If there is anything that I got out of the interview, it is that Dr. Bushman would agree with this statement. The only question is how.

Another thought; if it is known and established that our history is different than what we teach, regardless of the motives, the church is wrong to allow it to continue. Surely we are taught that we should not behave in that manner; knowing the truth but allowing falsehood to be believed. The painting of Joseph Smith studying the plates just published again in the Ensign within a couple months is an example. And is it fair to blame the artists. Although I must allow the possibility, I find it hard to believe that the church commissions works of art and doesn’t give specific instructions on how the final product should turn out.

Please forgive a bit of a ramble. I envy those of you who are able to be so articulate. My mind needs more time than I have to sort things out so well.

A friend from my youth, who happened to be one of the myriad descendants of Brigham Young, loved to tell the story of what his grandfather told him about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. His grandfather took him aside and said to him, “there are only three things you need to know about the Gospel: obey, obey, obey.”

One of my wife’s relatives loves to write letters. In each letter she sends she repeats the mantra “pay, pray, and obey.”

Of course, there were the innumerable times in my life that I heard people in Church contexts say, “obedience is the first law of heaven.”

In my own personal experience as a missionary, I would say that I was generally a more content missionary when I was an obedient missionary. There were times in my mission when obedience contributed to a real spiritual high. In the midst of this, I did witness the darker side of the requirement of obedience–mission leaders demanding obedience and submission in ways that detracted from the spirit of Christ, for example.

In times like these I did disobey. And, I will never regret having done so. What is real dangerous is the teaching, which has surfaced now and then, that obedience is required whether a leader is right or not, and that obedience in such situations will result in blessings upon the obedient. The potential for harm in such an idea is too great for me to ever accept or cooperate with such a teaching.

Let us look at the bible. First, we have Jesus Christ. It is almost a foregone conclusion that there was a man name Christ. The question is: did he use magic or was he the son of god? The gospels refer to him as the son of god because of the miracles that took place. But it is also true, the some of the jews found his powers to be mystical in nature.

Is god magic? In some way he is. He does wonderful and magical things in many individual lives and who am I to do say that there is no god or that is not magic? I can’t. The god that I know and have heard testimonies about, continues to transform the lives of people as if some magical force as entered the person’s soul and heart and brought forth a magical transformation.

Now of course, an atheist can mock such ‘magic’ and yet, the magic exists.

Now let us look at Joseph Smith. We have the JS story complete with hat and other props. And yet, there is something magic in this story. A person who plots to con or defraud individuals as implied by Jeff, does not write a book filled with magic happenings such as angels, visions, ordinances and witnesses only to ‘confess’ that it all originated in a hat. One would relate such a story differently if one seeks to con the populace.

In truth, the hat story makes sense if only from a logical explanation. To make up such an event would risk, the goal itself…loosing the ability to organize a new faith. However, if true that the hat was used to actually translate the book, and what happened actually happened, well..the book has been successful in working mircles inside many people. Yes, I can call this magical. And those who have taken the promise the book has in Moroni, seem to have had their answers confirmed. The book is the word of god. Hat or no hat. And that is also magical with hat and all.

Maybe faith is magical. And such magic needs to be encouraged. The scriptures caution us to see the word of god as a child does because a child can sense the magic of life, the simplist aspects of joy and happiness. A child is a magical human being.

Unfortunately, the atheists of the world, or the moral relativists or the sceptics, cannot seem to grasp the magic of the gospel as it speaks to millions of people both inside and out side the church….the magic of god’s word is still there and no amount of mocking the magic the gospel has will change that simple fact.

And so, jeff, yes, to believe in god is magic and yes, it does take magical thinking…and that is a good. The world seems to need such magical thinking as the humanist project fails to deliver contentment and harmony. I hope for magic.

People feel the need to be obedient because they need to comply with “reality.” Any role that fear might play is less than secondary.

The sad thing is that the more people believe, the more likely they will get hurt. For it is our faith that empowers our leaders.

When you argue that the pressure to obedience plays a minor role in the Mormon experience, it appears that the temple covenants are irrelevant to you. If I didn’t know better then I would have to assume that you have never been endowed. We don’t need to get into sacrilegeous detail but obedience to LDS leaders is a core element of holy Mormon rituals.

There is a reason why Mormon children get raised to the song Follow the Prophet. Obedience to the prophet is a Mormon dogma.

Embracing one’s abuse might make people feel better but it’s not a healthy response. Psychologists refer to that behavior as enabling. It’s a common phenomenon among abused spouses and the dependants of substance abusers.

Contrast your approach with that of the Savior: To whom there has been given much, much is expected.

Leadership means responsibility. The problem is not that LDS leaders have horrible followers. The problem is a lack of accountability of the leaders to their followers.

Shielding LDS leaders from responsibility by blaming your own attitude is a desperate and transparent attempt of denial.

To you it seems to be normal to read BYU Studies in high school. People are themselves to blame if they rely on the seminary curriculum, which men of God supposedly provide for them. Your argument about obedience fails to indicate familiarity with Mormon sacred and profane rituals that any member would not only recognize immediately but that are obviously relevant.

As you are sacrificing core elements of LDS theology and daily life, one has to conclude that your perception of the Mormon condition is so selective that you seem to have established your very own kind of Mormonism.

For those of us who are committed to the correlated version of Mormonism, obedience to the prophet plays a key role. The restoration is about the priesthood, after all, which Mormon theology defines as the power of God Himself.

The Joseph Smith story is the Mormon origin myth. As such it entails Mormon officials’ claim to power. If ambiguity and uncertainty plays a role, as Bushman argues, then he fails to explore how that affects our obligations to our leaders.

That is unfortunate because he seems to have a comfortable and unconventional niche, which might not only be a model for others but indicates that he has found a practical if not philosophical solution. I am wondering if Bushman does not explore the power question because it would compromise his position in the LDS Church and community and effectively destroy his niche.

May be, that is the place to praise Mike Quinn for his courage. Lavina Anderson also demonstrated courage when she stood up for scholars and documented over one hundred cases of ecclesiastical abuse against scholars, to say of her work on behalf of abused children. Rather than remaining in her safe niche, Lavina Anderson exposed herself and provided cover for the wounded wayfarers. In that sense, she may well resemble the Good Samaritan closest in contemporary Mormonism.

Blake said: Jeff: I think that we can both agree that you are a balck and white thinker when it comes to being judgmental of church leaders.

AGREED! (see below)

———————————————–
“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
(Revelation Chapter 3: 15-16)

That’s a pretty sever indictment of those who might apply the black and white label to others to justify what amounts to wishy-washy, lukewarm, fence sitting.

On the other hand, the first part of my mission was one of the worst experiences of my life and the second year one of the best. The difference? My attitude and my willingness to not judge and to actually choose to love. I was the one accountable for the quality of my experience. At the end of the first year I was blaming the rotten mission coercion and the church for my rotten experience. In fact, I was accountable for that experience. I made it what it was. Learning that simple lession transformed my experience entirely. So I suggest taking accountability for experience and choice — it makes all the difference in the world in my experience.

Hellmut said: “Since obedience is an implication of the Joseph Smith story, it seems to me that Bushman who defends the faith by invoking the ambiguity of the evidence, needs to discuss the implications of ambiguity for members’ obligation to the LDS Church and its leaders.”

Hellmut: Thanks for your post. I’d like to comment on the excellent point you make above. If the Church is to be excused for “nuanced” behavior when it comes to what is right and wrong then why not the members as well? For example:
————————————————
Bishop: “Brother Jones. Are you morally clean and faithful to your wife in all things?”

Brother Jones: “Well, now see, bishop, things just aren’t as black and white as that. By the way, you’re not one of those absolutest thinkers are you?”
————————————————

The part about “magic” merely being a value judgment works better in some contexts than others. Surely, when one is trying to distinguish between magic and religion, value judgments are precisely what makes it tricky business. I fail to see, however, the difficulty in distinguishing between the many phenomena that lend themselves readily to scientific verification and those, like the supernatural, that do not. It is difficult to test the effects of prayer on anything but the mental well being of the person who prays, and Yuri Geller simply was not bending spoons with his mind. I don’t know many people who have a difficulty appreciating the problem here, and I am stunned that this has become an “issue” in this discussion. It would be one thing if we were trying to use the label magic to distinguish between Joseph Smith’s use of the stone and Transubstantiation, but we are clearly not.

On the other hand, FARMS might actually publish it as serious research.

Regarding quantum physics: If YOU want to attribute magic to subatomic particles I can’t stop you, but if want to get me to say that I see it the same way, well that just ain’t gonna happen, so quit trying.

After two years of very intensive study I made a very, very difficult decision in my life to leave the Church. It was a decision that wasn’t at all done in haste. I turned things over and inside and out, looking for some way to justify what in my judgement is dishonest, unethical behavior, but in the end I had to be honest with myself, and that’s why I left the Church. So to have people say that the reason I left the Church is simply because I’m a black and white thinker with, as Dr Bushman described as, an “absolutest” view of things is very offensive because it dismisses with the wave of a hand what I went through during those two years to arrive at the decision to leave.

BUT LET ME BE CLEAR: If anyone wants to label me a black and white thinker for describing the way I view things in general then I will proudly wear that label, because I think so-called black and white thinking is more honest thinking. Period. Some have also called black and white thinking, “hot and cold thinking.”

“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
(Revelation Chapter 3: 15-16)

That’s a pretty sever indictment of those who might apply the black and white label to others to justify what amounts to wishy-washy fence sitting.

I have been considering how to best respond to you. If you are ever in the DC area, lets have lunch. I will limit my answer to two main points. Feel free to follow up if you feel that I am not doing your thoughts justice (hellmut at mac.com).

If one believes literally into the Joseph Smith story then one is as free to disobey Mormon leaders as one is free to jump out of the office window. Though there are illiberal aspects in Mormon culture and LDS policy, the issue of coercion is a secondary problem.

Rather the Mormon origin myth has cosmogonic implications. It entails claims about the nature of the world.

I am free to jump out of the window. Since I know this will be self-destructive, I will not choose that course of action. By the same logic, will people who believe that Joseph Smith spoke face to face with God and Jesus, that Joseph Smith was a prophet who revealed the will of God and that Gordon Hinckley is Joseph Smith’s prophetic successor, obey Mormon leaders.

Perceptions of reality are much more effective than coercion. That’s not necessarily sinister. However, if people promote themselves as prophets and demand sacrifice then they have an obligation to protect the interests of their followers.

Anyone who does not believe that members have an obligation of obedience will either not believe the Joseph Smith story or that Gordon Hinckley is Smith’s current successor.

Therefore I am surprised that you question believers’ obligation to LDS leaders and the binding effects of faith on behavior. May be, neither Bushman nor you are literalist believers.

Since obedience is an implication of the Joseph Smith story, it seems to me that Bushman who defends the faith by invoking the ambiguity of the evidence, needs to discuss the implications of ambiguity for members’ obligation to the LDS Church and its leaders.

As for the events in my home ward and stake, of course, each of us has to deal with their own issues. It is remarkable, however, when four out of five young men from different socio-economic an family backgrounds but from the same ward respond to the mission experience the same way.

Clearly, the consequences of the Joseph Smith story are more problematic than Mormon believers make it out to be.

Interestingly, I just received a message of a return missionary in the Geneva mission who reports the same phenomenon about his area. Apparently, the overwhelming share of return missionaries is leaving the LDS Church upon completion of their mission. In his case that even includes a returned mission president.

In Germany, of all the stake presidents and regional representatives, only one had served a mission and he worked for the Church Education System.

We had great stake presidents and bishops but their sons are leaving after their missions. They are angry. They feel used and depressed. In most cases, it takes them years to verbalize their feelings because they find it difficult to understand why the church that they loved would have reduced them to a production factor in the service of bureaucratic ambition.

Of my former bishops, three were return missionaries. I know of two who left. All the leaders who did not serve full time missions are still active. While eighty percent of my ward’s missionary cohort have left, the kids that were semi-active before we left to serve, are still semi active.

I don’t really have any proof that they “knew” it all. Maybe there’s evidence that they did not. I guess I can see how a GA would not be an expert (especially before the internet) on the details of how the BOM was translated….for example…and they therefore may have vigorously defended the more traditional history – in missionary discussions, gospel doctrine manuals, and artwork. I guess I always assumed that church leaders would have certainly known the details about our history….but maybe they read and relied on sources they thought credible and with the limits information for their time….the necesity to put something concise and standardized together, the rest is “history”.

I have heard alot of people describe our history as being “whitewashed”. Certainly “efforts to suppress” are just that, but were those efforts based on a legitimate belief that the suppressions were honest and justified? We all know how taboo this topic is within the church….still today. I wonder if it’s possible that critical questions were simply never asked by church leaders, and that lead to the whitewashed version. Just trying to be fair.

I suppose this whole discussion is speculative. I don’t know what facts were known and accepted by previous church leaders. I assume Professor Bushman doesn’t know what facts were known and accepted by previous GAs. That being said, the church may not be guilty of deception based on the “freedom of speech” rule – or in this case, not saying something because they didn’t believe it to be true?

I guess one could then say “what kind of a prophet can’t even get church history right”…..I don’t expect perfection from church leaders though….just honesty.

Regardless of whether church leaders knew (for fact) harmful information…and then concealed that information, perhaps the bigger issue, as is pointed out in the interview, is the perception that deception has occurred….the perception is reality for my friends who have already (and some who are in the process of leaving) the church. I’m hopeful that the problem will be recognized and fixed.

Jeff #53. “I grow tired of you continually putting words in my mouth, then attacking those words, not what I actually said. Nowhere in anything that I have posted have I said that I eschew black and white thinking—not even remotely close. It’s John and Dr. Bushman who imply that they “eschew” black and white thinking. Go back and read again.”

Jeff, in the first post you reject the label “black and white thinking ” to describe what you are doing and then you assert that you never said anything like that. It seems to me to be a text-book example of disowning your own argument and denying that you said what you clearly did. Do you really want to adopt the view that you don’t eschew black and white thinking? Your posts here suggest to me that not only do you not eschew it; but you adopt and engage in black and white thinking regularly. You are quick to judge the leaders of the Church. They are liars and dishonest in your view. I suggest that your judgments are just off base because they are based on black and white thinking where a more accurate view is nuanced.

Further, I’m still waiting for some working definition or explanation of “magical thinking” that you accuse LDS of doing but you claim that you don’t do. You haven’t given anything like an adequate distinction or explanation and every time I adopt your examples as paradigms of magical thinking and point out why they don’t work you get upset that I am putting something into your mouth! Perhaps Trevor is right that “magic” cannot be defined (like pornograpy); but that is precisely my point. You cannot make an adequate distinction between magical thinking that you accuse LDS of doing and other kinds of thinking that you regard as legitimate. Unlike pornography, I don’t think we can simply say that we know it when we see it — precisely because “magic” is a mere epithet and value judgment.

Further, you suggest that quarks and so forth are detectable, and so they are. But you miss the point completely – I spoke of the “basic force or powers” attributed to them and not to these particles (or wave-events) per se. So you have simply dodged my point. The basic forces we attribute to these basic “particles” to describe how they act aren’t detectable; they are attributed just like magical abilities.

I don’t want to sidetrack the discussion but I think it’s relevant to remind us of Boyd Packer’s infamous talk, The Mantle is Far Greater than the Intellect. In that talk he very clearly directs church educators to suppress and withhold information that’s embarrassing to the Church.

So, while we talk in generalities about whether or not there might have been conscious intent, I think when we get to the level of actual facts, we don’t have to look too hard to find instances intentional suppression among the upper echelons of the Church hierarchy.

Adcama said:”The way I see it though, is the line is crossed and deception begins when church leaders know the
facts (regardless of their interpretation and “feelings” about those facts) and purposefully and substantively CONCEAL them….for whatever reason (and in this case, it may very well be/have been a benevolent reason).”

I want to make sure that it’s not brushed over that while Dr. Bushman was carefully choosing his words to describe how he views things, while trying to make it sound as palatable as possible, he called it and “effort to suppress” and also “whitewash it.” I think the word “effort” implies some level of conscious intent behind the suppression.

Go back and listen again. His words were very carefully chosen as he attempted to navigate his way through that part of the interview.

Jeff: You say that you eschew black and white thinking and then you come up with a judgmental doozy like this: “If a prophet can’t see past an artists misconception on such an important, foundational issue then he’s not much of prophet, is he?”

Blake: I grow tired of you continually putting words in my mouth, then attacking those words, not what I actually said. Nowhere in anything that I have posted have I said that I eschew black and white thinking—not even remotely close. It’s John and Dr. Bushman who imply that they “eschew” black and white thinking. Go back and read again.

And while you’re at it, go back and read again what I think most people here will agree is a pretty decent attempt at explaining for you what I mean when I use the words magic, or magical thinking. Crimeny, Blake. I just don’t know how much more clear I can be.

You accuse me of taking things too far by implying that magical thinking in children grows into magical thinking in adults. All I did was quote from a NY Times article and let it speak for itself. Go back and read that one too while you’re at it.

With regard to quantum physics and magic. They are nowhere near the same. Quarks and gluons and protons and electrons, that you imply are somehow magical, are physically detectable (and are therefore real)…unlike the thoughts that supposedly leaped from the gold plates into Joseph Smith’s head.

Seems to me that church leaders have protection from being accused of “deception” in some instances….especially as it relates to their feelings, opinions and how THEY personally INTERPRET facts of the restoration. For example, it seems to me that it can’t be deceptive for a church leader to express their general testimony/feelings relative to belief in JS as a prophet, belief in the BOM as the word of God, belief in GBH as a prophet, etc. under this definition, because they legitimately believe that which they preach….

The way I see it though, is the line is crossed and deception begins when church leaders know the
facts (regardless of their interpretation and “feelings” about those facts) and purposefully and substantively CONCEAL them….for whatever reason (and in this case, it may very well be/have been a benevolent reason).

While I’m no expert here, I think this type of deception (concealing/not talking about certain “non-helpful” facts) is called dissimulation….again from Wikipedia….”concealing the truth, or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth, like inconvenient or secret information.” This is exactly what we’re talking about here….

Am I wrong to think that church leaders should have no protection against being accused of deception when they conceal material historical facts/information in the context of our discussion….?

But again….is/was it intentioal or malicous? Does it have to be intentional or malicious to be deception? Or was it viewed by the church as simply “accentuating the positive”? Trying not to challenge the follower’s faith? Focusing on the more life changing aspects of the restoration? I don’t know…but from what a few people have said on this site, I hope the idea of “positive truths only” is a thing of the past…I hope Professor Bushman’s book…and more like it will help close the gap between history taught in church….and more accurate church history.

When you are done defining ‘magic,’ maybe we can move on to the definition of ‘pornography’ or any other contested term that people generally understand without a philosophical defense of their personal definition of it.

At various stages of the Church’s history similar kinds of ‘rationalism’ and ‘anti-magic’ sentiment have made their way through the Church. I would guess that the first such instance of this was Joseph Smith’s own reaction to his 1826 trial, but this is just my guess. At one time the Church in Utah wanted to clamp down on the use of seer stones, when their use had been not only popular but among the variety of approved spiritual practices in previous times.

Why these things change from one period to the next is a complex issue. I would guess it has more to do with what people feel comfortable accepting. The reason the Salamander Letter had the potential to be earth-shattering was because many testimonies about Smith magic use were easily written off as the result of prejudice. To a certain degree, it is clear, at least from listening to Bushman, that they still are heavily qualified for the same reason.

Working from those assumptions, which well describe the Church as a whole, it is not difficult to see how this ‘cultural forgetting’ occurred. Only recetnly did I fully realize that when my LDS great-uncle took me (at 9 yrs. of age) out to find gold with a thing that looked like a plumb-bob, I was experiencing part of a Mormon past that reached back to Joseph Smith!

Well, that is a perfect example of rather unsupportable black and white thinking. The Church leaders are not historians and they believe that the picture of translating by looking at the plates is the way it was done. How is it evidence against a prophet if he doesn’t know history or that fact? Further, David Keller is quite correct — before Joseph lost the 116 pages it appears that he may have used the urim and thummim to lok at the plates and only later reverted to use of the seer stone because it was easier for him. There is evidence that a curtain was drawn between him and Cowdery.

But I want to focus on this naive notion that unless a prophet is omniscient he isn’t a prophet. If that is your view of prophet, that he has to know facts like how Joseph did the translation in order to truly be a prophet, then no wonder you’re an a-theist. With such ridiculous demands on belief, who could believe? Steve Benson complains that Dallin Oaks met with Mark Hoffman and yet didn’t divine he was a murderer at the time. With such notions of prophetic omniscience and infallibility, no wonder you two were disappointed when they didn’t live up to your grandiose expectations.

Further, I’m still waiting for a definition of “magic” — any definition you can muster. Pointing to what you consider to be examples does me no good. I took your example of getting data wrong to try to get some idea of what you are getting at and you wisely rejected it as a sufficient view of magic — because it is nonsense. I’m still waiting for you to give me some sufficient definition or explanation of magic.

Suggesting that when children fantasize and use their imagination they are also engaging in the same kind of thinking as those adult believers who accept the gospel not only begs the question, it is insulting to our intelligence. I suggest that when they pretend they are not engaging in magical thinking. They simply cannot tell the difference between what is the real world and which ain’t — are you suggesting that believers such as myself are also cognitively limited and our brains are not developed so that we cannot see the magic? However, your clear impliation is that your brain is more mature and you see the magical thinking because you are cognitively superior. If so, then it is not merely a faulty comparison and poor logic; it is arrogance beyond belief.

19th century “magic” in the sense that Bushman speaks of it isn’t this type of fantasizing; it is a belief-structure or world-view. Certainly 3 year olds don’t have such world-views yet. Further, I argue that science has important similarities to this world view in its necessary acceptance of basic forces as the most basic causal powers in the universe without further explanation. We just attribute certain powers or forces to things like quarks and gluons and protons and electrons — is physics also tainted by your judgments of magical-thinking?

“you kind of bolderize (not sure on that word) the story. You whitewash it. And—uh—it ends up this way.”

“Suppression” is Dr. Bushman’s word in the quote I included in my previous post. It’s not my word. Maybe you realize that but I want to make sure you didn’t overlook that.

I agree that Dr. Bushman followed with a kind of soft-peddling on what exactly he means by suppression. John, when you primed him with a scenerio where possibly there was a conscious decision to change the facts because people wouldn’t buy the truth, Dr. Bushman responded with,

“Well I’m not sure that it’s quite that calculated but it has that effect.“

I read that as: There was, to an extent, some intentional suppression going on, but no one sat down in a meeting and took a vote on whether to tell the truth or not.

There is no proof of dishonest behavior nor is there proof of unethical behavior. To make such allegation stick, one must provide proof and the intent to be unethical.

It is such blatant generalizations by Jeff that create a black and white scenerio. And so, which GA’s are dishonest and unethical? And if I am called to be a GA, do I suddenly enter the dishonest and unethical club?

Now lets look at why people leave. Usually it is black and white. One may say, ‘the church is dishonest’. Well that is rather black. Or one may say, ‘The church spends money on malls’. Well, that is rather white. When in truth, both reasoning can be debated in the grey zone. And this can also be true for many of reasons people leave the lds church. It is usually black or white.

Suppression or self-deception? There’s a difference in my mind. I don’t think he was agreeing that people were lying on purpose.

I think he’s saying that it was gradual, and not necessarily conscious.

With the stone in the hat thing, he made it clear that most LDS leaders probably really thought it happened the traditional way (veil, plates, U&T, etc.).

I didn’t hear intentional fact suppression when I interviewed him.

Trevor said: “Joseph’s magical activities: few people who consider themselves to be ’sophisticated’ and ‘rational’ would accept magic. Few Christians would consider magic to be ‘of God.’ Are LDS people to put themselves in the position of defending magic against secular *and* Christian society? Sounds like an uphill battle if I’ve ever heard of one!”

I want to point out how Dr. Bushman describes the Church’s past (and I think ongoing) attempts to deal with the PR problem. He said:

Dr Bushman: “But I think what threw us off, was our own embarrassment, about Joseph Smith. We so wanted him to be a kind of a, 19th Century Protestant view of a prophet; a noble soul, sort of partly ethereal, who—uh—speaks only spiritual wisdom. And NOT someone who’s involved in magical practices, which is superstition, and which Protestants are dead-set against—uh—in the 19th Century. And that effort to kind of suppress anything that would scandalize Joseph Smith or turn him into a scandal, I think motivated the desire to, make it all sort of lovely and, common sensical, rather than anything that would be magical.”

One thing in particular I want to point out is that he actually admits that there was in fact suppression of the real truth going on in the Church. I personally don’t think that anyone person can be targeted as the culprit. I think, and possible Dr. Bushman implies this, that it was a collective suppression of facts, still within the leadership of the Church, but not an individual’s crime.

Here we have the real image problem posed by Joseph’s magical activities: few people who consider themselves to be ‘sophisticated’ and ‘rational’ would accept magic. Few Christians would consider magic to be ‘of God.’ Are LDS people to put themselves in the position of defending magic against secular *and* Christian society? Sounds like an uphill battle if I’ve ever heard of one!

1- I was disturbed by the fact that Dr. Bushman clearly uses the Church’s “artists” as a scapegoat to steer blame away from the Church leaders. He says that they get the blame for the 100 plus years the Church misrepresented the facts about how Joseph Smith derived (not-translated) the Book of Mormon. Never mind that the Church is supposed to be led by a prophet who is supposed to be on top of such things, and make course corrections. If a prophet can’t see past an artists misconception on such an important, foundational issue then he’s not much of prophet, is he?

2- Some might call me thin-skinned but, John my friend, I was offended by your description of people who leave the Church where you said that some of them leave because they feel the Church is being dishonest. I was pleased to see that you explained that dishonesty is a cause for some leaving (whereas most Mormons rush to the conclusion that sin or a desire to sin or laziness is the reason) but I think you’re well aware that that is the reason the majority leave, not just some. I think it’s fair to say that 90% leave for that reason. I hope you can understand why your statement rubs me the wrong way.

3- I was also offended by both your characterization and especially Dr. Bushman’s where it was said that those who leave the Church leave because we are “black and white thinkers” and “can’t tolerate middle ground.” Since the reason most leave the Church is because of what we see has dishonest, unethical behavior by it’s leaders then it seems that the “black and white” label is an attempt to rationalize a position that is somewhat dishonest and somewhat unethical. Are you sure you want to claim that black and white thinking is the reason we leave?

I would like to comment a little bit on John’s (perhaps in Devil’s advocate mode) allegations that artists mis-portray the translation process. I don’t contest that the accounts that demonstrate Joseph Smith primarily translated (or dictated) the text using his brown colored seer stone placed into a hat to exclude light.

I would argue that there are accounts that describe the early stages of the translation differently. People who talked to Martin Harris report that at first a curtain was in conjunction with the spectacles, the curtain preventing scribes from seeing the plates. The accounts I assembled below are second-hand at best and sometimes very late and perhaps may not be credible. However both the critic Dale Morgan and believer Mark Ashurst-McGee accept these descriptions, at least to the extent that they agree there was a curtain and that Martin believed the plates and the Nephite interpretters had been behind it. I am a little surprised Dr. Bushman dismissed the evidential value of these accounts in these respects. I understand what he is saying about terminology confusion, but that observation alone isn’t adequate to dismiss these particular accounts.

This means that both types of depictions of the translation process have been with us from day one. I don’t think we can blame artists for attempting to imagine the earlier process instead of the later one. Note that while I make a helpful distinction between early and late, many people approach the translation as a uniform process throughout. For them it becomes a choice of what set of accounts to privilege, that is if they were even aware of the discrepancies. Dr. Bushman’s remarks remain pertinent to why Harris-influenced information was selectively favored over seer stone in a hat accounts. I just want to point out that the presence of conflicting accounts makes later portrayals less of an issue of inventing or embellishing to hide an embarrassment and one that hinges on problems of reconstruction.

Mark Ashurst-McGee does a good job explaining the transition from the early stages to later stages in his Master thesis “A Pathway to Prophethood”, even finding a lesson in Joseph being trained to be a prophet by learning to revelate through successively weaker divinitory aids.

Any way on to the accounts:

From the August 27, 1829 issue of the Niagara Courier reprinting an August 11, 1829 article in the Palmyra Freeman

Its proselytes give the following account of it: In the fall of 1827, a person by the name of Joseph Smith, of Manchester, Ontario county, reported that he had been visited in a dream by the spirit of the Almighty, and informed that in a certain hill in that town, was deposited this Golden Bible, containing an ancient record of a divine nature and origin. After having been thrice thus visited, as he states, he proceeded to the spot, and after having penetrating “mother earth” a short distance, the Bible was found, together with a huge pair of spectacles! He had directed, however, not to let any mortal being examine them, “under no less penalty” than instant death! They were therefore nicely wrapped up, and excluded from the vulgar gaze of poor wicked mortals!” It was said that the leaves of the Bible were plates, of gold about eight inches long, six wide, and one eighth of an inch thick, on which were engraved characters or hieroglyphics. By placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least) interpret these characters.

Palmyra Reflector March 19, 1831

Smith and Harris gave out that no mortal save Jo could look upon it and live; and Harris declares that when he acted as amanuenes, and wrote the translation, as Smith dictated, such was his fear of the Divine displeasure that a screen (sheet) was suspended between the prophet and himself.

Hence the magic spectacles were very opportunity found with the plates. The little low chamber in Smith’s house was used as a translating-room. The prophet and his plates were screened even from the sight of his scribes, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and Reuben Hale, by blankets secured with nails. While the translation was going on the neighbors frequently called to discuss the forthcoming book, which, it was alleged, would make the Hale family very rich. Occasionally a visitor was allowed to feel the thickness of the Golden Book as it reposed within a pillow-case, but no one was permitted to see it. *

* Among the callers was Samuel Brush, now a vigorous man of seventy-five, who carries on a large farm and a lumber-mill three miles south-west of the Susquehanna. At the time of the translation he often called Reuben Hale away from his work, and the pair went for a walk. Reuben also explained the phenomenon of the peek-stone on the theory of “deflected light.” Mr. Brush declares that Martin Harris was a believer in “second sight,” and that “Smith was a good and kind neighbor” — testimony which is also given by Mrs. McKune, Mrs. Squires and Mr. Skinner.

Charles Anthon’s 1834 letter in Mormonism Unvailed

When I asked the person, who brought it, how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, the following account: A “gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles”! These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at that time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farmhouse, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered “by the gift of God.” Everything, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles.

On my asking him by whom the copy was made, he gravely stated, that along with the golden book there had been dug up a very large pair of spectacles! so large in fact that if a man were to hold them in front of his face, his two eyes would merely look through one of the glasses, and the remaining part of the spectacles would project a considerable distance sideways! These spectacles possessed, it seems a very valuable property, of enabling any one who looked through them, (or rather through one of the lenses,) not only to decypher the characters on the plates, but also to comprehend their exact meaning, and be able to translate them!! My informant assured me that this curious property of the spectacles had been actually tested, and found to be true. A young man, it seems, had been placed in the garret of a farm-house, with a curtain before him, and having fastened the spectacles to his head, had read several pages in the golden book, and communicated their contents in writing to certain persons stationed on the outside of the curtain. He had also copied off one page of the book in the original character, which he had in like manner handed over to those who were separated from him by the curtain, and this copy was the paper which the countryman had brought with him.

Charles Anthon’s 1841 letter

On my asking him by whom the copy was made, he gravely stated, that along with the golden book there had been dug up a very large pair of spectacles! so large in fact that if a man were to hold them in front of his face, his two eyes would merely look through one of the glasses, and the remaining part of the spectacles would project a considerable distance sideways! These spectacles possessed, it seems a very valuable property, of enabling any one who looked through them, (or rather through one of the lenses,) not only to decypher the characters on the plates, but also to comprehend their exact meaning, and be able to translate them!! My informant assured me that this curious property of the spectacles had been actually tested, and found to be true. A young man, it seems, had been placed in the garret of a farm-house, with a curtain before him, and having fastened the spectacles to his head, had read several pages in the golden book, and communicated their contents in writing to certain persons stationed on the outside of the curtain. He had also copied off one page of the book in the original character, which he had in like manner handed over to those who were separated from him by the curtain, and this copy was the paper which the countryman had brought with him.

From Mark Ashurst-McGee Master’s Thesis “A Pathway to Prophethood”

Martin Harris to Edward Stevenson 1870 (written in Dec. 18, 1831 Deseret Evening News)
“[Joseph] possessed a seer stone, by which he was able to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummin, and for convenience he then used the seer stone”

William Smith to J.W. Peterson in 1890 (written in the 1924 Rod of Iron “The Urim and Thummin”)
” the instruments were much too large for Joseph and he could see through one at a time using sometimes one and sometimes the other. By putting his head in a hat or some dark object it was not necessary to close one eye while looking through the stone with the other. In that way sometimes when his eyes grew [tired] he releaved them of the strain.”

I’m not trying to avoid giving you a definition of magical thinking because I thought I already did in the examples I use in one of my previous posts. I’m referring specifically to my previous description of magical thinking in children and how it gets transferred into adulthood. I found the article where I got that information and have included below an excerpt from it and a reference to it:

“Children exhibit a form of magical thinking by about 18 months, when they begin to create imaginary worlds while playing. By age 3, most know the difference between fantasy and reality, though they usually still believe (with adult encouragement) in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. By age 8, and sometimes earlier, they have mostly pruned away these beliefs, and the line between magic and reality is about as clear to them as it is for adults.

It is no coincidence, some social scientists believe, that youngsters begin learning about faith around the time they begin to give up on wishing. “The point at which the culture withdraws support for belief in Santa and the Tooth Fairy is about the same time it introduces children to prayer,” said Jacqueline Woolley, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas. “The mechanism is already there, kids have already spent time believing that wishing can make things come true, and they’re just losing faith in the efficacy of that.” Reference

Joseph Smith believed that symbols were laden with some sort of magical power, such as his magic parchment(s) and Jupiter talisman. In Mormonism today it’s believed that certain symbols associated with temple rights are likewise laden in some way with energies or power, that have influence over the physical. Both are considered magical thinking. See below

“Magical thinking invests special powers and forces in many things that are seen as symbols. According to Stevens, ‘the vast majority of the world’s peoples… believe that there are real connections between the symbol and its referent, and that some real and potentially measurable power flows between them.’ ”
Reference

On a related subject, Magic and Religion, I found the following:

“Closely related to magic are most forms of religious supplication, asking the divine for aid. Perhaps the most famous form is prayer, which is often considered a spiritual duty in communing with the divine, even aside from any miraculous effects on the outside world.

Both magic and religion contain rituals. Typically, there is a recognition that rituals do not always work; rather, it is thought to simply increase the likelihood of the desired result coming to pass. (Some practitioners of “natural” magic believe that their spells always work.) While many rituals focus on personal communion with the divine and spiritual purification, others often seek “magical” results, such as healing or good luck in battle.”
…
“Some religions believe in transferring holiness to objects and places; this is often seen in even simple things like “christening” ceremonies for a new boat. Churches and certain religiously-minded individuals often consecrate the ground where a building will be constructed… This practice somewhat fell into disrepute during the Reformation; it became associated with idol worship. As a result, this is less seen in Protestantism than Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.”
Reference

I hope this helps you understand what I mean by the label and I hope you can see how magical thinking is not a part of science (pseudoscience, yes, but not real science) but is a part of Mormonism…and many other relgions for that matter.

In fairness, I want to add that we all engage in magical thinking to varying degrees. My aim is to rid my thinking of as much of it as I can identify in myself. I sloughed off a ton of it when I left behind religion.

You said, “If you mean “magic” is a belief not justified by available data or hypothesis, then…” No Blake, I didn’t say that.

You again said, “if what you mean is that magic is anything we believed based on insufficient data, then…” No Blake, I didn’t say that.

What I did say: “For example, a scientist can draw conclusions that others feel are not fully justified by the available data. It doesn’t mean that scientist is a magical thinker. It only means that he needs to do a little more work first.”

Blake, what I mean by this is that he has to go back to work, do more experiments, and gather more data so he can show that his arguments and conclusions are justified by what happens in the real world. Falling short of doing that in his first pass does not mean that he is engaging in magical thinking in any way whatsoever. It only means, like I said, that he needs to do more work.

Science is set up as a rigorous process, designed to insure that people don’t leap to conclusions that are unfounded. Magical thinking has no place in it.

That said, certainly I believe there are sufficient reasons and data for my beliefs and it is no wonder that it appears to me to be sheer hubris and arrogance that assumes otherwise. However, I understand what Bushman is getting at. Take our belief that that racism is wrong. What data justified that belief? These are beliefs we all share, but justifying that is very difficult. In fact, Bushman is making a point similar to what I have argued: “magic” is an epithet and judgment. What distinguishes magic from what is an acceptable pracice is a value judgment; not something we can define.

In fact, if what you mean is that magic is anything we believed based on insufficient data, then in the end the entire scientific enterprise is “magic” because it is based in its entirety on the belief in basic causal powers that we merely posit without further basis.

“Still, there are a lot of people who are averse to magic.”

“Still, there are a lot of people who are averse to magical.”

Doesn’t change the point I was making though.

“Still, there are a lot of people who are averse to the magical thinking. They say that my book gives altogether too much credit to magic. I hope we can overcome that. There’s nothing malicious about magic. It’s a form of supernaturalism that people the world over have believed in. And, uh, people who study magical practices from times past find much that’s admirable in them like there is in Free Masonry.”

So, at least Dr. Bushman should proudly wear that label.

The magical thinking label is one that’s not relative to what I believe. It’s relative to what you believe (and other’s who believe similarly) so it shouldn’t be offensive. I can understand why it feels offensive but the fact is it’s a label that is relative to what you choose to believe so it should be a label you’re proud to wear.

Recognizing that the world is full of wonder has nothing whatsoever to do with magical thinking anymore than admiring a sunset does.

Blake says: “Jeff: sorry, I ought to read what I write, huh? I meant: It seems to me that by “magical thinking” you mean simply any thinking that arrives at unjustified conclusions from your POV.”

No, I think that’s too broad a definition. For example, a scientist can draw conclusions that others feel are not fully justified by the available data. It doesn’t mean that scientist is a magical thinker. It only means that he needs to do a little more work first.

If he used in his arguments things that (with all due respect, Dr. Bushman) Dr. Bushman used in his speculation, about how ‘efforts and thoughts” of past prophets somehow leaped from the gold plates into Joseph Smith’s head, then that would be magical thinking.

When Trvor points out that the statement “my ways are not your ways” is a legitimate expression in the face of our epistemically limited position, you call what LDS do “magical thinking.” It is a way of simply calling the LDS way of dealing with our epistemic limitations a name.

However, when you now admit that the naturalistc world view (by that I mean a view that adopts the causal closure of physics) has limitations and cannot answer a number of inquiries, you call it “wonderment” and “awe”. It seems to me that the real activity here merely an ad hominem name for someone else’s views. It is a common ploy that we often overlook because we are often unaware of the assumed value judgments that control the conclusions before we even get started on the business of thinking.

Thus, the way you have chosen to deal with the issue is a logical fallacy of ad hominem attack. Refrain from labelling someone else’s view “magical thinking” because it shows that you judge that person as primitive and “other” while you hold yourself out as more advanced and an insider.

I just tried it and it worked for me.

How are you trying to access it?

Blake said: “For the record: life without magic lacks life.”

I agree with you Blake except I would replace the word magic with wonder. The statement below is from our postMormon.org website homepage:

———————————————-
“We do not apologize for our inability to fully understand reality or the nature of our own existence. As Albert Einstein said:

‘The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.’ ”

———————————————-

An appreciation for the beauty and mystery and wonder of life doesn’t require magic or magical thinking. In my opinion, magical thinking gets in the way of full appreciation of the wonder and mystery all around us. That wonder and mystery is what motivates scientists and explorers to discover and open doors and enrich humanity. Bbut magical thinking stops them short, and those doors remain closed because it causes one to think, under fear of punishment, that the questions have already been answered. Either man did it or God did. End of story.

I think it’s pretty telling that when magical thinking had it tightest grip on the affairs of humanity, humanity also suffered through it’s darkest ages and progress ground to a near halt. But Copernicus and Galileo looked up in the sky, beyond the dictated magical thinking of the day and again wondered, and had the courage to think beyond the bounds the magical worldview – punishment be damned!. And today I think we would all thank them for it. When was it? In the 1970′s when the Catholic Church finally apologized for their immoral treatment of Galileo and finally admitted that he had it right. Magical thinking had it wrong.

For the record: life without magic lacks life.

I don’t mean to B&M, but this one’s still not showing up on iTunes.

Gracias.

I appreciate and agree with your alternate perspective on “My thoughts are not your thouhts…” Of course there will always be things we don’t understand. The important thing is how we deal with them. I think your approach to history and scripture is a productive, healthy one. Even though my aim is to lose all my magical thinking I’ve acquired in life, I too still am facinated with parts of the Bible, mostly because of what the documents reveal about the authors and their worldviews. I enjoy the journey too and feel that magical thinking is a distraction on that journey.

I don’t want to offend anyone but I will probably use the label more often. Especially in light of the Bushman interview, I think the label (which isn’t my invention) is useful in terms of shedding a different perspective on many issues that are troubling in Mormonism and in the world where magical thinking leads people to fly planes into buildings…and others to respond in kind in the name of magical thinking.

On the other hand, the saying “my ways are not your ways” can be taken to express the limitations of our knowledge. No matter how much we unfold, and I think we should always unfold as much as we can with the best methodology available, those things that beckon us just beyond where we have reached will always remain.

Personally, I take the scriptures as mythological expressions of humankind’s search for meaning, and as such they continue to fascinate me. I am guessing that both of you would approach the problem much differently, but I find respect for the thoughts of each one of you.

Having said that, I believe firmly that the unfolding of history should always be our ally in seeking after truth. Whether I choose to believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God or not, searching out the history of how he did what he did is an enlightening exercise. In my experience, both history and revelation are shifting points of reference, but I enjoy the journey.

With all due respect Shaun, that is magical thinking. It reminds of Wizard of Oz’s admonition to, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

I don’t say that to offend, only to make my point.

The atheist label that I get pegged with offends me because I shouldn’t have to be labeled (with what is in most minds a pejorative label) simply because my aim is to rid my thinking of kooky, nutty stuff like this. So, I’m going start adopting a new label for those who believe in God and all the trappings that follow: “Magical thinker.” And that simply leaves me as one who is not. Call me an “a-magical thinker” if you prefer.

I can’t find where I got this from but it’s interesting to note that at around the age of 18 months a child begins to be aware of causal relationships between things. Lacking an explanation for some of them the mind invents for that child some rudimentary hypothesis. For example: “When my bottle gets cold mommy puts it in a box (the microwave) waves her fingers in front of it and out comes my bottle nice and warm. It must be a magic box (of course the child is not thinking in words but in concepts).” This becomes the basis for what progressively develops into magical thinking as that child grows. Adults encourage this kind of thinking by teaching the child about Santa and the Easter Bunny and even working as accomplices to keep the child believing by putting gifts under the tree and hiding easter baskets in the house for the child when it wakes up. How did they get there? It must be magic! Therefore, magical thinking is consciously reinforced.

Then something happens at around the age of 8. The child begins to realize the absurdity of such beliefs and leaves them behind. But at around age 8 is also coincidentally about the time that the parent begins in earnest, teaching the child about faith, God and religion, which attempts to convince the child that there are causal relationships between prayer and good fortune, sin and bad fortune, behaviors in this life and punishment or reward in the next life. And this time it’s not so benign as a belief in Santa because this time these teachings are reinforced with fear. Richard Dawkins is bold enough to say that teaching a child about religion and gods is a form of child abuse. I have to agree. But because I believe that I shouldn’t be the one who gets assigned a pejorative label. So from now on when asked if I’m an atheist I’m going to say, “No. The label offends me. Are you a magical thinker?”

I have a lot more I’d like to add but this is getting long. I want to cover one more thing. With all due respect to those who struggle with the so-called “Problem of Evil,” I don’t see it as a problem at all. It’s easy to solve without going in circles, covering the fact that you’ve ended up in the same place where you started by calling it an exercise in formal logic, fooling yourself into thinking that somehow something of value was accomplished.

There are some other problems that are easy to explain as well. Lose the magical thinking and the things that Bushman can’t explain are resolved. Lose magical thinking and you no longer have to struggle coming to terms with early Mormon history. The answers become obvious. Lose the magical thinking and the problem of evil goes away. There is no problem of evil. The problem is magical thinking.

Yes, the Spanish treasure was big. Undoubtedly, tales about Native Americans were not the only tales circulating. But the evidence about Luman Walters and Joseph Smith brings these Native A. stories and their connection to Joseph Smith very close to the time and place of the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Whether the whole land was awash in Indian tales or not, I would think that the fact that the treasure seers operating in the Palmyra vicinity were concerned with the Indians, their past, and their treasure, is important. We have come to the threshold of the door that opens to understanding the connection between Joseph’s treasure seership and his religious life. What prevents us from stepping through the doorway is our continuing application of the strictures the category of religion, as post-Protestant thought has defined it, to what is happening in Smith’s case.

I wish I shared your optimism but I am extremely cynical when it comes to the integrity and enlightenment of the upper echelons of the mormon church. My cynicism is based on over 150 years of documented history when it comes to mormon church leaders and the truth.

There is at least indirect evidence that Elder Packer and others (although not everyone) are okay with it (this is from Nate Oman’s recent post:

The diaries are much more than simply a record of what Bushman calls “pre-review jitters.” There are also some facinating facts about the book’s writing and its reception. For example, Bushman records, “I sought a blessing from Elder Packer before getting started, and insofar as I was worthy, I think the blessing was fufilled.” Elder Holland sent Bushman a letter (reproduced in the diary) praising the book, but one unidentified emeritus general authority suggested that RSR would undermine the faith of new converts and provide ammunition for the enemies of the church.

That surprises me as I have no reason to doubt your word. I would have thought “The Brethren” would be rabidly opposed to the truth coming out. That is good to hear – maybe there is hope after all…..

My sense is that Brother Bushman has strong (though not official) support from the Brethren.

Excellent interview. I learned a lot. I wonder if your guest has run afoul of fundamentalist, draconian Church authorities within mormonism such as Boyd Packer for his views?

Wes

John

Please email me at mormonstories@gmail.com and I’ll help you get it working.

I need to make sure iTunes is working ok.

John

I still can’t find part 49 on itunes.

Out of curiosity, how many more interviews do you think you’ll do with Dr. Bushman?

Following that theory, perhaps Joseph was the only one whose conscience actually steered more towards finding a divine purpose than seeking treasure.

Just a theory that came to mind just now.

I would agree with you somewhat. I had the same reaction when listening to Bushman. Money digging did have a bit to do with Indian gold stories, but it also was tied to Spanish conquistador treasure believed to be from the 1600-1700s.

Also, apart from JS and the BOM, mound-building culture was a looming facination in American in general. I think it would have been just a part of the everyday vernacular.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that interest in the Native American past was part of the treasure digging culture. After all, people saw the mounds as an obvious possible source of treasure. There is at least one account of treasure seer other than Joseph Smith who had a vision in his stone of the Indian past. Luman Walters, at least according to Abner Cole, claimed to have a book that described the locations of buried Indian treasures. Joseph had a vision of the burying of Indian treasure that may have been completely unrelated to the Book of Mormon.

If we take into account the convergence of religious interest in the Native Americans as evidenced in works like “View of the Hebrews”, amateur relic hunting in the mounds, and magical treasure digging for Indian treasure, it is clear that interest in Native Americans and their past *was* a hot issue in Joseph Smith’s day, and even from a believer’s perspective, this should be completely unproblematic. Should a believer in the Book of Mormon suppose that God would bring it forth at anything less than the optimal time and circumstances? Wouldn’t a time of deep interest in the Indians and their past be that time?

And as always–thanks, Dallas. You’re a real pal.

I’m happy to see a trend in LDS scholarly circles toward clearing up a misconception about the production of the Book of Mormon. If we trace the description of the production of the Book of Mormon we see a change for the better:

1. Starting with the September 1977 Ensign article that doubted the position that Smith used the seer stone and claims a real translation took place with Smith’s “direct use of the plates”.

2. To what many progressive LDS members will immediately notice as a change in this perspective by pointing out an article by Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” in the Ensign, July 1993, 61.

3. More recently, in a FARMS article, Mark Ashurst-McGee, agrees with Grant Palmer’s research regarding the production of the Book of Mormon, stating that “[Grant] Palmer notes his objection to images of Joseph Smith translating by looking intently and studiously at the plates, as any secular translator would do. Latter-day Saints commonly believe that Smith translated by looking at the plates through the Urim and Thummim—an instrument resembling a pair of spectacles—but Latter-day Saint artists have apparently not known how to illustrate this or have felt uncomfortable depicting it. Actually, Smith apparently translated most of the Book of Mormon by using a seer stone” (McGee pg. 312; online at

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=513

Thus it appears that along with Bushman’s book there is a progressive trend toward providing a more accurate representation of the dictation process that was less of an actual translation and more of some type of “reading” of words he saw on the seer stone as was claimed by some of Smith’s scribes. Perhaps in the future the images of Smith actually using the plates in front of him to translate will seize and the more historically accurate view presented by McGee, Bushman, and Palmer will be used.

Probably nearly every LDS member you will talk to believes that the translation of the Book of Mormon was an actual “translation” with the plates in front of him rather than a reading of words off of a seer stone placed in a hat with no plates in sight. Thus this podcast is an excellent contribution to clearing up a common misconception among the layperson in the church.

Regarding why the Bretheren don’t immediately clear up the misconception that was discussed in this podcast, what I think is that while showing Smith with a hat would perhaps be too goofy as John suggested in the podcast, what they could do is simply stop publishing pictures of Smith actually translating with the plates in front of him. They could simply have no artistic representations from here on out, except a few quotes here and there that sound more like how Russell M. Nelson describes it in, “A Treasured Testament,” in the Ensign, July 1993, 61.