement (“Staring into a dark hat pulled over one’s face, looking into a rock, could be characterized as “a spiritual growing experience …”)
I will grant that a skeptic might find FAIR’s answer “unsatisfactory,” especially if they had as little command of the relevant literature as the MormonThink author(s) demonstrate; but nonetheless an answer was provided.
If a sincere person wanted to know more about why FAIR terms its answer as a fact, they could go through and analyze other FAIR wiki articles, Opening the Heavens‘s 203 translation accounts, Mark Ashurst-McGee’s 400 page thesis, Brant Gardner’s Fair Conference address, or Richard Holzapfel’s recent talk: Joseph Smith becoming ‘the seer stone’ http://mormontimes.com/people_news/newsmakers/?id=10461
I suppose it is possible that someone can read all or any of that literature and still disagree with FAIR’s approach.
Thanks Keller, but I am confused as we went over this in priesthood last year.
In the 2008 Sunday School manual on Joseph Smith (Chapter 5 on repentance on the 1st page) says:
“For a time, the Lord took the Urim and Thummim and the plates from Joseph. But these things were soon restored to him.”
This is what I was always taught that the plates were taken away and then returned along with the U&T. We were clearly taught that again just last year. Is the church wrong about this?
Brian,
I referenced that confusion in my second footnote: “They have an article that makes this mistake in analyzing a quote from Lucy Smith and accuse FAIR of contradicting a 2008 manual containing that quote.” Would you mind explaining how (or if) you are connected to MormonThink?
There are about 6-7 issues here: 1) Did Moroni return the Urim and Thummim? 2)Did Moroni return the plates? 3) Does the manual get wrong? 4) Does the manual’s source, Lucy Smith, get it wrong? 5)Does MormonThink get it wrong? 6) Does FAIR get it wrong? 7)Is there a curve ball lurking in the accounts that hasn’t been considered adequately?
I will only sketch some answers at leave the rest for future consideration. The answer to (7) is “yes.” In footnote 2, I quote David Whitmer to suggest that Joseph Smith may not have been given back the plates. In context, the “rash conduct” that Joseph was forgiven for was not the loss the 116 pages. I see hints of Joseph’s rash conduct in some of the hostile accounts (which manual writers would have granted little credence because they used Ron Barney’s classification scheme http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2009_The_Reliability_of_Mormon_History.html ). Although forgiving, Moroni was not forth giving the plates back; appears to be the appropriate response to avoid future temptation.
So strictly speaking, the manual could be right that Joseph was given back the plates and Urim and Thummim because history repeated itself (albeit with some variations). Under Whitmer’s scenario Joseph messed up and repented twice and Moroni took items away from him twice returning some of them twice. Exactly which items where in whose possession when I will leave for further exploration.
For question (4), I think Lucy does get it right to call the seer stone a Urim and Thummim. How well she does on the plates issue sounds like it would be worthy of further exploration, but that would involve material not quoted in the manual.
Keller,
Sure, I became interested in the MormonThink website about 1+1/2 years ago. I have contributed a few tidbits to that site which they added. I also submitted several apologetic viewpoints as by MormonThink’s own admission they need help capturing the full explanation of pro-church supporters. To their credit, they published all of them unedited.
I do want to take a moment to thank you for putting this type of exchange on your blog to enable us ‘fence-sitters’ to really understand what’s out there as FAIR does have an enormous amount of info on the seer stones. So perhaps together we can get some consensus on at least who believes what and what facts can be agreed upon and what is in dispute by the various parties.
So let me start with this:
BROWN SEER STONE RELIC. You said that there were indications that the brown seer stone found on the Chase’s property was a Nephite relic. If that is the case then there must have been a considerable community in the New York area. That seems at odds with FAIR’s viewpoint that the BofM took place in Central or South America and not in New England. If the BofM took place in NY, then it seems strange that the only relic that has been found is a stone that was buried 20-30 feet.
Also, if the brown stone was really a seer stone, then why wasn’t it protected like the Nephite Interpreters were in a special stone box or something instead of just buried apparently randomly on Willard Chase’s property? Now you do cite one account of the stone being found in an iron kettle. If that was a Nephite relic, that would be interesting to examine. Any information on what happened to that kettle?
Do you have any other references that support that this stone was a Nephite relic as this is the first I’ve heard of that assertion?
thanks
Brian
A little bit of a side note here.
I’m reading the “Mormonthink” response to the their review by FAIR and I came upon a particularly hilarious quote. Quote MT: “For example, in the 19th century, Joseph Smith could have said that the Book of Abraham papyri meant anything he wanted because science couldn’t definitely say otherwise, but now science knows how to translate Egyptian.”
This statement is pretty entertaining on several levels. I have to admit that I always thought that the scientific method (which is the only thing that distinguishes so called “Science” as a single entity) was a disciplined manner in which to engage a problem, theory, or series of observations. I didn’t realize that “Science” actually “knows” things, like how to translate Egyptian.
A fine point, but it just reminded me of the sorts of statements that people often make about “Science” who appear to be a little fuzzy on just what science actually is.
Brian, thanks for explaining your connections. I am not sure a consensus about facts is a desirable goal. I do think it is important to be aware of the primary sources (with the goal of being exhaustive). After that it is a matter of sifting out what information is credible. I try to reconstruct what really happened and I am less certain about somethings than I am about others. It is conceivable that others will reconstruct things differently.
The brown stone was likely not found in the Chase well. That is where the white stone was found. A lot of historians (B. H. Roberts, Quinn, and Vogel) and a couple of primary sources (L. Saunders and P. Tucker) confuse the two, among others, according to A Pathway to Prophethood p. 247 n317 Although late, William D. Purple gives perhaps the most colorful account of finding the brown, egg-shaped stone. See: http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1877Purp.htm .
I don’t think I labeled the brown stone or kettle as a Nephite relic. I am not aware of any primary source account that does so directly either. It would probably be best to call it a Native American artifact. Mark Ashurst-McGee looks into contemporary accounts of finding kettles. For example on page 286, “Joseph’s stone, however, did have a previous history. He found it buried in an iron kettle. Native Americans of this area had worked in metal and may have made pots or kettle-like containers. By the early seventeenth century, New York Indians were using European kettles. In 1810, a copper kettle was unearthed from a native burial ground near Canandaigua, about ten miles to the south.”
Probably more research could be done on Native American kettle-making and scrying. Seer stones seem to be rather pervasive. Juliann has presented some Ancient Near East analysis (Van Dam), Ashurst-McGee explored European antecedents, Louis Midgley has mentioned seer stones called Hukatai and Rehutai in Maori legends.
Of course the issue of what early Mormons and their contemporaries would have speculated about uncovered artifacts is an interesting question, but it would not really be much of a concern to Mesoamerican LGTers that some early Mormons mistakenly held to a hemispheric or Great Lakes geography. Zelph and the NY Cumorah is seems to be more debated grounds between geography theorists than the provenance of Joseph’s other Urim and Thummims.
Usually burying something deep serves as a way of protecting it or preventing it from being disturbed by animals or found by uninvited humans. Burying stuff was the way to safegaurd one’s valuables before banking became widely utilized.
I do not know what happened to the kettle. Joseph valued the stone more than the kettle so I don’t know if he made any effort to carry it the considerable distance back home, assuming Brigham’s and Purple’s tales are essentially correct.
Mikey, “science” does become somewhat of a deity for some Positivists that can explain everything worth explaining. We don’t have the original Book of Mormon text, but if we did perhaps it take as long for us to decode as the centuries it took to crack the Mayan code. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mayacode/time-nf.html. From a theist paradigm, I don’t think God wanted to wait an analogously long period to get the BoM translated or subjected to the trial and errors and scholarly squabbles attendant to breaking the code.
Keller, you’re not kidding, William D. Purple does give a most colorful account of finding the stone. What do you make of what he said right below that?
“So, after arming themselves with fasting and prayer, they sallied forth to the spot designated by Smith. Digging was commenced with fear and trembling, in the presence of this imaginary charm. In a few feet from the surface the box of treasure was struck by the shovel. on which they redoubled their energies, but it gradually receded from their grasp. One of the men placed his hand upon the box, but it gradually sunk from his reach, After some five feet in depth had been attained without success, a council of war, against this spirit of darkness was called, and they resolved that the lack of faith, or of some untoward mental emotions was the cause of their failure.
In this emergency the fruitful mind of Smith was called on to devise a way to obtain the prize. Mr. Stowell went to his flock and selected a fine vigorous lamb, and resolved to sacrifice it to the demon spirit who guarded the coveted treasure. Shortly after the venerable Deacon might be seen on his knees at prayer near the pit, while Smith, with a lantern in one hand to dispel the midnight darkness, might be seen making a circuit around the spot, sprinkling the flowing blood from the lamb upon the ground, as a propitiation to the spirit that thwarted them. They then descended the excavation, but the treasure still receded from their grasp, and it was never obtained.
What a picture for the pencil of a Hogarth! How difficult to believe it could have been enacted in the nineteenth century of the Christian era! It could have been done only by the hallucination of diseased minds, that drew all their philosophy from the Arabian nights and other kindred literature of that period! But as it was declared under oaths in a Court of Justice, by one of the actors in the scene, and not disputed by his co-laborers it is worthy of recital as evincing the spirit of delusion that characterized those who originated that prince of humbugs, Mormonism. ”
The moving treasure accounts and sacrificing a lamb just sound so incredible.
NEPHITE RELIC OR NATIVE AMERICAN ARTIFACT
If any of the seer stones were Native American but not Nephite would you say that they could still have ‘seering’ abilities or would the only real seer stones have to come from the Nephites as they presumably would be the only people that had prophets?
I have to run, so I will try to be brief.
Regarding the quoted part of Purple’s tale. See my blog referred to in my 4th comment, where I explore various models for understanding Joseph Smith if we naively took all such accounts at face value. Really, though one would want to some source and form criticism on Purple’s tale to access where different elements of the story came from. I think the quoted part likely relies on Hurlbut Affidavits. Where did those guys get their info? Is it eye witness stuff (unlikely, because most of those guys don’t claim to be digging with Joseph)? When we peal back the layers of the story, were some elements brought in from how people expected seers or peepers to act rather than how Joseph actually acted?
Brant Gardner’s FAIR ’09 address engages in such unpacking on a pair of contradictory texts. One text suggested Joseph told fortunes, the other reports a conversation that Joseph declined and said he lacked the ability to do. Brant found that latter more credible and the former more in line with cultural expectations of a village seer being falsely attributed to Joseph Smith. Mark Ashurst-McGee’s thesis synthesizes the two accounts by suggesting that as Joseph’s abilities as a seer increased, he picked up the ability to give people blessings. I think Brant (from one of his footnotes and discussions we have had) is not quite as comfortable, in general, that there is an evolutionary continuity between Joseph’s talents as a village seer and his spiritual gifts as a Judeo-Christian prophet. One could argue that there is a profound difference between fortune telling–which Joseph declined to do–to Joseph’s blessings.
My point being that one really can’t take accounts such as Purple’s at face value and more analysis would have to be done. Some good work has been done by Hugh Nibley in “Myth Makers.” There is another article that I would love to extend its methodology to trace myths through cultural layers and oral traditions and propose a reconstruction of what really happened:
Walking-on-Water Stories and Other Susquehanna River Folk Tales about Joseph Smith by J. Taylor Hollist Mormon Historical Studies Volume 6, Number 1. Spring 2005
>If any of the seer stones were Native American but not Nephite would you say that they could still have ’seering’ abilities or would the only real seer stones have to come from the Nephites as they presumably would be the only people that had prophets?
I am confident that other cultures outside of those Mormonism likes to emulate have had their own way of experiencing and interpreting the divine or supernatural whether it they had village seers, mystics, shamans, magicians, folk healers, etc. While I believe that Mormon prophets can truly acts as divinely authorized prophets, I am less concerned about what status or legitimacy I should grant to these outside traditions. You could say I am a priori agnostic about miracles reported within other traditions.
Keller, I’m still trying to ascertain the status of the seer stones and plates. Can you comment on the following?:
1) The ‘original’ urim and thummim that came with the gold plates in the stone box. This was an actual ‘seering device’ used by the Nephites and endorsed by the angel Moroni to begin the translation of the plates. This was taken away by the angel after the 116 pages were lost but never returned to JS.
2) The white seer stone was probably the seer stone found on Chase’s property and used in translating the BOM after the 116 pages. Although some historians believe this was the brown stone. This was also taken away by the angel after the 116 pages but was returned by the angel to JS.
It was not used or not used by the Nephites? If not used by them, how did it come to have seering abilities?
Is this stone still around today?
3) The brown seer stone may have been found in an Indian kettle. Joseph did use this to receive revelations. It may have been used to translate the BOM with. This is reportedly still in possession of the church.
Was this taken away and returned by the angel also?
It was not used or not used by the Nephites? If not used by them, how did it come to have seering abilities?
4) Joseph’s other seer stones. Reportedly Joseph had several seer stones. What would be your opinion on those – used by the Nephites originally or some other divine origin or just common stones with no inherent ability?
4) The plates. They were taken away after the 116 pages but never returned. Joseph only used a seer stone from this point on to translate the BOM.
Thanks
Brian
I wish I had more time or inclination to explore some of those questions in this blog more thoroughly than I already have. I would suggest consulting the references I have listed, especially Opening the Heavens and A Pathway to Prophethood.
One item I can point out The white seer stone was predicted by the Nephites. Paraphrase: I will prepare unto my servant, Gazelem, a stone. Gazelem refers to both Joseph Smith and his white seer stone. Now you know where Holzapfel is coming from. There is a similar story about Peter being the rock if you catch the drift of my http://www.fairblog.org/2009/05/04/the-apostolic-foundation/ . I’d like to think it is possible that the two ideas have a common ancestry.
MormonThink responds to this thread here:
http://www.mormonthink.com/fairseerstones.htm
I noticed MTs response last week and I have no plans for continuing what has been, from my perspective, an unproductive exchange.
Instead I would encourage readers of the FAIR blog stay tuned to the TWA project that Blair Hodges, myself, and others are working on. Blair has recently posted on his blog all known [to us] Joseph Smith accounts and I have posted all known accounts that explicitly affirm or deny the use of a curtain. Engaging and analyzing primary sources and published scholarly treatments is how I wish to proceed. I have a blog post planned that will explore what access Joseph had to the plates after the loss of the 116 pages. But that might take a month or two.