Starting the new year with SITH

Who would have thought that the last day of the year 2020 would provide a high-profile promotion of SITH? (SITH = stone-in-the-hat theory). I'll discuss the Dec 31st article in the Salt Lake Tribune below.

SITH is about the last thing I wanted to discuss in 2021, but it's inevitable and, apparently, necessary. I'm posting this on this blog because our M2C citation cartel is also our SITH citation cartel. 

For more detail on Church history, see my new web page: ComeFollowMe2021.org. I'll have commentary and links to podcasts for every lesson this year.

(BTW, last year I intended to do the same for the Book of Mormon in 2020, but I had lots of other projects and anyway, I was curious to see how the citation cartel was going to handle the issues. As expected, Book of Mormon Central ended up spending millions of dollars promoting M2C (and SITH), depriving their readers/viewers of the opportunity to make informed decisions. They are the mirror images of the critical sites (CES Letter, MormonStories, etc.) that also deprive their readers/viewers of the opportunity to make informed decisions.

Sigh.

We can't expect the scholars, whether LDS, former LDS, or anti-LDS, to sacrifice their theories any more than we can expect the wealthy to sacrifice their wealth, as we discussed yesterday. For the credentialed class, Zion remains a theory--something for other people to live. 

So let's move on.

Warning: this is a long post. I'll be traveling and probably won't post again for a week or so. 

I posted a short video summary here. https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/p/video-summary-of-sith-and-new-mormon.html

_____

The article in the SLTribune was an interview with Richard Bushman, the author of Rough Stone Rolling. (see below)

People often ask me about Brother Bushman. I've met him, spoken with him briefly a few times, and I think he's awesome. He's brilliant, friendly, personable, thoughtful. He's an excellent historian, of course. I respect his work. But... he's a historian.

If you're not already familiar with the term "talent stack," you should learn about it. Everyone develops different combinations of talents. We have natural interests and aptitudes. We get an education. We gain experience and expertise. We pursue our interests and develop our skills. The sum of all that is our talent stack.

Our talent stacks are part of our filters on the world. Our brains only process what our filters allow to pass through. Some of that is perceptual--what we see, touch, smell, hear, etc.--and part of that is mental or psychological--what confirms our biases, mostly.

For example, our M2C scholars say they "cannot unsee" Mesoamerica when they read the Book of Mormon. Their talent stack--Mesoamerican anthropology, archaeology, etc., combined with an M2C interpretation of the Book of Mormon--literally filters out information and explanations that contradict their M2C beliefs. That's why they create this incestuous citation cartel and engage in peer approval instead of peer review. It's all about bias confirmation, but to them, their beliefs are reality and everyone else is wrong. They think they're doing a favor to Latter-day Saints by "protecting" them from impossible ideas such as the idea that the prophets were correct about the New York Cumorah.

It's the same with the dominant LDS historians. They have convinced themselves that Joseph Smith didn't use the plates, that he didn't really translate anything, and that he merely read words off a seer stone in the hat (SITH). 

Why?

Because they're historians. Their talent stack involves finding, uncovering, and preserving historical evidence (mainly documents). They consider the context and weigh the credibility of the evidence and reach conclusions. They think they are striving to be "objective" and get at the truth.

But historians are people, subject like everyone else to bias confirmation. Once they reach a conclusion, they profess skepticism or "caution" about documents that contradict their conclusions. They'll redefine terms to suit their conclusions. They'll omit inconvenient evidence, etc. For a prime example, notice how the Saints book, volume 1, censored Cumorah from the historical record.

Another good example is the "Early Modern English" theory promoted by Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack. They're linguists. Plus, they're members of the citation cartels. Here is an excerpt from Brother Skousen's book on the King James quotations in the Book of Mormon: "“The Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of what was on the plates, not a literal one. Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith.”

I've discussed before the inherent weakness of intellectuals; they are blind to their own blindness. That's why, when you read the work of LDS historians and other intellectuals, you can trust, but you better verify. (I wouldn't even say trust, but that's how the saying goes. I'd say you can "consider, but verify.")

_____

At this point, I should pause to briefly address some of my critics who assert that I'm also an intellectual. True, I'm a lawyer, so I have credentials: J.D., M.S., B.S. I've taught courses for three universities, written lots of books, etc. But I don't want or expect anyone to trust me because of my education or credentials. I encourage everyone to make informed decisions. I encourage people to consider alternative points of view. That's exactly the opposite approach taken by our LDS scholars. Book of Mormon Central's own logo forecloses alternative interpretations, even (actually, especially) those that support and corroborate the teachings of the prophets.

I'm all in favor of education. The more the better. But that's only one element of a healthy talent stack, and when your education blinds you to your own blindness, it's time to branch out.

Which brings us back to Rough Stone Rolling.

_____

Years ago, my Stake President asked if I had read Rough Stone Rolling (I was the stake Sunday School president at the time). He said it was the best book on Church history he'd ever read. I told him I had read it, and I also thought it was great, although it reflected an editorial bias that I didn't completely share.

Many Church members have contacted me to say they find the book appalling, along with the rest of "New Mormon History" promoted by Leonard Arrington, et al. Usually they object to the "anti" evidence, meaning the evidence that differs from or contradicts the traditional Church history narratives.

There are numerous anecdotes of faithful LDS who have found the book troubling. In fact, John Dehlin and other former LDS who encourage people to leave the Church feature Rough Stone Rolling (along with the Gospel Topics Essays) as one of the main factors for people losing their faith. One of Dehlin's most popular podcasts is the interview he did with Brother Bushman several years ago, which I've discussed before.

[Some readers here know I have a web page that reviews MormonStories called MormonStoriesReviewed. I have a few reviews on there, but it's a work in progress. If you want updates, subscribe or follow by email.]

_____

I think Rough Stone Rolling, like most of the New Mormon History, is useful and important but stopped short of reconciling the various historical accounts and historical evidence. 

It's important to show all the evidence, for sure. To make informed decisions, people should have access to and consider all of the evidence, along with a variety of explanations and interpretations. But you can't get that from one book.

Rough Stone Rolling omits important evidence and offers only limited alternative explanations. But that's what the book is supposed to do. That's all any book can do! 

This is an inherent problem every author faces. You can't provide all the evidence or you've written a reference book. We already have reference books, and even those are abridgments. One of the most popular is Opening the Heavens, but by taking all the quotations out of context, the book is useful only as a quote book, or to confirm one's biases, or as a guide to actual references in the footnotes. And, as I've shown, the editorial bias in Opening the Heavens is a serious problem. 

The Joseph Smith Papers are the only comprehensive references and they're not even complete yet. Plus, the notes reflect the editorial agenda of the editors.

Think of Rough Stone Rolling (and every other book) as an abridgement. You can't blame an author for omitting information because it's impossible to include all the information in any one book. 

That's why you consider the editorial agenda. What did the author plan (and hope) to accomplish? We'll discuss that below, but first, let's look at how people are using Rough Stone Rolling.

_____

The critics, such as John Dehlin, use Rough Stone Rolling as a tool to persuade Latter-day Saints to question their faith. But they are using a basic logical fallacy to mislead their readers and listeners. They frame Rough Stone Rolling as the most comprehensive, honest, detailed history of Joseph Smith. 

Of course, that's nonsense. The book is selectively detailed and pursues an editorial agenda.

Nevertheless, Dehlin portrays Rough Stone Rolling as a sort of reference book, which it is not.

I don't question Dehlin's sincerity. I'll assume he really believes what he says. But Dehlin's straw man is an effective persuasion trick. Latter-day Saints and others who don't know much about history generally, or Mormon history specifically, take Dehlin's word for it. They accept the straw man argument that Rough Stone Rolling is the most honest, or even only honest, book about Joseph Smith written by a faithful Latter-day Saint. Richard Bushman, after all, is a Stake Patriarch and a former Stake President, one of the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers, etc.

Many faithful Latter-day Saints are unprepared for what they read in Rough Stone Rolling. Why?

Most people merely want to confirm their biases, so they read and listen enough to do that and then stop, satisfied. We actually get a dopamine hit when we confirm our biases. It feels good. We like to associate with people who share our beliefs. We meet with them regularly. We work with them. We trust them. 

Dehlin and others know that. Because of the way they frame the book, they know that Latter-day Saints will expect to get another dopamine hit when they read Rough Stone Rolling because they think it will somehow "prove" Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc.

Instead, the book gives them an alternative history that is jarring for many. It's the opposite of a dopamine hit. It's disturbing.

And it's a major reason for Dehlin's success. Whether he sends people to Rough Stone Rolling, the Gospel Topics Essays, FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, it doesn't matter. All of these references create expectations for Latter-day Saints that are dashed when they realize these sources are teaching Latter-day Saints that the prophets were wrong.

Then, Dehlin can offer them an alternative source for a dopamine hit. Now, it's the dopamine that comes from confirming the new bias that the prophets are wrong. 

It's why people who leave the Church--the "ex-Mormons"--keep coming back to Dehlin's webpage and podcasts to confirm their new biases. It's a constant dopamine hit.

Bias confirmation is not inherently good or bad. It's a core part of our psychology. It helps us navigate an uncertain and unpredictable world. We confirm our biases daily in innumerable ways. If your bias makes you happy and productive, great. But there's always a risk that the bias we're confirming is based on a mistake.

The big mistake here is the assumption that Rough Stone Rolling is actual history. It's not. It presents merely an abridgment of one version of history. Like every other book, it relates some facts and omits others. It suggests some conclusions and omits others. It's not good or bad. It's a tool. It's one of many windows into actual history.

I always say people can believe whatever they want. It doesn't matter to me what you believe. I just encourage people to pursue the truth and make informed decisions. 

People who want to make informed decisions will not read Rough Stone Rolling and stop, no matter how it makes them feel. They won't read Essentials in Church History and stop. They won't read Come Follow Me 2021 and stop. They will read a variety of materials, hopefully skewed toward authentic original sources. They will use both their minds and their hearts. They will follow the guidance in D&C 9:8. "you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right."

As I noted above, unfortunately Dehlin can point to the Gospel Topics Essays for confirmation, but that's a discussion for another day.

Dehlin can also point to FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, and the rest of the citation cartel for confirmation. These LDS intellectuals are making Dehlin's case for him. He just has to point it out.  

One of the best examples is SITH.

_____

For over 150 years, LDS Church leaders taught that Joseph Smith translated the Nephite plates with the Urim and Thummim. From the early 1830s, critics said that Joseph produced the Book of Mormon by either (i) reading words off a seer stone he put in a hat or (ii) reading a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding and edited by Sidney Rigdon.

All three alternatives were set out in the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed. When that book was released in October 1834, Oliver Cowdery responded by declaring unambiguously that Joseph translated the record with the Urim and Thummim. You can see Oliver's declaration in the Pearl of Great Price, at the end of Joseph Smith-History, or in the Joseph Smith papers here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/50

You might think that Oliver's declaration, which Joseph Smith helped write and specifically endorsed multiple times, would end the debate.

But no.

A few decades ago, some LDS historians decided it was time to deal with "all the evidence." They started what has been called the "New Mormon History" to bring out some of the evidence that differed from, and contradicted, the traditional Church history narratives.

Among these was SITH.

Historians largely rejected the Spalding theory, so they focused on SITH vs U&T. 

(Sending the Spalding theory into oblivion is one reason why everyone has overlooked the key role it played, as I've discussed before.)

Rough Stone Rolling was a key part of the New Mormon History's focus on SITH, but lots of people contributed. The historians in the Church History department largely embraced the New Mormon History (as well as M2C), and the result is the presentation of SITH in the Ensign (which I discussed here), the lesson manuals, the videos, etc.

Several justifications have been proposed. 

Some have claimed that when Joseph and Oliver said or wrote "Urim and Thummim" they really meant the peep stone Joseph found in a well. That obviously contradicts both what they said and the historical record. Others claim Joseph used both, but that also contradicts both what Joseph and Oliver always said. Some say the "SITH sayers" were all liars who hated Joseph Smith, but that also contradicts the historical record. Besides, people on the other side just say Joseph and Oliver were liars. Stalemate.

In a recent presentation, I summarized it this way, leading to my own conclusions. (click to enlarge) 

As I mentioned at the outset, a longer version of this is available here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/p/video-summary-of-sith-and-new-mormon.html

The full presentation is also available. Email me at lostzarahemla@gmail.com if you want a link.

_____

I hope by now you can see that it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with my conclusions. What matters is whether you are satisfied that you've made an informed decision. Did you read multiple perspectives and interpretations of the facts? Did you study things out in your mind and then get confirmation in your heart?

If so, you can read Rough Stone Rolling and spot the editorial agenda and bias. You can read Essentials in Church History, Truth Restored, No Man Knows my History, or any other book about Church history and spot the editorial agenda and bias. But you will have decided, for yourself, what is factual, logical, rational, and true.

_____

Every author writes from his/her personal bias and motivation, but few explain their own biases as well as Richard Bushman does in Rough Stone Rolling.

In the Preface, Brother Bushman wrote this:

it is unlikely there will ever be consensus on Joseph Smith's character or his achievements... Everything about Smith matters to people who have built their lives on his teachings. To protect their own deepest commitments, believers want to shield their prophet's reputation. On the other hand, people who have broken away from Mormonism-and they produce a large amount of the scholarship-have to justify their decision to leave. They cannot countenance evidence of divine inspiration in his teachings without catching themselves in a disastrous error. Added to these combatants are those suspicious of all religious authority who find in Joseph Smith a perfect target for their fears. Given the emotional crosscurrents, agreement will never be reached about his character, his inspiration, or his accomplishments.

A believing historian like myself cannot hope to rise above these battles or pretend nothing personal is at stake. For a character as controversial as Smith, pure objectivity is impossible.

What I can do is to look frankly at all sides of Joseph Smith, facing up to his mistakes and flaws. Covering up errors makes no sense in any case. Most readers do not believe in, nor are they interested in, perfection. Flawless characters are neither attractive nor useful. We want to meet a real person....

Joseph Smith did not offer himself as an exemplar of virtue. He told his followers not to expect perfection. Smith called himself a rough stone, thinking of his own impetuosity and lack of polish. He was sensitive to insults and could not stand to be crossed. Twice he was brought to trial before one of his own church councils for scolding offenders too severely. He so dominated the rooms he entered that some thought him arrogant. But it was his iron will that brought the church, the cities, and the temples into existence.

If people read and consider this preface, the rest of the book makes sense. Brother Bushman does not set out to write a book that is either apologetic or critical. 

"Frankly" means "open, honest, direct." That's not technically the same as "objective," but it does create a misleading implication of objectivity.

As any author must, Brother Bushman decided to include some facts and omit others. For example, he omitted some of the most direct historical statements about the Urim and Thummim.

Here's the main passage in the book about the translation, with my notes in red. The style of writing--framing theories as facts--can be misleading to readers who don't understand that this is more advocacy than reporting.

Emma said she sat at the same table with Joseph, writing as he dictated, with nothing between them, and the plates wrapped in a linen cloth on the table.53 [This comes from Emma's Last Testimony, recorded shortly before she died by her son Joseph Smith III. Emma never publicly acknowledged the statement. At the time, Joseph Smith III was corresponding with a dissident who insisted the Solomon Spalding theory was the best explanation for the Book of Mormon; hence, it was convenient for him to have his mother say "there was nothing between us" when Joseph dictated. I have an entire chapter on this in my book, A Man that Can Translate.] When Cowdery took up the job of scribe, he and Joseph translated in the same room where Emma was working. Joseph looked in the seerstone, and the plates lay covered on the table.54 [The note claims the description of translation comes from Emma, Oliver, David, Martin and William. However, there is no such description from any of these people from the time Oliver was acting as scribe in Harmony. Only Oliver, Joseph and Emma were present there, and we have no statements from Emma regarding Oliver's service as scribe. However, Joseph and Oliver always said Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim, the Nephite interpreters. David, Martin and William related events at the Whitmer farm, although it's unclear what they actually observed vs. what they heard others say. David and Martin gave a variety of statements. I think these are all consistent with Joseph doing a demonstration with SITH at the Whitmer farm which was not a translation. Joseph had been commanded not to show the plates or interpreters to anyone unless commanded, so a demonstration made sense.]

Neither Joseph nor Oliver explained how translation worked, but Joseph did not pretend to look at the "reformed Egyptian” words, the language on the plates, according to the book's own description. [Here is another indication of the author's bias: "Joseph did not pretend." There was no question of pretending; Joseph himself said he not only looked at the plates, but he copied the characters on them, studied the characters, and translated them. As we'll see below, Joseph's mother explained that Joseph applied the U&T to his eyes and looked on the plates, but RSJ omitted that, too.] The plates lay covered on the table, while Joseph's head was in a hat looking at the seerstone, which by this time had replaced the interpreters. [This is stated as fact based on one account and hearsay based on that account, but other historical evidence contradicts this version.] The varying explanations of the perplexing process fall roughly into two categories: composition and transcription. [Notice, translation is not even considered as a possibility, even though that's what Joseph and Oliver both said happened.] The first holds that Joseph was the author of the book. He composed it out of knowledge and imaginings collected in his own mind, perhaps aided by inspiration. He had stuffed his head with ideas for sermons, Christian doctrine, biblical language, multiple characters, stories of adventure, social criticism, theories of Indian origins, ideas about Mesoamerican civilization, and many other matters. During translation, he composed it all into a narrative dictated over the space of three months in Harmony and Fayette.55

Composition is the naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon - the way books are always written-but it is at odds with the Joseph Smith of the historical record. The accounts of the neighbors picture an unambitious, uneducated, treasure-seeking Joseph, who had never written anything and is not known to have read anything but the Bible and perhaps the newspaper. None of the neighbors noted signs of learning or intellectual interests beyond the religious discussions in a juvenile debating club. To account for the disjuncture between the Book of Mormon's complexity and Joseph's history as an uneducated rural visionary, the composition theory calls for a precocious genius of extraordinary powers who was voraciously consuming information without anyone knowing it.56

[This explanation has too many problems to itemize here, but the main composition theory during Joseph's lifetime and for decades afterward was the Solomon Spalding theory, which the American media repeatedly published as fact but is omitted from RSR. The Spalding theory required that Joseph dictate from the Spalding manuscript from behind a screen or curtain, as some early accounts described. To defeat the Spalding theory, David, Emma and others insisted that Joseph was not behind a curtain and had nothing to read from. That makes sense, if you see it from their perspective. Plus, they had the demonstration in the Whitmer home to go by. But it contradicts what Joseph and Oliver always said.]

The transcription theory has Joseph Smith “seeing" the Book of Mormon text in the seerstone or the Urim and Thummim. He saw the words in the stone as he had seen lost objects or treasure and dictated them to his secretary. The eyewitnesses who described translation, Joseph Knight, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, who was in the house during the last weeks of translation, understood translation as transcription. Referring to the seerstone as a Urim and Thummim, Knight said: "Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would come and so on.”

[This is all consistent with the demonstration, but it is not consistent with D&C 1, 9 and 10, Joseph's early work in studying the characters and translating them, and his repeated claim that he translated the engravings on the plates.]

Joseph himself said almost nothing about his method but implied transcription when he said that "the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book.” [That's also an implication of translation, which was what the spectacles (the Urim and Thummim or Nephite interpreters) were prepared for.] Close scrutiny of the original manuscript (by a believing scholar) seems to support transcription. [The believing scholar, Royal Skousen, claims Joseph Smith is not the translator.] Judging from the way Cowdery wrote down the words, Joseph saw twenty to thirty words at a time, dictated them, and then waited for the next twenty to appear. Difficult names (Zenoch, Amalickiah) were spelled out.57 By any measure, transcription was a miraculous process, calling for a huge leap of faith to believe, yet, paradoxically, it is more in harmony with the young Joseph of the historical record than is composition. [Others disagree with this opinion, noting that it was not that unusual for people of the day to relate long stories, or for ministers to speak for hours without notes, in both cases using mnemonic rhetorical devices to keep their place.] Transcription theory gives us a Joseph with a miraculous gift that evolved naturally out of his earlier treasure-seeking. The boy who gazed into stones and saw treasure grew up to become a translator who looked in a stone and saw words. [Again, realize that this is advocacy, not reporting, despite how it's written.]

Whatever the process, the experience thrilled Oliver Cowdery. "These were days never to be forgotten,” Cowdery reflected in 1834. “To sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom!” [Careful readers will spot the omission of the next sentence from the actual quotation: "Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’"] The young prophet more than fulfilled Cowdery's expectations. On the other hand, the shock of the sudden immersion in a supernatural work now and then gave Cowdery pause, and like Harris he needed further reassurance.58 [This is speculative mind-reading, not reporting, but as long as readers understand that, it's not a problem.]

That is one of many such examples. Here is one more. I trust you can find others if you're so inclined, but the point is, those who claim Rough Stone Rolling is a reliable reference are misleading others, intentionally or not.

People have asked me to provide a supplement to Rough Stone Rolling to point out more examples of editorial decisions. I'd be happy to if I had the time...

:)

In late May, 1829, Oliver Cowdery wrote to David Whitmer to ask David to come pick up Joseph and Oliver in Harmony so they could finish the translation at the Whitmer farm in Fayette, NY.

Lucy Mack Smith wrote (dictated) this: 

In the mean time Joseph was 150 miles distant and knew naught of the matter e[x]cept an intimation that was given through the urim and thumim for as he one morning applied the<​m​> latter to his eyes to look upon the record instead of the words of the book being given him he was commanded to write a letter to one David Whitmore [Whitmer] this man Joseph had never seen but he was instructed to say him that he must come with his team immediately in order to convey Joseph and his family <​Oliver [Cowdery]​> back to his house which was 135 miles that they might remain with him there untill the translation should be completed for that an evil designing people were seeking to take away Joseph’s life in order to prevent the work of God from going forth among the world 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/100

This is an unambiguous statement that Joseph applied the "Urim and Thummim" to his eyes to look upon the record. Nothing is mentioned about a stone or a hat. Also, the letter to David Whitmer was a commandment received through the Urim and Thummim.

Here is the alternative account presented in Rough Stone Rolling:

Joseph's activities had not gone unnoticed in the neighborhood. He and Cowdery said nothing publicly about the vision of John the Baptist, but people knew about the translating. “We had been threatened with being mobbed, from time to time,” Joseph said, “and this too by professors of religion.” He had won over the Hale family far enough to receive their protection, but he needed uninterrupted time to complete the translation. 70

Sometime in the latter part of May 1829, Cowdery wrote David Whitmer to ask if they could work in his father's house in Fayette. [RSR provides background information on the Whitmers here.]

Joseph and Cowdery began to translate the day after they arrived at the Whitmer farm.

In this version, it was Joseph or Oliver who came up with the idea of contacting David Whitmer. The Urim and Thummim had nothing to do with it.

Alert readers will notice that Brother Bushman omitted the account of the trip from Harmony to Fayette, which included meeting the messenger who was taking the Harmony plates (the abridged plates) to Cumorah before giving the plates of Nephi to Joseph in Fayette.

This is one of many such examples. Brother Bushman believes Joseph used a seer stone to produce the Book of Mormon and he selected historical evidence to support that belief. There is nothing wrong with that; as we say previously, that's how books are written. 

This is an observer problem. Any reader who thinks Rough Stone Rolling is either objective or history is mistaken. The book, like all history books, relates the author's interpretation of selected historical evidence. 

You can agree or disagree, but it is irrational to blame the author if he/she doesn't agree with you.

Make up your own mind.

Now, here is a link to the article that created the attention to SITH on the last day of 2020.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/31/agnostic-believer/

From agnostic to believer, historian Richard Bushman explains why he sees the Book of Mormon as ‘right’ — as opposed to ‘true’ Dean of Mormon historians Richard Bushman discusses his faith and doubts. He is working on a book about the gold plates, from which the Book of Mormon was born, and says The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should continue to change while retaining its unique teachings. www.sltrib.com

Excerpts

"The Book of Mormon is a problem right now. It’s so baffling to so many that Joseph was not even looking at the gold plates [to translate them]. And there’s so much in the Book of Mormon that comes out of the 19th century that there’s a question of whether or not the text is an exact transcription of Nephi’s and Mormon’s words, or if it has been reshaped by inspiration to be more suitable for us, a kind of an expansion or elucidation of the Nephite record for our times. I have no idea how that might have worked or whether that’s true. But there are just too many scholars now, faithful church scholars, who find 19th-century material in that text. That remains a little bit of a mystery, just how it came to be.. . . .

You are completing a book about the plates, which Smith claimed to have but then returned to an angel. What is your fascination with them?

All they are is an imaginary object. We can’t see them or touch them, but they’re in our heads. Gold plates figure in the imagination of modern Mormons and especially educated Mormons. They’re one of our great fantasies, one of the most fabulous and unbelievable parts of our history.

Come, follow me: the call to Zion

On the last day of 2020, I turn to my main focus.

I've been asking around. People don't know which verse, exactly, contains the term "come follow me." Most think it comes from the calling of the fishermen apostles. There are several verses that include the words come, follow, and me, but the exact phrase appears only once in the scriptures. 

The Come Follow Me curriculum takes it's title from a challenging scripture. It's a call to Zion.

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

The Savior reviewed the commandments, to which the rule replied:

21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

(Luke 18:21–24)

There are now several million people--active Latter-day Saints--who weekly study the scriptures within in the context of "Come Follow Me."

Imagine how quickly Zion could be established if we took the original verse to heart? 

I posted an awesome presentation on the Zion revolution on my howtoZion blog today:

https://howtozion.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-feast-of-fat-things.html

_____

The ruler, who "was very rich," had kept all the commandments from his youth up. But the Lord recognized that he lacked one thing: this fine young ruler had not been willing to jettison his wealth for the benefit of the poor and then to live the law of consecration.

Imagine what a shining city on a hill would result if wealthy Latter-day Saints decided to sell what they had and distribute to the poor. Imagine if our role models were those who lived the law of consecration instead of those who have the biggest mansions, the most expensive cars, the greatest net worth, the most prominent Church callings, or the most popular youtube videos, bestselling books, etc.

Given the topic of this blog, one application of Come Follow Me might be for scholars to jettison their theories in favor of the teachings of the prophets. Imagine how much stronger the Church would be, and how much more united Latter-day Saints would be, if our scholars decided to support and corroborate the prophets on such basic topics as the truthfulness of the scriptures, the translation of the Book of Mormon and the New York Cumorah. 

Everyone in the world is seeking a Zion society. They just don't know where to find it--and we're not telling them.

11 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart—

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

(Doctrine and Covenants 123:11–12)

The world is not going to find Zion in the cacophony of the Internet. But they can find it--or could find it--if the Latter-day Saints were united with one heart and one mind.

I hope that 2021 will bring about Zion more openly and happily than ever before as members of the Church, and seekers of Zion everywhere in the world, accept the Lord's challenge to "Come follow me."

 

Kindle owners update-A Man that Can Translate

A lot of people bought a kindle version of A Man that Can Translate months ago. Recently we expanded and updated the book, but we kept the same ISBN so previous buyers can update. 

I've arranged with Kindle to allow updates now. Check your account and you can choose to update the book if you like, although you'll lose your notes.

Between these Hills: A case for the New York Cumorah

Because I'm one of the faithful Latter-day Saints (LDS) who still believe the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah, I wrote a book to explain my position.  It's called Between these Hills: A case for the New York Cumorah.

Long-time readers here know that I defer to the teachings of the prophets. I give special credence to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who wrote of their personal experiences. 

But that's not the only reason why I agree with what they taught about Cumorah. In my view, the LDS intellectuals who try to undermine the teachings of the prophets on this topic by casting doubt on the credibility and reliability of Joseph, Oliver, and their contemporaries, are missing the point. 

In the book, I also present evidence from the text and from extrinsic sources, both historical and scientific, to make a case for the New York Cumorah.

The title comes from a phrase in Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII, in which he declares it's a fact that the Hill Cumorah in western New York is the same hill called Cumorah by the Nephites and Ramah by the Jaredites. I'll explain the book more below after briefly discussing two related topics.

_____

LDS apologetics have been in the news lately, partly because of controversial videos posted by FairMormon that try to appeal to Gen Z, and partly because of interviews on MormonStories.org that respond to those videos and take the topic further. 

I have a new blog that focuses on MormonStories, which does a good job empathizing with people while also pointing out some of the same problems with FairMormon that I've discussed here. You can find out about it on my Consensus blog.

https://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/2020/12/consensus-between-lds-scholars-and.html

The new blog is still in development but will be fully operational starting in January 2021.

_____

Joseph Smith's birthday is a good time to reflect on some of the things he taught, especially regarding the early days of the Restoration. There are three key specific points that my latest books cover in depth. I disagree with LDS scholars, their employees and followers, as well as non-LDS critics, who reject the following three propositions.

1. Joseph Smith, Jr., translated the engravings on the plates with the Urim and Thummim.

2. The translation is "after the manner of [his own] language." (D&C 1:24)

3. The Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in western New York. That's the topic of today's post.

_____

Most LDS scholars (including historians) who otherwise believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God now agree with unbelievers that the "hill in New York" is not the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. 

I've written dozens of posts about this, reviewing materials provided by the M2C citation cartel and others. By now, readers here know that I think M2C is a hoax, a product of bias confirmation that originated with a mistake in Church history; i.e., the assumption that Joseph Smith wrote, edited or approved of anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons that claimed the Nephites lived in Central America and that the city of Zarahemla was located there. I don't think Joseph had anything to do with those articles, never saw them until after they were published, had repudiated the hemispheric model in the Wentworth letter in March 1842, and resigned as the nominal editor of the Times and Seasons in response to these article (among other reasons).

Some LDS scholars and historians debate whether Joseph ever taught the New York Cumorah. They reject the evidence from Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and especially Oliver Cowdery. They also reject the teachings of Joseph's contemporaries and successors as Church leaders. 

Why?

Because they prefer an explanation that puts the Book of Mormon in a limited geography in Mesoamerica. They think this limited geographical area is too far from New York to fit, so they invented a different Cumorah in southern Mexico and claimed there are really two Cumorahs (M2C): (i) the "real" Cumorah in Mexico, and (ii) the hill in New York, named to commemorate the one in Mexico or pursuant to a false speculation regarding the last battles of the Jaredites and Nephites.

Unlike the M2C scholars, I think the teachings of the prophets are reliable, relevant and important. 

The differences of opinion stem from different assumptions.

In Between these Hills, I spent several pages discussing the psychology of all of this because the problem is really psychological. There is abundant evidence from the text and from extrinsic sources to support whatever interpretation you like. That makes it difficult to ascertain what is truth vs what is opinion.

In my view, if you believe the LDS prophets, you should seek evidence that supports and corroborates what they say, not evidence that repudiates their teachings. This is the big difference between me and the M2C scholars and unbelievers.

In the book, I offer an alternative interpretation of the text that corroborates, instead of repudiates, the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. I offer supporting evidence from science, including citations to peer-reviewed papers and various books. I don't spend time explaining why I disagree with M2C, though, because I'm fine with people believing whatever they want.

The book is an overview of the topic. An introduction, really, but it includes plenty of resources for those who want to study more. 

I didn't write the book to persuade anyone. Although I think there is a rational basis for accepting the New York Cumorah, based on the text and extrinsic evidence as well as the teachings of the prophets, people stick with their beliefs. Bias confirmation is usually too powerful to be overcome by facts and logical/rational arguments. 

My purpose was to help M2C believers, as well as those who reject the Book of Mormon, understand why thousands of Latter-day Saints still accept the New York Cumorah.

My secondary purpose was to help those who haven't made up their minds to make informed decisions.

I hope people enjoy the book.

A Man that Can Translate: Joseph Smith and the Nephite Interpreters

Readers here know I've blogged a bit about the translation of the Book of Mormon. This is a critical issue that people continue to debate, although many LDS scholars claim the debate is over. 

Two alternative explanations were set forth in the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed: Joseph produced the Book of Mormon with either 

(i) the Urim and Thummim (U&T), or Nephite translators, that Moroni put in his stone box on the Hill Cumorah, as described in the text itself; 

OR

(ii) the "peep" stone, or seer stone, that Joseph put into a hat before covering his face with the hat to read the words that appeared. I refer to this as SITH for "stone-in-the-hat" theory.

Some say it doesn't matter how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon, whether because they think it's true or they think it's false. That's fine with me; people can believe whatever they want, and most people seek only to confirm their biases either way. 

Those aren't the people I write this blog for.

Many people think it matters a great deal how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon. Because Joseph and Oliver spoke about it multiple times, I assume they thought it mattered. For most people, how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon is an important component of "convincing" the world that "Jesus is the Christ" as the Title Page declares. 

If Joseph actually translated engravings that were recorded on ancient plates, that demonstrates the divine authenticity of the record. If Joseph merely "read" words that "appeared" on a stone in a hat, or recited words he saw in a vision while staring at such a stone, it is more difficult to see that as a demonstration of the divine authenticity of the record. It's no wonder that from the outset, critics promoted SITH. As an impediment to acceptance of the Book of Mormon, what is more effective than SITH?

For over 180 years, LDS prophets taught U&T, while critics taught SITH. 

However, in recent years, many LDS scholars (including the M2C citation cartel) have agreed with nonbelievers that SITH is correct. They now teach it as a fact. Book of Mormon Central spends millions of dollars to promote this and related ideas. 

These scholars believe they are "inoculating" the youth in the Church and new converts by teaching SITH. 

Inoculation is a great idea--unless it's really infection.  

Years ago I had a friend who suffered from the effects of a childhood polio vaccine. The manufacturer had released over 100,000 doses in which the virus had not been properly inactivated; people who received those doses received active virus. They were infected, not inoculated.

I think teaching SITH infects people with a false narrative. It's great for people to learn about the witness statements regarding SITH, but they should also learn what Joseph and Oliver taught. Even better, they should learn how the historical facts support an explanation that reconciles what appears on the surface to be conflicting evidence.

However, our LDS scholars are only "reconciling" the evidence by claiming that Joseph and Oliver, as well as their successors as Church leaders, misled the Church. These scholars say the term "Urim and Thummim" really meant the seer stone, contrary to the historical evidence. They are teaching that Joseph never even used the plates, never used the Nephite interpreters, didn't really translate anything, etc. 

The situation is so dire that even the Gospel Topics Essay on Translation teaches SITH without once quoting what Joseph and Oliver said about the U&T.

Consequently, the narrative promoted by opponents of Joseph Smith to destroy the Restoration has become the prevailing narrative. By now, we all see how that is playing out in terms of the widespread faith crises. 

_____

Seeing a need for a detailed, historically documented explanation that supports what Joseph and Oliver taught, while also reconciling the statements from other witnesses, I wrote a A Man that Can Translate. I'll summarize it below.

I don't expect our LDS scholars, or critics who reject the Book of Mormon, to agree with my interpretation. Both groups have huge investments of time, reputation, and money in their respective positions. They focus on confirming their biases, not on considering alternative perspectives.

Book of Mormon Central, the most prominent and best-funded member of the citation cartel, identifies itself by a logo that forecloses consideration of alternative perspectives. 

I wrote this book mainly for myself, to better understand the historical evidence. When I practiced law, I found that in many cases, the "truth" emerged from a reconciliation of multiple perspectives. 

In every case, I would sit and watch the opposition present its case and, while seeing how the facts in evidence might support that version of the truth, I also knew there was an entirely different explanation of those same facts that I was about to present. Sometimes, both as a prosecutor and as a criminal defense lawyer, I knew facts I could not even present for various reasons. 

I see the same process taking place when I do historical research. People take a position and then find evidence to support that position. They also seek evidence to discredit someone else's position. People end up believing whatever they wanted to believe in the first place.

An exception is when someone's beliefs are based on incomplete facts. In that situation, people are not making informed decisions. 

This is why I mention Book of Mormon Central so often. Their approach is the antithesis of helping people make informed decisions because they censor alternative perspectives and insist people adhere to their editorial positions, buttressed by other members of their citation cartel to convey an impression of diversity and scholarship.

As a result of my research, I think both LDS scholars and critics are not making informed decisions. 

They'll undoubtedly disagree; scholars and critics always want to self-identify as "open-minded" and truth seekers who consider all the evidence. But they're people, subject to bias confirmation, cognitive dissonance, and logical fallacies. As am I, which is why I welcome input if there is any evidence I've overlooked.

We published the book for those who are interested and willing to take a new look at the evidence.

Hopefully, some people will find it useful.

_____

There is historical evidence in the form of witness statements to support both theories. They can be summarized this way:

(i) Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery always said Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim by the gift and power of God. A few others corroborated that claim. The first published declaration came in response to Mormonism Unvailed, when Oliver Cowdery declared, 

"Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’" (Joseph Smith—History, Note, 1)

Joseph's contemporaries and successors in Church leadership always reaffirmed what Joseph and Oliver taught; i.e., that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim, or Nephite translators, that came with the plates.

(ii) Other people claimed that Joseph used SITH. Some claimed they were present during the event, others related what they'd heard or understood. Wikipedia collected some of these statements, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates#Translating_the_plates

_____

In A Man that Can Translate, I assess the statements and propose the following reconciliation.

Joseph and Oliver were absolutely correct and honest when they said Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim and by the gift and power of God. Joseph did not translate any of it with the seer stone.

The translation process was difficult and time-consuming. At the Whitmer farm, Joseph translated from sunrise to sunset, 14-hour days. (In the book I explain why I think Emma and other pre-Oliver scribes recorded most or all of Mosiah, which expands the time for translation in Harmony consistent with the laborious effort in Fayette.)

However, Joseph did conduct one or more demonstrations using the seer stone. Joseph faced a dilemma: Under commandment to not show the U&T or the plates to anyone unless specifically authorized (for good reason), Joseph also had family members and supporters wanting to know how he was translating. The curiosity was interfering with the actual translation. People were familiar with the idea of seer stones in hats, so he did the demonstration. Witnesses and hearsay took it from there, even though Joseph and Oliver always specified Joseph translated with the U&T.

Mormonism Unvailed, which set forth the competing explanations, also set forth the Solomon Spalding theory, which claimed the Book of Mormon was copied from a novel by Spalding, adapted by Sidney Rigdon, who added Christian sermons and rhetoric. The Spalding theory became the predominant explanation for the Book of Mormon outside of the Church in the 1800s, widely reported in newspapers, by ministers, etc. 

A key element of the Spalding theory was Joseph reading from the Spalding manuscript from behind a curtain. If you read the major statements about SITH in context, you see that they were prefaced by a rejection of the Spalding theory, including assertions that Joseph had no manuscript or other document to read from. In other words, after Joseph and Oliver died, SITH became a refutation of the Spalding theory. 

An interesting detail from the demonstration account is that Joseph had multiple scribes present so they could take over when one got tired. That indicates a rapid dictation--much different from the laborious effort in Harmony and upstairs in Fayette. This detail also tells us that the demonstration had to involve Second Nephi (partly because Emma was one of the scribes at the demonstration and she did not write any of First Nephi). For the reasons explained in the book, I think Joseph used the demonstration to dictate some of the Isaiah chapters in Second Nephi from memory. That's why these chapters have otherwise inexplicable minor differences from the King James version, etc. 

This is merely an overview; you can get the details in the book, supported by hundreds of footnotes.

_____

Next week we'll discuss my two other new books.

What if 2020...

Matt Ridley made an observation about 2020 that could apply to LDS issues:

What if 2020 went down in history as the year synthetic biology dealt a mortal blow to future viruses and illnesses in general, rather than the year a virus ruined our health, wellbeing and livelihoods?"

https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1339573038627565571

He referenced an article he wrote for the Spectator titled:

Why mRNA vaccines could revolutionise medicine

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-mrna-vaccines-could-revolutionise-medicine

_________________

I'd like to rephrased it this way:

What if 2020 went down in history as the year the teachings of the prophets dealt a mortal blow to the vain theories of intellectuals, both inside and outside the Church, rather than the year these theories ruined the faith of the people?

In my view, the worst thing that has happened in the Church is having intellectuals repudiate the teachings of the prophets and then seeing those intellectuals' theories be widely accepted. 

Because it's so easy to spot the logical and factual fallacies of these theories, people lose their faith. Our fine young LDS scholars resort to sarcasm in a misguided effort to respond to critics because on key points, these scholars agree with the critics.

The recent post on MormonStories about how the M2C citation cartel is funded may have finally drawn more widespread attention to the problem.

(https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/non-profits-and-mormon-apologetics/) 

Because the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, it's not surprising that the critics have focused there. The critics and LDS intellectuals (including the entire M2C citation cartel) now agree on three fundamental assumptions that drive everything else they teach:

1. Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon by using a seer stone in a hat, not the Urim and Thummim (the Nephite interpreters) that Moroni put in the stone box. He didn't even use the plates.

2. Joseph Smith didn't really translate anything; he merely read words that appeared on the stone in the hat (SITH), which acted as a metaphysical teleprompter fed by a mysterious unknown supernatural translator from the 16th century who inexplicably provided Early Modern English for Joseph to read.

3. The Hill Cumorah is not in New York. 

In my view, it's an enormous mistake to "inoculate" Church members with these theories. That's not inoculation but infection.

Inoculation would involve discussing all the historical facts, not just selected ones, and understanding them in a way that corroborates and supports, instead of repudiates, the teachings of the prophets.

__________________

I disagree with all three assumptions. I think:

1. Joseph Smith translated the plates with the Nephite interpreters.

2. Joseph Smith translated the plates in his own language, having been prepared from his youth to do so.

3. The Hill Cumorah is in New York and extrinsic evidence supports the teachings of the prophets on this topic.

I've explained all of these in detail in my latest books and upcoming podcasts. Tomorrow we'll discuss the translation.

A few memes

 Later this week I'll discuss some serious topics, so today we'll look at some fun memes.