Yet another video I forgot to mention – Urim and Thummim

This summer I did an interview with the Restored Gospel Podcast titled “Peepstone or Urim and Thummim? How the Book of Mormon was translated with Jonathan Neville.” 

The hosts are awesome, well prepared and interesting. During the interview I had to move around a few times, but the continuity is good anyway.

You can watch it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxA2gG3lvIw

BTW, there’s a lot of uncertainty about the Urim and Thummim, as you can see from non-LDS explanations of the Urim and Thummim such as the one here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gidt25jsqBE

And a longer one here, with some interesting viewer comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweKAYIsYx4

That video shows a slide of Leviticus 8:7–9

7 And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith.

8 And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.

9 And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as the Lord commanded Moses.

At 18:40, the speaker says this:
The theory here is that when you asked God a question that involved more than a yes or no answer that the stones, and i can’t help it I’m chuckling here, we used to call this the blinking light theory in bible college. The stones would light up and then the priests would write down the consonants on that stone and again whatever stones lit up those are the ones you’d write down and then you have to figure out what the message is. Okay do you like that? If you like that better than the other two, congratulations.

Again, nobody really knows precisely what the Urim and the Thummim were and how this worked the only real indication you get is First Samuel 14 when they are cast okay so there must have been some sort of casting thing casting act going on there you have it. 
_____

Questions about the Urim and Thummim have persisted for centuries. Several commentators have applied the term metaphorically, such as here:

when that of the Apostle shall be obeyed, Let him that speaketh, speak as the Oracles of God , as one that hath Urim and Thummim in his Breast, when they shall not dare to speak but what they are inwardly moved to speak by the Holy Ghost.

(18c: 1730s; 1734, N03276 / 3. AN ESSAY Concerning.9,20¶)

In 1743, Gilbert Tennent used the term this way:

4. The high Priest’s bearing the Names of the twelve Tribes on his Breast-Plate, when he appeared before God, seems to represent the affectionate Remembrance our Lord hath of his whole Church, when he intercedes for them with his Father. The Urim and Thummim on the Breast-Plate, signifying Light and Integrity, was doubtless a Figure of the Sufficiency of Christ’s Prophetical Office, to answer all the Difficulties of his People.

(18c: 1740s; 1743, N04291 / 1.7,31¶)

It was discussed during a debate about doctrinal issues at Harvard:

It is this Application of—the historical Parts of Scripture when we are reading, that must render them profitable to us; and appeals to the Experiences of the Christian, that if he hath so consulted the Word of God, he has been as plainly directed how to act, as tho’ he had consulted the Urim and the Thummim.

(18c: 1740s; 1744, N04376 / 1. THE TESTIMONY, &c.,5¶)

On another occasion, in 1748, Tennent lamented that we have no Urim and Thummim “in this dispensation.”
In this Dispensation we have no temporal High-priest, with the Urim and Thummim upon his Breastplate, from whom we may expect immediate and oracular Answers about Things to come; and therefore it is not possible for us, in this State of Things, wholly to follow David’s Example.
Nor have we any Necessity for, or Promise of immediate objective Revelation, in place of the Jewish Urim, in the ordinary Times of the Gospel, from Christ our High-priest, in any Matters whatsoever, whether temporal or spiritual, by Visions, Voices, &c. seeing the Prophecy is sealed, the Canon of Scriptures is compleated, and able to make the Man of God perfect, and thoroughly furnished to every good Work.
It is enough, that we have in place of the Urim a greater Measure of the Influences of the holy Spirit than the pious Jews ordinarily enjoyed, enlightening our Minds in the Use of appointed Means, to the right understanding of the Meaning of the holy Scriptures, and enabling us to believe their divine Authority;
(18c: 1740s; 1748, N04985 / 3. Defensive War Defended,,57¶–59¶)

Source: About Central America

A couple of videos I forgot to mention

A reader reminded me of a video on Mormon Book Reviews that I think I forgot to mention. It’s titled “Jonathan Neville Previews A New Joseph Smith Painting & Response to His Critics!”

Here’s the link:

https://www.youtube.co

A reader reminded me of a video on Mormon Book Reviews that I think I forgot to mention. It’s titled “Jonathan Neville Previews A New Joseph Smith Painting & Response to His Critics!”

Note: Some of the video is audio only because of a technical glitch.

Here’s the link:

Start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig2_o_WCdO4

Discussion of Sorenson’s map: https://youtu.be/ig2_o_WCdO4?t=830

Discussion of establishing Zion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig2_o_WCdO4&t=1645s

_____

Another one is on Gospel Tangents, titled “632: Lehi’s Atlantic Crossing? (Part 4 of 11 Jonathan Neville).” This one discusses Lehi crossing the Atlantic to reach the southeastern area of North America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI8ydV7MoCA

Source: About Central America

How to handle SITH sayers and M2Cers – MWH

I continue to hear regularly from Latter-day Saints who have, or encounter other Church members who have, strong opinions about M2C and SITH, expressed in a variety of ways.

[Some people don’t like these acronyms, and I’m happy to consider alternatives, but for now, M2C = Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory; SITH = stone-in-the-hat theory.]

These topics raise the question, how do we handle disagreements?

Strong opinions are fine–people can believe whatever they want, as we’ve all agreed (presumably) in Article of Faith 11.

It should be easy for all Latter-day Saints to respect other perspectives, interpretations, beliefs, etc. None of us are bound to believe what someone else believes. We can each seek our own spiritual guidance, read the scriptures, study the teachings of the prophets, examine authentic historical records, etc., for ourselves. 

We are not asked or expected to defer to or simply adopt the speculations and theories of others, regardless of their credentials, status, or positions of influence. We are free to discuss the pros and cons of various ideas and make our own decisions. No one needs academic credentials to understand and live the Gospel.

We can serve one another and enjoy the blessings of the Gospel regardless of what we believe about M2C or SITH.

 

_____

On my consensus blog, I posted a video about disagreeing charitably by Sean McDowell.

https://bookofmormonconsensus.blogspot.com/2022/09/handling-disagreements-charitably.html

He also gave these useful tips that I really like, particularly 4, 6 and 9.

https://www.creationwiki.org/Sean_McDowell

Apologist Tips

Sean McDowell commonly posts tips to help others in Christian Apologetics. He wants to help others to defend the faith more effectively. He recently posted a blog where he outlined his top 10 tips to other Christian Apologists. Many of these tips come from his own life experiences in the Christian Apologetics ministry. Here are the top 10 tips he gave to be more effective in apologetics:

  1. “Remember, the Bible doesn’t approve of everything it records.”
  2. “Speak truth with gentleness. Avoid the temptation to compromise truth or speak harshly (Col. 4:6).”
  3. “You don’t have to have all the answers. Admit if you don’t know an answer, but then go find it.”
  4. “Don’t merely make the case that Christianity is true. Make the case that it is good and beautiful.”
  5. “We are called to make good arguments, but not be argumentative (1 Peter 3:15).”
  6. “You may disagree with others, but remember, people hold views for reasons they perceive as good.”
  7. “Approach others with the idea that you may have something to learn from them.”
  8. “Tolerance is no longer agreeing to disagree but the silencing of seemingly offensive views.”
  9. “Interpret your experience in light of Scripture, rather than Scripture in light of your experience.”
  10. “Make good arguments and defend truth, but remember, the deepest need of the human heart is for love.”

_____

For a long time now, I’ve been advocating the concept of multiple working hypotheses (some call it MWH). The MWH approach lays out all the sources (historical, scriptural, etc.) and then offers a variety of interpretations for people to consider.

I trust people to make good decisions when they have all the information. As President Nelson has taught, “Good inspiration is based upon good information.”

I don’t mind in the least that people still believe M2C or SITH, and I don’t mind that they feel strongly about those beliefs.  

My disagreement with SITH sayers and M2Cers is not that they interpret sources differently than I do. I’m fine with people believing whatever they want.

M2C and SITH are problematic because they are both based on the premise that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ignorant, naive, or deceitful when they taught about the New York Cumorah and the translation of the Book of Mormon with the Urim and Thummim that Joseph obtained with the plates. 

Nevertheless, faithful Latter-day Saints who believe M2C and SITH have found a way to reconcile their beliefs, and that’s fine with me.

My disagreement with the SITH sayers and M2Cers is the way the citation cartel obscures and censors sources so that people cannot make informed decisions.

Almost always, these M2C/SITH believing Church members have never heard of Letter VII and don’t know what Joseph and Oliver actually taught about the translation of the Book of Mormon. But those who are fully informed yet continue to accept M2C and SITH are free to do so. It doesn’t bother me at all.

In my experience, Heartlanders in general are tolerant about others’ beliefs. They’re happy to let people make informed decisions.

If the M2C/SITH citation cartel felt the same way, they’d be willing and even eager to lay out all the information and help people make informed choices among multiple working hypotheses.

_____

One example is the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation, which doesn’t live up to the stated purpose for the essays because it doesn’t even quote (or cite) what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said about the translation, apart from a misleadingly truncated excerpt or two.

[See my analysis here: http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html]

_____

Source: About Central America

Handling disagreements charitably

Someone sent me this link and I found it well worth sharing because of the way the speaker explains how to handle disagreements charitably.

People can reach consensus on this approach even when (especially when) they disagree on the underlying issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMDSvdKEtDY

It’s a presentation by Sean McDowell, a Christian minister who focuses on youth ministry.

Here’s an excerpt:

A rhetorical question as we begin how well do you think we as Christians handle disagreements on important but secondary issues to salvation. In other words on issues that matter but are not tied to whether we’re saved or not

Do we disagree charitably or uncharitably, agreeably or disagreeably? 

So let’s start with some social issues in a moment I’m going to mention the single most controversial social issues i could think of over the past few years 

My point is not what position you should hold on these. My question is amidst differences within the body of Christ, how do we treat one another amidst these differences?

By the way I’m not going to have you turn and share your perspective on these, don’t worry. Vaccines, immigration, critical race theory, gun control, voting for Trump voting for Biden… 

The reality is we won’t but there are some of you in this room that have a different perspective on every single one of those issues how do we treat each other amidst disagreement.

I’m not saying that all perspectives on these issues are equal that’s not my point. I’m simply saying amidst differences on important issues that are not essentially salvific how do we treat one another?

What about theological issues some of the most divisive issues tend to be the role of women in the church in the family, the age of the earth and what we’re in the middle of studying right now, the end times? 

Do we disagree agreeably and charitably or disagreeably and uncharitably?

Now why is this question important because you know what Jesus says in john 13 35, he says by this all people will know that you are my disciples if you have what for one another love for one another in other words Jesus says people are going to look at the world and look at your life and look at my life and know whom we follow and who we call king by whether or not we love one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

It’s pretty important we talk about disagreeing.

Well isn’t it now, you know Satan’s strategy of course.

Satan is a liar he’s a murderer and he is a divider.

Satan lives lies deceives and divides.

So I take you back about 10 or 12 years to the blockbuster movie at the time called the Avengers…

What’s interesting about this film is the villain is Loki the half brother, the brother adopted brother of Thor.

Loki plays a Satan type figure he has rebelled against the gods goes to earth wants to be worshipped by everybody and even possesses people including Hawkeye but do you know what Loki’s strategy in that film is?

Loki knows that he can’t stand up to the Avengers and defeat them himself, but he knows if he can get the avengers to fight amongst himself he can win.

So his strategy is to turn hulk loose to fight against the rest of the Avengers.

I saw that I’m like I don’t know if this is intentional or not but he’s a Satan type figure who knows he cannot beat God and the church but if he can distract us by in fighting we have less energy and time to love those who need the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

SITH video update

Yesterday I described the latest SITH video as anonymous, but a reader informed me that it was created by Kevin Prince, who developed the Gospel Lessons youtube channel and the Gospel Learning App. That’s all fine. People can believe (and advocate) whatever they want, and I’m sure Brother Prince is awesome.

But why would he omit what Joseph and Oliver taught so he can promote SITH?

It turns out, he’s coordinating with Book of Mormon Central to release his app.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=O2AF-yIv8qU

That explains why he’s promoting SITH. 

Book of Mormon Central is spending millions of dollars to try to persuade the Latter-day Saints to accept SITH (as well as M2C). 

They have another big fundraiser coming up in September, which we’ll discuss in coming posts.

To work with Book of Mormon Central, people have to accept (or at least promote) SITH and M2C, as we’ve seen in the work of their employees and affiliates.

_____

Some people wonder why BOMC promotes SITH. If you ask them, they’ll refer you to one of their “Kno-Why” articles about how Joseph couldn’t have learned the Nephite language, how David Whitmer and Emma Smith described SITH (albeit not until decades after Joseph and Oliver had died), or how the book Mormonism Unvailed told the truth about SITH after all and Joseph and Oliver simply misled everyone when they said Joseph translated by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates, or some other rationalization.

Bottom line, SITH rejects what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation.

Just as M2C does.  

It’s much easier for people to reject what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation once people have already been persuaded to reject what they said about the Hill Cumorah in New York (i.e., the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, or M2C).

_____

After all, M2C is embedded in their logo, which was the old logo from the M2C-promoting FARMS organization.

_____

Book of Mormon Central is the attractive public face (facade) of BMAF, the Book of Mormon Archaeological Foundation, which has promoted M2C for many years.

Source: About Central America

Yet another SITH video!

An anonymous youtube channel titled “Gospel Lessons” recently released a video titled “Joseph Smith’s Seer Stone” to help promote SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory of Book of Mormon translation). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amGVHecmPA0&t=29s

Anonymous channels, like anonymous blogs, are awesome because we never know if they are sincere or “false flags,” and this is no different. (This explains why one of my main critics remains anonymous.)
If E.D. Howe was alive today, he’d be releasing videos such as this instead of republishing Mormonism Unvailed to promote SITH.
But we’ll assume the channel, which purports to come from a faithful Primary teacher, is sincere. 
As such, it’s even more alarming than a false flag because it reflects how deeply SITH has insinuated itself into the worldview of modern Latter-day Saints.
The video never once quotes or cites what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said about the translation of the Book of Mormon. It’s easy to assume the creator doesn’t even know what they said, because their teachings have been deliberately omitted from the Gospel Topics Essay, the Saints book (vol. 1), and other modern references. 
I hear from more and more Church members who treat these references as scripture. And, to be sure, non-English speaking Latter-day Saints don’t have feasible access to what Joseph and Oliver taught because their teachings are available mainly in English (the Joseph Smith Papers and other original sources). 
The omission (suppression?) of what Joseph and Oliver taught is an ongoing tragedy that could be easily remedied with a few edits to correct the oversight.
_____
Let’s look at the video. Original in blue, my comments in red.

Response to SITH video by Gospel Lessons

Joseph Smith’s Seer Stone

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amGVHecmPA0

Introduction.

This is another ridiculous attempt to promote SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory) while ignoring what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said. Regarding the Urim and Thummim, this video claims at 3:50, “this is in fact not how the process worked at all as many of us now know.” What this video “knows” was promoted back in 1834 in the anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. Joseph and Oliver refuted SITH multiple times, but now LDS intellectuals and critics alike have revived it. Ignore them and stick with what Joseph and Oliver said.

At 5:47, the video says, “it isn’t clear whether he [Moroni] also returned the Urim and Thummim or not.” But it’s crystal clear if you care what Joseph and Oliver said.

At 6:11, the video says, “in other words joseph smith used the Urim and Thummim given him by moroni to translate the 116 pages that are now lost and the rest of the book of mormon the entire book of mormon that you have and you’ve read your entire life was not translated using the urim and thummim but rather this other seer stone it can be confusing because even joseph referred to these and other stones all as Urim and Thummim or seer stones interchangeably.

He did no such thing and no one has found such a claim. Instead, responding to this ridiculous SITH narrative, Joseph emphasized that he translated the record by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates!

At 12:08, the video relates a theory as a fact, the same way David Whitmer and the other SITH witnesses did.

“the gold plates needed to be nearby but they were usually covered in a napkin while joseph would look at the stone inside the hat and the words would appear on it and he would dictate to a scribe while joseph and many others called this the translation process”

This is an excellent example of the way historians have simply adopted what the SITH witnesses said while ignoring their competency, availability, and motives, not to mention the context of the SITH statements (i.e., they were trying to refute the Spalding theory). If some future historian comes across this video, it will become yet another SITH “witness” even though the video is simply repeating hearsay while stating it as a fact.

Next, at 12:22, the video says “it isn’t a traditional translation because joseph didn’t know both reformed egyptian and english and looked at the characters and determined the right words and phrases in english.”

 

Except the video forgot to mention JS-H:

immediately after my arrival there [in Harmony, Pennsylvania] I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.

(Joseph Smith—History 1:62)

 

Here Joseph explains that he began translating the characters as he copied them off the plates. He could not have more explicitly explained that he was learning the meaning of the characters. This may not be a “traditional translation” because he was using the Urim and Thummim, but he was unambiguously studying the characters because he copied them and translated them.

Then the video cites 2 Nephi 27:20.

12:42 for those who don’t like that this is the process used

It’s not a question of “liking” or “not liking” SITH, it’s a question of what did Joseph and Oliver claim?

12:48 look at second nephi 27:20 which is nephi giving isaiah 29 so this is really isaiah speaking of the coming forth of the book of mormon it says quote “then shall the lord god say unto him the learned shall not read them for they have rejected them and i am able to do my own work wherefore thou shalt read the words which i shall give unto thee.”

13:10 he didn’t say he would give him the ability to translate languages or have the scholarly education to translate an ancient record he said that joseph would read the words god would give unto him and that is exactly what happened

While this is a common justification for SITH, the SITH sayers take this verse out of context. When read in context, the passage obviously refers to the engravings on the plates, which Joseph said he studied and translated. These are the words God gave to Joseph to read and translate into English.

14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that rejecteth the word of God!

15 But behold, it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall say unto him to whom he shall deliver the book: Take these words which are not sealed and deliver them to another, that he may show them unto the learned, saying: Read this, I pray thee. And the learned shall say: Bring hither the book, and I will read them.

16 And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will they say this, and not for the glory of God.

17 And the man shall say: I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed.

18 Then shall the learned say: I cannot read it.

19 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that the Lord God will deliver again the book and the words thereof to him that is not learned; and the man that is not learned shall say: I am not learned.

20 Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee.

21 Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work.

22 Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the witnesses which I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men.

(2 Nephi 27:14–22)

 

If all Joseph did was read words that appeared on a stone, there would be no point for the Lord to warn him not to touch the sealed portion. Furthermore, the Lord preserved the words that Joseph did not read by having Joseph hide up the record again (when he returned the plates to the repository in Cumorah). The Lord would not have to “preserve” the words Joseph didn’t read if he merely read words that appeared on a stone.

Moroni told Joseph he was called to translate the plates. Revelations in the D&C reiterate that Joseph was required to translate the engravings. Nowhere do the scriptures state, suggest or imply that Joseph merely had to read words that appeared on a seer stone.

Next, the video relates some speculation.

13:32 some might ask why he didn’t need the plates at all if he didn’t need to look at them or use them in any way look no one knows a hundred percent

Based on what Joseph and Oliver said, we can know 100% that Joseph needed the plates because he was translating the engravings on the plates.

13:40 but it does seem to me that there needs to be a reference object or something there for the transliteration process to work when moroni took the plates he still had the brown stone but he couldn’t transliterate

This is commonly referred to as the talisman or ____ theory. I assume everyone can see the logical fallacy here, as well as the factual fallacy. The video assumes Joseph did not possess the Urim and Thummim after he lost the 116 pages, which is what David Whitmer said, even though that contradicts what Joseph, Oliver, and Lucy Mack Smith reported.

14:01 shortly after the process of transliteration of the book of Mormon was complete he gave the genesis [the video claims the brown stone relates to the timing of the creation of the Earth] seer stone to oliver cowdery while some wonder if the white stone was used rather than this genesis stone and perhaps it was the fact that joseph gives the stone to oliver who was the translator for all of the that portion of the book of Mormon that the seer stone was used for it seems to indicate that it was the brown stone

There’s a lot of thinking past the sale here. Debating which “seer stone” Joseph used leads people to simply assume that Joseph used a seer stone instead of the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates. If (as I propose) Joseph used the brown stone purely for demonstration purposes, he naturally would have given it to Oliver because he didn’t need it any longer.

Recall that when Oliver rejoined the Church and reiterated his testimony that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim, he possessed this brown seer stone but didn’t display it or even mention it. This has led some LDS scholars to surmise that Oliver deliberately misled everyone, but in my view, they have that backwards. Oliver sought to correct the SITH rumors by reiterating what he and Joseph had always said.

16:11 in summary i think the seer stones are super cool between history scripture and the pure awesomeness factor i don’t know why anybody finds the use of special stones to be strange or weird it all seems directly in line with how things have always been and always will be

Yes, more and more Latter-day Saints are reframing SITH as a feature, not a bug.

The SITH narrative shows us that E.D. Howe (and Hurlburt, his source) knew what he was doing when he described SITH in Mormonism Unvailed.

Let’s not forget that Joseph knew what he was doing when he refuted SITH and said “Hurlburt and the Howes are among the basest of mankind, and known to be such and yet the priests and their coadjutors hail them as their best friends and publish their lies, speaking of them in the highest terms.”

(Elders’ Journal I.4:59 ¶12–60 ¶3)

Now, in our day, it is our own LDS scholars who are publishing the Hurlburt/Howe lies.

Summary:

To repeat, this video is another ridiculous effort to mainstream SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory). SITH was set out in the 1834 anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed. Joseph and Oliver refuted it multiple times by explaining that Joseph translated the record by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. This video ignores what Joseph and Oliver said in favor of SITH sayers who repeated the Mormonism Unvailed narrative. It’s easy to promote SITH when you ignore what Joseph and Oliver said, but it’s impossible to promote SITH when you accept what they said.

  

Source: About Central America

Lucy Mack Smith was solid, except when she contradicted M2C and SITH

I recently noticed that I have 298 unpublished posts that I wrote for this blog. They consist mainly of notes I’ve made over the years. Here’s one of them:

_____

Lucy Mack Smith

Many LDS intellectuals are schizophrenic about Lucy Mack Smith. They think her history is credible and reliable about everything except (i) Cumorah, (ii) the Urim and Thummim, and (iii) the First Vision, which she didn’t mention.

For example, in the Joseph Smith Papers, Translations and Revelations, Vol. 5, Original Manuscript, the Introduction cites or refers to Lucy 36 times.* But they carefully avoid what she said about Cumorah and the Urim and Thummim.

The Saints book, Volume 1, follows the same approach, citing Lucy’s history dozens of times but omitting what she said about Cumorah and the Urim and Thummim.

And yet, there is nothing inherently suspect about Lucy’s recollections regarding Cumorah. When she related what Joseph said about Moroni’s visit, she recalled that Moroni identified the hill where the plates were deposited as the “hill of Cumorah.”

When Joseph was late returning home from Manchester in early 1827, he explained to his parents that he had encountered the angel “at the Hill Cumorah.” 

The intellectuals who reject (and censor) these accounts offer no justification for their choice other than their need to accommodate the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C). Instead, they resort to two patently outcome-driven rationales:

– Some say Lucy’s reference to Cumorah must be attributed to her erroneous adoption of a supposedly false tradition about Cumorah started by unknown early persons at an unknown time. 

– Others say Lucy wasn’t credible because she didn’t describe the First Vision in her original dictated account (the 1844/5 version).

Obviously, these two objections contradict one another.

While it’s true that Lucy didn’t mention the First Vision in her history, that is consistent with the actual history; i.e., Joseph didn’t say he told anyone other than the Methodist minister about his vision (JS-H 1:21, and we don’t know what he actually told the minister anyway).

Given that Joseph never told his mother contemporaneously about the First Vision, why would anyone expect Lucy to relate a memory of something that didn’t happen? 

In Lucy’s 1845 draft, someone inserted Joseph Smith’s 1838 account of the First Vision, but Lucy did not say Joseph told her about it when it happened.

IOW, Lucy’s omission of the First Vision in her dictated history is evidence that her memory was intact and accurately related.

Yet the M2C scholars want us to believe that because Lucy didn’t relate a false retrospective memory of the First Vision, she did relate a false retrospective memory of what Joseph said about the hill Cumorah. 

If not for their obsession with accommodating M2C, no historian would propose such an analysis. 

This is the type of irrational thinking that arises when people become apologists for a theory instead of unbiased historians seeking to relate accurate history.

_____

* Excerpts from the Introduction below. In addition, the Introduction cites Lucy’s history 23 times.

– Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recorded that her son acquired the plates in the early morning of 22 September 1827

Lucy Mack Smith, who remembered seeing the spectacles before her son’s move to Harmony, gave a description of the instrument that is similar to Harris’s

Lucy Mack Smith, who was still living in Manchester when the loss occurred, recalled in her 1845 history that her son returned to Harmony almost immediately after learning the manuscript had been lost: 

Lucy Mack Smith did not learn that her son had received the plates again until she and her husband, Joseph Smith Sr., visited Harmony in early September 1828.   

Lucy Mack Smith recorded that it was with delight that her son stated he had “commenced translating,” with Emma’s assistance. 

Lucy Mack Smith recorded that when the angel returned the plates to Smith, he also promised “that the Lord would send [him) a scribe.”

– Given the antagonism of their neighbors, Lucy Mack Smith and her husband were reluctant to share their son’s experiences with their new acquaintance. 

– According to Lucy Mack Smith’s reminiscence, Cowdery eventually gained the trust of the Smiths.

– Cowdery told Lucy Mack Smith and her husband, “There is a work for me to do in this thing and I am determined if there is to attend to it.” 

Lucy Mack Smith stated later that “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.”

– When Lucy Mack Smith received word that the translation was complete, she, her husband, and Martin Harris traveled to the Whitmer home. 

Source: About Central America

The SITH tipping point

A few years ago I discussed how paradigms shift.

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2017/03/how-paradigms-shift.html

That post involved Book of Mormon geography. 

In this post, we’ll look at the tipping point for SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory).

_____

Some people wonder why I discuss SITH on this page which originated as a discussion about M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). One reason is that both theories share the claim that Joseph and Oliver were unreliable speculators who misled the Church. M2C teaches that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about Cumorah. SITH teaches that they misled everyone about the translation.

I think both Joseph and Oliver told the unvarnished truth, so I discuss the two topics together.

_____

From time to time I hear from people I’ve known for decades, who have been faithful Latter-day Saints the whole time, but who are troubled by SITH. Everyone who knows what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught can easily see how SITH contradicts their teachings.

Despite the current trend toward accepting SITH, many Church members still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught instead. It’s difficult to tell whether we are near, at, or past the tipping point.
Since 1834, critics have tried, unsuccessfully, to establish SITH as the “actual” history of the translation of the Book of Mormon.

_____

SITH was spelled out in the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed., published by E.D. Howe based on material provide by Doctor Philastes Hurlburt. You can read the excerpt (with the link) here:

https://ldsgospeltopicsessays.blogspot.com/p/sith-in-mormonism-unvailed.html

If you read that excerpt, you’ll see how it is essentially the same claim made by leading LDS historians and intellectuals.

Yet SITH originated as a tool to destroy faith in what Joseph and Oliver taught, and by extension, to destroy faith in the Book of Mormon. It continues to have that effect today.

Social media critics of the Restoration are having some success on social media. For example, here’s a recent post from Twitter (with the link and author removed).

As the graphic claims, critics commonly promote the narrative that “Joseph Smith actually translated the Book of Mormon” with SITH.

Then the critics claim Church leaders “lied” about the translation, thereby undermining faith in both the Book of Mormon and in the teachings of Church leaders.

It’s common now for people to ask when they first learned about SITH. Those familiar with Church history know that SITH has been floated all along. 

But they also know that the SITH narrative did not prevail in the days of Joseph Smith.   

In fact, Joseph discussed the authors of Mormonism Unvailed in the pages of the Elders’ Journal

This is the Hurlburt that was author of a book [Mormonism Unvailed] which bears the name of E. [Edward] D. Howe, but it was this said Hurlburt that was the author of it. But after the affair of Hurlburt’s wife and the pious old deacon, the persecutors thought it better to put some other name as author to their book than Hurlburt, so E. D. Howe substituted his name. The change however was not much better. Asahel Howe, one of E. D.’s brothers who was said to be the likeliest of the family, served apprenticeship in the work house in Ohio for robbing the post office. And yet notwithstanding all this, all the pious priests of all denominations were found following in the wake of these mortals.

Hurlburt and the Howes are among the basest of mankind, and known to be such and yet the priests and their coadjutors hail them as their best friends and publish their lies, speaking of them in the highest terms. And after all this, they want us to say that they are pious souls and good saints. Can we believe it? Surely men of common sense will not ask us to do it.

Good men love to associate with good men, and bad men with bad ones, and when we see men making friends with drunkards, thieves, liars, and swindlers, shall we call them saints? If we were to do it, we might be justly charged with “partaking of their evil deeds.”

(Elders’ Journal I.4:59 ¶12–60 ¶3)

______________
When we read what Joseph Smith had to say about them, we wonder why our modern LDS scholars and intellectuals defer to Hurlburt and Howe.

Source: About Central America