As many of you know, for the past few years documentarian Helen Whitney (Emmy Award, Peabody Award, Oscar nomination, the Humanitas Award, and the prestigious duPont-Columbia Journalism Award) has been working on a documentary for PBS Frontline on the LDS Church/Mormonism. I first met Helen at last year’s Sunstone Salt Lake symposium, where I saw her interviewing Grant Palmer for the documentary, among many other “Sunstoneites.”
Well, for the past year, the perception on anti-Mormon boards (and even FAIR) has been that the upcoming documentary was going to be a “hatchet job” on Mormonism.
Today, while listening to a recent interview w/ musician and anti-Mormon Tal Bachman (around time code 37:50), Tal revealed that he has the opposite impression about the documentary–that Helen Whitney is actually very, very pro-LDS church. This is based on his own dinner w/ Ms. Whitney, and his participation in the documentary process.
Anyway, this segment of the interview is interesting, for those interested. It definitely was a surprise to me.
Personally, I hope the documentary is fair, and respectful–and honest. Though I must admit (form personal experience) that this is a hard balance to strike. 
CraigBa!: “We can chase this tail all day, can’t we, Professor Peterson?”
Yes, we can. If you will avoid giving false impressions about my position, it will help.
Incidentally, I find Elder Maxwell’s observation entirely plausible. I know people just like the ones he mentions.
(Please note that I did not say that all lapsed Mormons left because of behavioral problems. But I’ve known more than a few who did.)
Fine. I will remove your name from the list with Neal A Maxwell and Guy Murray (perhaps he’s channeling Elder Neal from the grave) and replace it with Proffesor Louis “dark side” Midgley.
Neither Elder Maxwell nor Professor Midgley nor, so far as I can tell, Guy Murray says that ex-Mormons have no right voice their opinions.
You’re misrepresenting them.
I’m quoting them.
The quotes don’t deny that ex-Mormons have rights to opinions.
They don’t deny that elephants have toes, either.
That’s an extraordinarily weak comeback.
The fact is that, for example, the quotation that you cite as demonstrating that Elder Maxwell denied that ex-Mormons have a right to hold their opinions says nothing of the kind.
yo john dehlin,
so i sent my hot wife over here to check out the comments. you see, its not enough that she has to live with me but we also got some of those little boy people in the house. and they are so cute and fun but i worry that my wife doesnt get enought bathroom humor in her humor diet. anyways, i wanted her to see that i put some of that sort of dialogue in my dialogue about diaologue with midgley et all.
and guess what, she was invited to meet with helen whitney too. i had no idea. this was back when she was still a churchin’, but clearly struggling with some of the dialogue, so she turned down that big chance to par tiss ip ate. shame. she would have been an awesome addition to helens work.
i really hate to stand up and defend guy murray. i know he is probably as rotten an SOB as dan and midgley. but, i should defend him here. he did bring up a conversation i had elsewhere with him and got slammed for it. i realized last night that i had done the same thing to blake ostler, who isnt even on this thread. so, free lagoon passes to blake and guy.
thanks for watching my back here craigba.
where is blake by the way? he would have been a cute addition to this thread, donchya think?
CraigBa!
I didn’t say it was private. What I said was that you shouldn’t pretend to know what it was we discussed (at least without having read it). It was actually a fairly civil and respectful discussion. It was not, as you imply, one where I somehow espoused the notion that ex-mormons, anti-mormons, or anyone else for that matter, do not have a right to voice their opinions. Nor have I said that on this thread or any other thread, or anywhere at anytime. If you have some evidence to the contrary–please produce it.
For the record, I’m honored to be mentioned in the same breath with individuals such as Elder Neal A. Maxwell, and Bro. Midgley (I’d say the same about Bro. Peterson as well–but you took him off the list). That said–I must confess I’m not anywhere near their league though. You do them all a disservice by lumping them in with the likes of me.
But, since you brought it up, let’s look exactly at Elder Maxwell said:
Well, from personal experience I can tell you Elder Maxwell was spot on! Like you (though probably not for the same professed reasons) I too left the Church. I left for the better part of a decade. As I look back on it–there were a myriad of reasons I gave (some perhaps similar to yours); but, bottom line is that I left because of behavorial lapses in my own life. I have no idea why you left–I can only speak for myself–and I will admit it was a direct result of my own behavior. Fortunately after a decade plus of spiritual wandering I returned to the pure and simple Gospel of Jesus Christ.
From one of your comments above:
Mormons are badgered by their leaders repeatedly to share their testimonies and spread the faith and go on missions (or, alternately, only to marry returned missionaries) . . .
At least the ex-Mormon isn’t doing it because someone’s badgering him to, or because his parents or wife expects him to, or because he fears his whole world would come crashing down around him if he didn’t, or because he’s told he’ll spend eternity as a eunuch managing Brother Jepson’s harem if he doesn’t, or because he hopes to get a little post-temple nookie.
I have been a mormon for much longer than you ever were. It was and is my experience that I was not, and am not repeatedly “badgered” by my leaders to:
1. Share my testimony,
2. Spread the faith,
3. Go on missions
My belief system and my faith is my own, not because as you suggest:
1. My parents or anyone else expects it,
2. I fear the whole world will come crashing down,
3. I fear I will spend eternity as a “eunuch”, guarding a harem,
4. I hope to get a bit of post-temple nookie.
These are exactly the types of comments I had in mind when I said “people like you” belittle, or distort or outright lie about “my” beliefs and/or the Church.
If you now want to retract them, fine–but let’s not pretend you didn’t say them, and that you did so in an effort to belittle, mislead, and/or distort. The same applies to the “truths” you listed. I consider them all to be either distortions, half truths, or statements meant to deceive and/or belittle beliefs of the Saints.
You and I, however, are never going to agree on these subjects. I have never said you couldn’t hold and express any opinions you have about the Church, or the Prophet Joseph, or anyone else. Leaving the Church and leaving it alone does not mean you can’t express opinions.
My whole point in discussing this previously with Mayan Elephant was to find out why he spent so much time and effort trying to destroy the faith of others who chose to believe. When I left the Church I did leave it alone. I couldn’t care less what they did or said–so I was and remain puzzled by those who go out of their way to continue to belittle and deride the Church of which they were formerly members.
Well, I’ve droned on long enough. And, quite frankly I’m not sure how much these types of discussions accomplish. I am going to continue to believe what I believe. I’m certain you are going to continue to believe what you believe. I guess I still don’t understand why some ex-mormons or anti-mormons feel it their duty to “save” people like me from my own misguided belief and faith system.
D&C 122:1-2
Mayan:
I know you mean this sincerely as a term of endearment as it were. Thanks for the defense!
p.s. you do have me pegged though!
ME–What does your wife do/know that would put her in contact w/ Helen? (I understand if it’s confidential, but I had to ask).
I’ve read through all the comments on this post and wish to put in my two cents. Here is what I will not be saying:
• I will not be arguing that the church covers up (hides information that can’t be read anywhere) that Joseph Smith used a seer stone.
• I won’t be ignoring the fact that Latter-day Saints can and do have access to many controversial church subjects; by simply reading FARMS or FAIR, they can learn almost everything one might read by the Tanners. As a former Mormon (Post-Mormon) this is actually what solidified my own resignation as Mormon apologists confirmed a lot of what the critics were saying.
Here is the gist of what I am saying:
• The church is voluntarily misleading people about how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon like false advertising.
• I side with John Dehlin who suggests that the church should offer “full disclosure” about things like Smith’s use of the rock in a hat act.
• I don’t believe the church will offer full disclosure, because leaders are embarrassed by such things like Joseph’s use of a rock in a hat.
Regarding this quote by Hinkley:
[quote] “As I have already mentioned, from the beginning of this work there has been opposition. There have been apostates. There have been scholars, some with balance and others with an axe to grind, who have raked over every bit of evidence available concerning Joseph Smith, the prophet of this dispensation. I plead with you, do not let yourselves be numbered among the critics, among the dissidents, among the apostates. That does not mean that you cannot read widely. As a Church, we encourage gospel scholarship and the search to understand all truth. Fundamental to our theology is belief in individual freedom of inquiry, thought, and expression. Constructive discussion is a privilege of every Latter-day Saint.” … Source: Comment by Mike Parker — July 27, 2006 # http://mormonstories.org/?p=130#comment-23943#comment-23943 [/quote]
What a great quote, but is it compatible with the September Six and/or Grant Palmer’s disfellowship?
John Dehlin nails it on the head when he wrote:
[quote]I’m not sure how to wade through all this, but I’ll approach it this way:
It seems to me that it is ethical, and maybe even in the Church’s long term best interest to proactively ensure that every member of the church, and every investigator, knows at least the following about its history:
–Joseph Smith had 33 wives, some of them being married to other men’s wives
–Joseph Smith publicly denied that he was practicing polygamy, and this fact, along w/ the destruction of the printing press, were important factors in his martyrom.
–The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were not “translated” in the traditional sense of the word, but instead were “inspired” works. The BOM plates were likely not used in the BOM that we have today.
–Black men were ordained to the LDS priesthood early on, but then were denied it for over 100 years, and some unfortunately racist statements were made by past prophets/apostles in this regard that are not to be considered church doctrine in any way
–etc. etc.
If the church were to take the responsibility to proactively make sure that people learned this stuff growing up, or when they were investigating the church, then we would not have the shock and awe that many experience today.
We talk so much about our history in church publications, talks, etc. Full and proactive disclosure of these basic facts (reminded regularly) would certainly solve this problem, no?
It might introduce other problems, but at least everyone would be in the loop. Today, I can promise you that over 1/2 of the church is out of the loop on these basic facts, and it is becoming a problem for many. You can say that this isn’t the church’s responsibility, but I would disagree with you.
I believe that it is the open, honest, and responsible thing to do. We don’t have to dwell on these issues, but people should at least be made aware of them proactively.
Comment by John Dehlin — July 27, 2006 #[/quote]
Awesome John! The church needs more people like you John Dehlin, who are willing to tell the truth and offer “full disclosure.” But in reality. I don’t believe the LDS church will do that for the same reason that Scientology won’t come right out and tell you about Xenu or body thetans. If the church offered full-disclosure like a real-estate agent disclosing that the basement of the house has termites who would join? The agent is trying to sell a product so they might fail to mention the termites until after the sale. The church does the same thing. Can you imagine a missionary standing before two investigators saying, “I, Elder Utah, know that Joseph dictated the BoM by staring at a rock.” Close your eyes and imagine every congregation in every LDS chapel full of people who think and feel like Grant Palmer or John Dehlin. Now I respect and support you John (and Grant) but what would come of Mormonism? What would happen to Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, would there even be a D&C 1:30 or 132 in the cannon anymore? What would separate the LDS church from the United Church of Christ for example? This is why I’m a post Mormon and why I think the LDS church will never offer full-disclosure.
Side note: for those who are interested in how Louis Midgley personally attacks Grant Palmer rather than deal with the facts in Palmer’s book, see my essay here http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/Palmer.doc
Back to the issue of full disclosure with the rock in the hat act. The real issue is:
[quote]… I wouldn’t have known about it had I not read about it in non-church publications like FARMS and Dialogue. The church leads all of us to believe that the plates were sitting in front of Joseph Smith on a table, and that he looked at them with spectacles attached to a breastplate. Or that he tranlated by staring at the plates with no spectacles at all. When “slothful” folks like us find out that the plates weren’t even used in the translation process, and that all of the action really happened in a hat, it can be a little disconcerting. http://mormonstories.org/?p=130#comment-24261/quote
Amen to that comment. The bottom line is that two or three references to the seer stone in a hat in the Ensign and Improvement Era (obscure references you have to dig to find) does not make up for the LDS church’s official image campaign to portray Smith actually translating gold pates in front of him (see http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1293-1,00.html). This image is untrue and church leaders know it for they admit it in at least one article in the Ensign (mentioned in this thread), so why the false advertising? Why aren’t LDS apologists protesting this image above if they know it’s untrue? Here’s an honesty test: how long will this link portray a lie (or mislead, or sugarcoat it, or whatever you want to call it)? Will LDS apologists contact the church and set the record straight rather than give the lame excuse that its all the artist’s fault for not knowing their history?
The apologists in this thread of comments blame the exmormon and call them ignorant and slothful when most Mormons, who have spent years in the church don’t know about the rock in the hat act. In his wonderful video presentation at http://www.mormonstories.org/whytheyleave/ John Dehlin points this out in clip #9, and clip 21 & 22. Dehlin contrasts what Mormons are taught growing up versus the historical truth. Can you imagine what would happen if the church broadcasted John Dehlin’s honest and compassionate video at general conference? Can you imagine what bridges it would build between couples about to divorce because of Mormonism, how it would help families that are broken up, and create compassion for those who are depressed because they are shunned by the Mormon community for free thinking? But will that happen? No way, not with Mormon apologists who refuse to hold their church accountable for misleading people by showing things like Smith with gold plates in front of him, and instead blame the inactive and exmormon as slothful and ignorant.
This comment by Peterson tells all:
[quote]
“Apostate Mormons make their mistake in blaming the Church, when they do it, for their ignorance and sloth. They create a massive conspiracy to keep the information from them, when it is actually widely and publicly available in a large number of different venues. The issue looms large among some critics, but I don’t think it agitates much of the general Church membership or leadership. So now, I don’t think the Church is likely, any time soon, to address it or “correct the misconception.” Comment by Daniel Peterson — July 31, 2006 # http://mormonstories.org/?p=130#comment-24264. [/quote]
Peterson completely ignores the issue and the point (that he must know) that Dehlin brings up in his video presentation. Ask ten members at any LDS ward if they know about the peepstone in a hat Mr. Peterson. Are you saying that they are slothful and ignorant? What about you, are you willing to “correct the misconception” even though you admit “the Church is [not] likely, any time soon, to address it…”? How long will this link – http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1293-1,00.html – portray a misleading and false image?
Side Note: this isn’t the only false image promoted by the church. The First Vision picture of two physical gods (or heavenly personages in physical form) is inaccurate as well. See my essay at http://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/godhead.html.
There’s no need for the apologist to say look up these obscure references in LDS sources where it mentions the seer stone, when the church advertising campaign is misleading. Why argue? Just go into any Mormon ward and ask ten Mormons if they knew smith dictated the BoM by putting a rock in a hat when the plates were nowhere in sight, and see what they say. LDS references to the seer stone is hardly mentioned except a few times, and the “hat” is hardly ever mentioned (see http://mormonstories.org/?p=130#comment-24290) compared to the false image displayed in thousands and thousands of official LDS publications of Joseph not using a rock or a hat. Where are the official LDS sources of Smith using a seer stone in money digging to swindle people out of their money, and the 1826 glass looker trial in official LDS sources? Where are these facts presented honestly in a historical article in the Ensign? Yes I know money digging is mentioned in Joseph Smith’s history, but it does not cover the 1826 trial or how he swindled people out of their money.
Lets just be honest, the true history embarrasses the church and the apologists for that matter. Honestly, imagine two missionaries with the flip chart flipping to Smith with a rock in a hat. Who would want that kind of honesty? The fact is that if they showed images of the truth, of Joseph sitting with a Bible on the table for reference, the plates no where in sight, and his head buried in a hat staring at a rock what would that do for the church? Just look at how embarrassed Mormon leaders are about the South Park episode.
When I read about “the interpreters” growing up in the church I imagined a pair of glasses since the official images were of Joseph hunched over gold plates. I challenge the LDS apologist to walk into any ward and ask ten people how Smith translated the BoM, and if they are honest the apologist will admit that more than 90% of Mormons know nothing about a seer stone and think the Urum and Thummin or interpreters were like supernatural reading glasses to help him lean over and translated the plates literally.
Some talk in this thread covered the witnesses. Palmer thoroughly debunks the witnesses as reliable in his book, but really why discuss it? As Al Case asks at lds-mormon.com in the BoM questions section, “Why would many of them [the witnesses] become Strangites? If Utah Mormons believe the witnesses’ testimonies of Joseph Smith’s claims shouldn’t they also believe the testimonies of James Jesse Strang’s very similar claims? (same for William E. McLellin’s movement)?” Why would a deity want us to believe hearsay when we could have evidence of the plates? If you say the Mormon gods didn’t want to give us evidence then why does my 1963 BoM, in the introduction, show a picture of gold tablets found in Persia in 1961 in an attempt to provide evidence of at least the existence of gold plates when all the angel had to was say “well, look. We up there have been doing a lot of thinking. We know in the future DNA evidence will come out and change things a bit. We know the witnesses aren’t reliable. Heck David Whitmer is gonna tell everyone God told him to leave the Mormon Church in his little pamphlet. So ya know what. Keep the plates. Bury them again and later a guy named Gordon Hinkley can dig them up and provide some real evidence so that we can save the souls of future exmormons.” Never mind whether or not the witnesses are liable, when its only hearsay and they believed in James Strang’s claims, and we could have the plates to examine ourselves if it were all true!
I conclude with these two excellent quotes from comments in the thread:
[quote]“the big deal about the manual? you ask? well for one, lots of folks dont get much more info than that (due to their own slothfulness of course). in many units the teachers are not actually teachers, rather they are moms, milkmen, cops, doctors, laborers, factory workers, social workers, sex workers (ok, that last one is less common but you get my point.) so, these busy folks and unhistorianed folks rely on the manual to create a lesson. for you, there are other resources, not so for everyone…and more, people trust the manuals as part of the modern revelation schtick. you may not. but some folks do. my mother prepared a lesson recently that i read. the whole thing was from the manual, ensign and scriptures. because, that is what is suggested to her as a gd teacher… we are talking about folks thinking there was a breastplate thing, and finding out it was a hat. in this ONE case. http://mormonstories.org/?p=130#comment-24326 [/quote]
[quote]“The real heart of the matter for me is that the peepstone, or seerstone, that Joseph used to translate the BoM is the same stone he used in his mystical money digging ventures of which none were ever successful.” http://mormonstories.org/?p=130#comment-24171 [/quote]
And with that excellent comment, I concur and conclude with, that is in fact the real heart of the matter.
Can you put my comment quotes in actual quotes and tell me how to do that?
Looks like the tags might be:
‘< blockquote' cite="the quote goes here">
< 'blockquote'>
without any of the apostrophies
As usual, Lou Midgely can’t criticize Tal Bachman without attacking him personally. He did the same thing to Grant Palmer. He did the same thing to John Dehlin. And he did the same thing to me.
He even attacks those who are surprised by seer stones (including the ultra-nuanced view of seerstones advanced by Lou). The surprised are those who “through their own sloth and indifference set themselves up for surprise.”
Two main thrusts are essential to any apologetic argument of Lou Midgely (and many other apologists).
The first is personal attack–real, below the belt, personal attacks–like ridiculing their career success or their career choices in the case of Tal Bachman. I think that this thread is the first time that I’ve even heard of Tal Bachman, so I’ve got no loyalty or even any interest in him. But I don’t care if he waits tables, sings music, or fixes cars: Whether he’s recognized for what he does in his career has nothing to do with anything he has to say about Mormonism, and going after it is a despicable thing. He did the same thing to John Hatch, disparaging his career achievements at Signature. This really enrages me, and it should be a sign to all decent people that they should ignore what Lou writes when it includes these kinds of attacks.
The second is the blame-the-victim mentality. If someone decides that empirical evidence against the church outweighs the spiritual evidence, it’s because their faithless or too lazy for Lou’s intellectual gymnastics.
Anyone who is mystified at why people find this behavior to be distasteful is simply out of touch. Dan, is this the kind of behavior that you wish to defend?
I’m afraid that it will be a while before I respond to Mr. Kempton’s dissertation. My son enters the MTC tomorrow, and I will be busy with the FAIR conference all day Thursday and Friday.
In the meantime, I need to throw some remarks together for my FAIR presentation on Friday afternoon.
DKL: I don’t think Professor Midgley’s remarks about Tal Bachman’s rock-musical career represent all that serious an issue. Other subjects seem to me much more important, and much worthier of discussion.
Dan, that’s where you and I differ. I see that as part and parcel of the problem. The continual, concerted effort to put the opponent in as bad a light as possible makes it seem impossible to have a reasonable conversation with an apologist. It’s also what makes people portray them as monsters.
I don’t think it’s reasonable of you (on the one hand) to express confusion over why people think of prominent apologists in a bad light, and (on the other hand) to say that you don’t think it’s a big deal when they continually make pot shots at their opponent with an aim to belittle and humiliate.
And there’s always something more important to discuss than the matter at hand. Unless you have something specific in mind that this is mutually exclusive to the discussion of this topic, it’s a piss-poor excuse for not discussing it.
dan, as much as I dislike some of your views and those of your fellow FARMSers, I hope your son has a blast. and, if Elder Peterson knocks on my door I promise to say “gosh” and “darn” and I will turn off Johnny Cash. though, I don’t have any mission approved janice kapp perry stuff. all the best to the petersons.
the rest of y’all. shhhhhhhhh. I’m secretly hoping that if I am nice that the holy ghost will make dan think exactly like me, or exactly like equality, which is close enough.
Feel free, DKL — I know you will — to devote pages and pages to Professor Midgley’s line or two referring to Tal Bachman’s career as a rock musician.
Your personal interests don’t bother me. They don’t have to be mine, though.
rfm is run by the most disingenuous & fashist and cliquish people that I know of. I’m an exmo and never seen people trated so un-democratically anywhere. Susan IS, Cricket may claim of this nice facade of freedom and liberalism but the fact is they do make look Dunamis and his/her cohorts in FAIR the fairest moderators.
They do absolutely not allow and dissenting point.
When you complain about it, they simply say; “if you don’t like it go somwhere else”.
I like Tal’s post very much, but the vulgarity permitted there is uncomparable to any dissenting voice.
Dan has a point, quoting Tal’s obnoxious paragraphs. rfm would never allow him for any rebuttal, they like monologs and rants.
Any meaningful dicussion between opposing views are impossible there.
Dan, I’m glad that you’ve stopped hiding behind the pretense that there’s something objectively unimportant about it, and you’re finally willing to admit that you simply have no interest in discussing the immorality of your actions or Lou’s actions. (My original question was whether you really wish to defend this behavior. As usual, you just don’t answer the question–bizarre.)
I’ll keep Lou’s comment in mind (and your refusal to condemn it) as yet another example of the despicable behavior of apologists. You should be ashamed. That kind of character assassination of the unfaithful contributes to the impression that Mormonism is a cult.
I want to make it clear that I condemn you and Lou. You’re different from me, and I feel the need to apologize to others for the fact that you and I seem to represent the same religious outlook.
trying to look like Bruce who-ever-it-was in the 70s
Oh. My. Goodness.
Mr.? Dr.? Midgely, whatever I may have thought about you before, I now fear that you are beyond redemption. It’s SPRINGSTEEN. BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN. And you can’t expect to recognize celestial glory until you’ve listened to “The Promised Land,” cranked up all the way to eleven…
Blow away the dreams that break your heart
Blow away the dreams that tear you apart
Blow away the lies that leave you nothing but lost and broken hearted.
It’s on “Darkness on the Edge of Town.” Go listen. And then repent, for misuse of The Name and for the heresy of comparing Tal Bachman (lightweight) to Bruce.
I’ll pray for your soul.
Ann,
11? Awesome. i am truly really laughing out loud.
DKL: “I want to make it clear that I condemn you and Lou.”
Whatever. For my part, I don’t really think much about you
Your hyperventilation about our supposedly “shameful” and “bizarre” “character assassination,” “immorality,” and “despicable behavior” strikes me as comically overdramatic. But, if it floats your boat, you’re welcome to it.
DKL: “You’re different from me.”
Thank you. And I say Vive la différence!
MEleph: “dan, as much as I dislike some of your views and those of your fellow FARMSers, I hope your son has a blast. and, if Elder Peterson knocks on my door I promise to say “gosh” and “darn” and I will turn off Johnny Cash. though, I don’t have any mission approved janice kapp perry stuff. all the best to the petersons.”
Thanks, MEleph. If you live in the vicinity of Nagoya, Japan, there’s a chance he could drop by.
In the meantime, keep playing Johnny Cash.
hey dan, did you teach him to say seerstone and hat in japanese?
(it is ok to joke about that, right?)
I don’t really recall when I first heard about seerstones. I was probably too old to have read about it in the Friend in 1974, but it is quite likely that I would have read the article from the New Era the same year. It’s also possible I could have heard about seerstones in Sunday School, Seminary, or BYU religion classes. There is no doubt that I would have read about them in Sunstone, Dialogue, a whole variety of church history books, and even _Mormon Doctrine_. I had often heard that a seer is a person who has the right to use a seerstone.
I knew (from McConkie if no one else) that Joseph’s seerstone was present on the altar at the dedication of the Manti Temple and that it was still in posession of the church. It seems that nearly every time the subject arises, that the seerstone is mentioned as one of the important contents of the famed First Presidency Vault.
I remember as a teenager in the ’70s thinking that as a seer, President Kimball had the right to use the seerstone, but that (being in a vault) it was probably seldom if ever used. My impression of seerstones has always been that of a noble and venerable instrument.* The idea of a seerstone as an embarrasment is completely foreign to me.
Common usage equates the stones of the U&T with seerstones and the terms are often used interchangably. I guess at some point I did become aware that despite the confusion of terminology, the “seerstone” used in translating the Book of Mormon was different from the U&T. Sometimes he used one; sometimes he used the other. It’s an interesting historical note, but to me the distinction is hardly something relevant to my faith. I never felt that I’d been misled, perhaps because I’d always heard about seerstones from church-friendly sources. Nobody ever told me it was supposed to be an embarrasment. If the church was supressing the information, they did a really bad job for me, what with it being in the correlated magazines and all.
The hat was also never a problem for me, though I don’t remember reading about it until I was older. I guess I just thought it was a useful way to exclude light, like an old photographer’s focusing cloth. If it were me, I might have just drawn the blinds, but then perhaps it would have been difficult for the scribe to see. He could have tossed a blanket over his head, but that might be hot and make dictating difficult. A hat seems to me like the ideal solution if you want to exclude light. To me, it’s a mildly interesting historical detail. There’s probably thousands of historical details I’ve never heard. When I learn something I’ve never heard before, tend to feel enlightend, rather than finding someone to be angry with for not having already told me.
In the Ensign, Brother Nelson calls the hat story a “precious insight”, so I don’t see any evidence that the GAs are either embarrased by the hat, or have done anything to supress the story. Neal Maxwell mentioned the hat in passing and didn’t seem too disturbed about it. Last year I went to a High Priests social where an institute instructor made reference to the hat. Nobody batted an eye. Another explanation for why the hat doesn’t come up more than it does is simply that some people REALLY don’t think it’s that big of a deal.
It seems to me that how people respond to seerstones and hats is more a matter of spin than substance. If you were exposed to the idea as I was from church-friendly sources, you’re probably unlikely to see it as a problem. If your information came to you with the opposite spin, you’re probably going to see things differently. We all seem to agree on the basic facts; we’re just arguing over the spin. This discussion has reached >200 comments because everyone is baffled as to how anyone can see the facts with any spin other than what we think is the obvious one.
=======
*”Peepstone,” on the other hand has an entirely different connotation, which is perhaps why some prefer that term. According to Bushman, the same connotations were current in Joseph’s time which would explain why Joseph and church sources since then have consistently called it a seerstone. I confess to being puzzled as to why even some defenders of the prophet have recently adopted the critics’ use of “peepstone.” The terms are no more interchangable in their connotation than “prophet” is with “soothsayer”.
Daniel Peterson: Whatever. For my part, I don’t really think much about you
Fhew! That’s a relief.
OK. I’m going to post re-quote my original comments below. None of them lie, distort, or belittle your beliefs. None. Now, if they don’t express them in exactly the right words that *you* would prefer, well bummer. But that’s not a lie. Or a distortion. Or belittlement. Sorry to break your heart. If instead of simply calling them lies you would actually like to challenge the accuracy of anything I said, well have at.
Having been gone the last several days (spent some time with my kids at Cedar Point – for those of you familiar with that location), I wanted to add a few more comments going way back.
Back on July 28th, Lunar Quaker wrote:
“This is what I find the most troubling about your views, Ben. Feeling that the church should be honest with its membership is not an unreasonable expectation. We’re not asking for perfection in fallible human beings, we’re just asking for honesty. Your comparison to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny is untenable because we’re not talking about fairy tales that an adult tells a child in order to perpetuate a harmless tradition. We’re talking about worldview-shaping philosophies that significantly affect how a person lives his or her life.”
You know, my experience is that encounters with the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Clause and so on significantly affect children’s world view. But they move on (most of the time). If I had to make a singular observation, it would be that a greater problem exists with perceptions of authority. But in this case, do you realize how silly it sounds to some of us (well at least to me) to blame your Primary teacher for the shortcomings in your religious education?
With a nod to Mayan Elephant, here is why the comment is relevant. We are told a lot of things as children. We are told a lot of things as adults. At some point, we (as individuals) have to make a choice as to what is trustworthy reliable evidence.
What are the qualifications of being a Primary Teacher? Does the interview include questions about a knowledge of church history? Is the purpose of Primary classes to teach history? And yet, for Lunar Quaker, there is something dishonest in what most (if not all) primary teachers do in their callings. I don’t know if I accept this presentation. It seems to me to be an easy way of placing blame.
The only difference between Santa Clause and the peep stone is one of significance. That is, it is because an individual places far more significance on a specific belief set about events which occured that it becomes different. It isn’t about being taught something incorrect as a child. It isn’t about being taught something incorrect from an authority figure. To say that there is no similarity isn’t the case. And it is because of the individual’s response that it somehow becomes other than “harmless” to talk about the history of the church in this fashion.
“They are presented as literal facts, and they are enforced by punishment. The church asks people to sacrifice their lives in defending the kingdom of God. There is a lot at stake.”
But you are the one who is equating the teachings of a primary instructor (and lets be quite frank here, most of us reading and participating in these comments are quite aware of how primary teachers are selected) with the kingdom of God. Does prayer and personal confirmation not matter anymore, now that the primary teacher has said it? Or the Gospel Doctrine instructor? Or the Bishop? Or the Stake President? Or the Prophet? What level of control do you think the church should exert?
“When a little boy becomes an adult and stops believing in Santa Claus, it’s not like his worldview falls apart. The enlightened adult man doesn’t have to deal with a believing wife that cries herself to sleep because her husband doesn’t think that Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, and Vixen really leave hoof marks on his rooftop. He doesn’t have to risk being ostracized by his own family because he thinks that the only organisms that live at the North Pole are radiation-resistant microbes.”
All of this is true. But, at the same time, I didn’t experience any of this as my beliefs about Mormonism developed. None of it. So you cannot claim that this is the natural conclusion of the changing of the worldview. Further, my experience of the church (which is mostly of the church outside of Utah) is that most of the views which you might feel are less traditional are far more prevalent in the church than you probably think. And they also didn’t go through this horrible experience as their world views changed.
Ben
Wow, Ben. Great quote. Where’d you get that?
Actually that *did* happen, in the sequel “Tom Trails: Electric Boogaloo.” Unfortunately, the original Tom was killed early in the season in a tragic accident at the offices of Evergreen International. He was replaced by actor Mike Lookinland.
From Ben: “All of this is true. But, at the same time, I didn’t experience any of this as my beliefs about Mormonism developed. None of it. So you cannot claim that this is the natural conclusion of the changing of the worldview. Further, my experience of the church (which is mostly of the church outside of Utah) is that most of the views which you might feel are less traditional are far more prevalent in the church than you probably think. And they also didn’t go through this horrible experience as their world views changed.”
you and blake ostler alike. its interesting how little sympathy you show for the people that had that experience that lunar described, that are having it now, and will have it in the future.
do you really think that lunar quaker just pulled that out of his monkey vault? i dont. whether that was my experience or not, i trust that he is describing something real and meaningful and that its worth discussing why others feel the same.
A few more comments (shorter) from a range of posters.
Enochville wrote:
“So, this is why it is a big deal that Joseph used a magic peep stone rather than the urim and thummim. The Spirit lied to everyone of us who believed the Spirit testified Joseph used the urim and thummim.”
And of course, such a distinction can only be made once a person has decided that the witness of the spirit wasn’t right to begin with. Actually, people don’t usually ask specifically about the seer stones in my experience. Did you pray if the Book of Mormon was true? Or did you pray to find out if Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thumim (specifically, the peep stone which was referred to as the Urim and Thumim) to translate the gold plates?
Mayan Elephant wrote:
“Mayan Elephant
and i declare a winner. it has come to my attention that there are 2 references to a hat. one in 1993, and one in 1977. both are the same quote and both found in the ensign.
other than that – zip, nada, rien, zilch.
so craigba. pay attention, at this pace, there could be another official mention of the hat in 2009.”
So this goes back to my question (which he answered already) about which scenario was more absurd. It is more absurd with or without the hat? This of course bears on the rather simplistic notion later on in the comments (which I’ll get to momentarily I think) that somehow the church isn’t embarassed at all about the angel and the magic spectacles but is embarassed somehow about the hat and the peepstone.
Out of curiousity, how many here accept the old story about the Washoe seeress discovering the Comstock lode using a peep stone? It was believed by many otherwise rational people at the time …
Mayan Elephant also noted:
“again. i dont think there is a conspiracy. i also dont think there were urimmums, admittedly. but i darn sure dont think its reasonable to expect someone to go the elder tom petty art collection and the journals of mormon spin to get the facts. unless of course, the head of the one true church is just goofin on people. in which case, it all makes perfect sense.”
I think though that something else needs to be said. We live in an era of information overload (in some ways). We have so much at our fingertips that we are redefining basic terms related to knowledge. Knowledge isn’t really any longer what is stored in memory in our brains, but what we have ready access to. Knowledge is what can be reduced to data streams. Everything else is merely noise. A hundred years ago, even 50 years ago, if you wanted information you had to go to the written sources, to the Journal of Discourses, to the church magazines. These were not as trivial then as they are now. Nor did we view history or even “facts” in the same way we do now. How long has it been since we have had manuals of the sort we use today? I have an old approved priesthood manual from 1957. It’s called An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley. Certainly it is nothing like the Priesthood manuals of today.
As a final note, since something was said about it earlier – Palmer does discuss the idea of the “eyes of faith” (and a number of related terms). What Palmer does here is typical of certain other aspects of New Mormon History. He defines a specific group (not by membership, but by certain nebulous qualities). In this case it is a group who share a common magical world view. He then redefines their language, describing it as having a technical meaning. In this case, he gives the idea that these phrases refer specifically to something immaterial, a visionary (but not physically real) experience – “second sight” as he calls it. These same phrases occur regularly outside of this community of people who share a common magical world view. And the language is used consistently, and essentially in a way which is exclusive of the conclusions of Grant Palmer. I know this because I have looked at a huge amount of early 19th century literature (both my own extensive personal collection – which goes back to the mid 18th century in terms of religious literature) and the millions of pages of digitizes on-line searchable texts. In order to arrive at his conclusion, he has to claim that this community (which is intuited more than identified methodologically) has a special technical meaning for the terms they use – which they themselves do not define, but which Palmer intuits for us. And then this becomes the basis for his claims that it was never a physical experience. There is no real reason to accept his notion of this technical meaning in circulation among this culture within a culture, and so there is no reason to accept his idea that something viewed with an eye of faith should be understood as an experience of second sight, instead of understood in the more traditional meaning (based on Biblical usage) in use in the larger community of early 19th century American culture.
Ben
Ben wrote:
“You know, my experience is that encounters with the Tooth
Fairy, and Santa Clause and so on significantly affect
children’s world view. But they move on (most of the time).
If I had to make a singular observation, it would be that a
greater problem exists with perceptions of authority. But
in this case, do you realize how silly it sounds to some of
us (well at least to me) to blame your Primary teacher for
the shortcomings in your religious education?”
I don’t know any disaffected Mormons that blame their
Primary teachers for the church’s deceptions. That’s a
neat trick you’re trying to pull, there, Ben. What you’re
essentially doing is trying to make us heretics look silly
by underscoring this false notion that we’re a bunch of
whiney miscreants that blame all of our problems on Mommy,
Daddy, and Sister Valiant B. Teacher.
Ben, the bottom line is that the church consciously and
intentionally teaches a mythological/folklorical version of
its founding history, and then asks people to accept it as
literal or risk being labelled as a heretic. It’s like
asking someone to believe that George Washington really
chopped down a cherry tree, or else risk losing your U.S.
citizenship. Or a historical science foundation that
requires its members to sign a statement saying that Sir
Isaac Newton really came up with his gravitational epiphany
from an apple bonking him on the head.
It’s unfair and unethical to intentionally teach myths to
people and ask them to believe them literally or else be
labelled a heretic. The church might not formally punish
such heretics, but they succeed in many cases at making
their lives a living hell by fostering an environment of
intolerance among the Mormon rank-and-file.
“What are the qualifications of being a Primary Teacher?
Does the interview include questions about a knowledge of
church history? Is the purpose of Primary classes to teach
history? And yet, for Lunar Quaker, there is something
dishonest in what most (if not all) primary teachers do in
their callings. I don’t know if I accept this presentation.
It seems to me to be an easy way of placing blame.”
Ben, it’s not the Primary teacher that’s to blame for
teaching myths. Besides, even if the Primary teacher knows
the truth, they won’t teach it. If the kiddoes go home and
tell Mommy and Daddy that Sister Valiant B. Teacher told
them that Joseph put a peepstone in a hat to translate the
Book of Mormon, they would likely get complaints and be
released in a blink of an eye. There’s nothing in what I
wrote that even remotely suggests that Primary teachers,
Sunday School teachers, or seminary teachers are to blame.
They have to teach the correlated myths or risk
negative repurcussions. It should be obvious that it’s the
general church leadership that’s to blame.
“The only difference between Santa Clause and the peep stone is one of significance. That is, it is because an individual places far more significance on a specific belief set about events which occured that it becomes different. It isn’t about being taught something incorrect as a child. It isn’t about being taught something incorrect from an authority figure.”
I have no clue what you are trying to say here. If I am understanding you correctly, then you are saying that the feeling of being deceived by someone you trust is more significant than merely being deceived. That’s true.
“Does prayer and personal confirmation not matter anymore, now that the primary teacher has said it? Or the Gospel Doctrine instructor? Or the Bishop? Or the Stake President? Or the Prophet? What level of control do you think the church should exert?”
Let’s see, how would such a prayer go? Maybe something like this:
“Dear Heavenly Father, I am so grateful for the beautiful Spirit that I felt in my Sunday School lesson today. However, I just want to be sure that what my teacher told me is true. Could you please tell me if Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates using the Urim and Thummim? **pause and wait for personal revelation** Oh, wow, Heavenly Father, thanks for clearing that up! Now I know that there were really no plates involved at all! I’m so grateful for personal revelation. I felt the Spirit so strongly in my class today, I might have been duped into thinking that what the Sunday School teacher was saying was literally true! Thank you, Heavenly Father. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.”
“All of this is true. But, at the same time, I didn’t experience any of this as my beliefs about Mormonism developed. None of it. So you cannot claim that this is the natural conclusion of the changing of the worldview.”
Some people may not suffer any negative consequences for admitting to themselves that the church teaches myths. Especially if they keep it to themselves. In other cases, it can bring about intense suffering, especially when they get labelled a heretic if their new beliefs create rifts in their families. A little compassion on your part would go a long way to helping you understand what some people go through.
(posted again to correct fomatting)
Ben wrote:
“You know, my experience is that encounters with the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Clause and so on significantly affect children’s world view. But they move on (most of the time). If I had to make a singular observation, it would be that a greater problem exists with perceptions of authority. But in this case, do you realize how silly it sounds to some of us (well at least to me) to blame your Primary teacher for the shortcomings in your religious education?”
I don’t know any disaffected Mormons that blame their Primary teachers for the church’s deceptions. That’s a neat trick you’re trying to pull, there, Ben. What you’re essentially doing is trying to make us heretics look silly by underscoring this false notion that we’re a bunch of whiney miscreants that blame all of our problems on Mommy, Daddy, and Sister Valiant B. Teacher.
Ben, the bottom line is that the church consciously and intentionally teaches a mythological/folklorical version of its founding history, and then asks people to accept it as literal or risk being labelled as a heretic. It’s like asking someone to believe that George Washington really chopped down a cherry tree, or else risk losing your U.S. citizenship. Or a historical science foundation that requires its members to sign a statement saying that Sir Isaac Newton really came up with his gravitational epiphany from an apple bonking him on the head.
It’s unfair and unethical to intentionally teach myths to people and ask them to believe them literally or else be labelled a heretic. The church might not formally punish such heretics, but they succeed in many cases at making their lives a living hell by fostering an environment of intolerance among the Mormon rank-and-file.
“What are the qualifications of being a Primary Teacher? Does the interview include questions about a knowledge of church history? Is the purpose of Primary classes to teach history? And yet, for Lunar Quaker, there is something dishonest in what most (if not all) primary teachers do in their callings. I don’t know if I accept this presentation. It seems to me to be an easy way of placing blame.”
Ben, it’s not the Primary teacher that’s to blame for teaching myths. Besides, even if the Primary teacher knows the truth, they won’t teach it. If the kiddoes go home and tell Mommy and Daddy that Sister Valiant B. Teacher told them that Joseph put a peepstone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, they would likely get complaints and be released in a blink of an eye. There’s nothing in what I wrote that even remotely suggests that Primary teachers, Sunday School teachers, or seminary teachers are to blame. They have to teach the correlated myths or risk negative repurcussions. It should be obvious that it’s the general church leadership that’s to blame.
“The only difference between Santa Clause and the peep stone is one of significance. That is, it is because an individual places far more significance on a specific belief set about events which occured that it becomes different. It isn’t about being taught something incorrect as a child. It isn’t about being taught something incorrect from an authority figure.”
I have no clue what you are trying to say here. If I am understanding you correctly, then you are saying that the feeling of being deceived by someone you trust is more significant than merely being deceived. That’s true.
“Does prayer and personal confirmation not matter anymore, now that the primary teacher has said it? Or the Gospel Doctrine instructor? Or the Bishop? Or the Stake President? Or the Prophet? What level of control do you think the church should exert?”
Let’s see, how would such a prayer go? Maybe something like this:
“Dear Heavenly Father, I am so grateful for the beautiful Spirit that I felt in my Sunday School lesson today. However, I just want to be sure that what my teacher told me is true. Could you please tell me if Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates using the Urim and Thummim? **pause and wait for personal revelation** Oh, wow, Heavenly Father, thanks for clearing that up! Now I know that there were really no plates involved at all! I’m so grateful for personal revelation. I felt the Spirit so strongly in my class today, I might have been duped into thinking that what the Sunday School teacher was saying was literally true! Thank you, Heavenly Father. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.”
“All of this is true. But, at the same time, I didn’t experience any of this as my beliefs about Mormonism developed. None of it. So you cannot claim that this is the natural conclusion of the changing of the worldview.”
Some people may not suffer any negative consequences for admitting to themselves that the church teaches myths. Especially if they keep it to themselves. In other cases, it can bring about intense suffering, especially when they get labelled a heretic if their new beliefs create rifts in their families. A little compassion on your part would go a long way to helping you understand what some people go through.
“Wow, Ben. Great quote. Where’d you get that?”
Glad you like, it CraigBa.
Ben,
I don’t have the text in front of me but I thought there was more to it than just the use of the phrase “eye of faith.” I believe there are also references from witness accounts of seeing with their “spiritual eyes.” First, the apologists (not you, Ben, but others here) say that the critics have failed to address the issue of the BOM witnesses. Then, the critics point out that references to where critics have addressed the BOM witnesses. Now, you take one phrase used by Palmer as support for his assertion that the witnesses did not see the plates with their physical eyes and you say that Palmer is redefining common 19th-century usage. Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that critics have raised a number of issues with the witness testimonies, including:
1. The physical/spiritual eyes distinction
2. The question of who wrote the testimony of 3 and testimony of witnesses in the BoM
3. The realtionship of the witnesses to the Smith family
4. The credibility of the witnesses given other statements they made about other events they allegedly witnessed
5. The gullibility of some of the witnesses, some of whom followed James Stang and gave similar testimonies regarding the plates he found and translated
6. Discrepancies in descriptions of the plates offered by the witnesses
7. The selective use of witness statements (e.g., Mormons tout David Whitmer’s testimony of the BOM but not his later statements concerning Joseph Smith)
8. The motives (psychological, financial, and other) of some of the witnesses.
9. Etc.
And to your point about “second sight.” I wonder, do you take the statements using similar langauge from the witnesses concerning the Cumorah Cave as literally as you take their statements on the Book of Mormon? If not, why not? Why is it OK for apologists to “spiritualize” the words of witnesses to the cave under Cumorah but not for Palmer to do the same for the statements on the Book of Mormon? For more on that particular issue, see the excellent entry at Lunar Quaker’s blog
“see the excellent entry at Lunar Quaker’s blog”
http://lunarquaker.blogspot.com/2006/07/farms-geographical-mitosis-and.html
Left, I agree with you that the original source of where you hear about problematic materials may matter to many people. I also think when you learn about it matters a lot.
I’m a convert to the church, and I took the stories the missionaries told me at face value. “Translated” meant that God helped him convert the text from whatever language to English. I admit the Urim and Thummim thing puzzled me, but I kind of blew it off because I figured “translated” was straightforward enough.
When I learned, after about fifteen years of buying the black and white primary version of the story hook, line, and sinker that the reality didn’t quite line up, I felt like I had been duped. “Translated” happens all the time in real life. “Put a rock in a hat, stick your face in the hat, and read the characters that appear there” doesn’t. It’s magic.
I think you (and perhaps some of the apologists) don’t suffer some of the same losses that others of us experienced because you synthesized this information when you were young.
I set aside my own faith for something I thought was truer. It turned out that the truth I learned wasn’t anything like the truth. I probably wouldn’t have been inclined to join the church if I’d been told that Joseph read the text of the Book of Mormon from the characters that appeared to him on a rock in a hat.
“I probably wouldn’t have been inclined to join the church if I’d been told that Joseph read the text of the Book of Mormon from the characters that appeared to him on a rock in a hat.”
BINGO.
and that is why hatpeeping is not part of the missionary discussions. “Translated”, on the other hand, is part of the discussions.
and i am not screaming conspiracy here, just pointing out the usefulness of the various stories and chosen semantics.
On the literality of the experience of the Eight Witnesses, see Richard L. Anderson’s article entitled “Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses,” in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies:
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbmsvolume.php?volume=14&number=1
Professor Anderson is the author of, among other things, the classic Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. Anybody who intends to comment seriously on the subject of the Witnesses should be familiar with his work.
It seems to me that “translation” is the appropriate word for converting one language to another, regardless of whether you have the original written text in front of you. Doctrine and Covenants 7 can be appropriately termed a translation since John was obviously writing in a language other than English (“If English was good enough for the Apostle John, it’s good enough for me, by golly…”) The fact that Joseph didn’t have the parchment and was given the translation by revelation doesn’t make it any less a translation (acknowledging of course that not everyone will recognize the validity of the text, the parchment or the revelation). By the same token, Nephi and Mormon (assuming they existed) were not writing in English, so any English version of their writings would have to be a translation no matter how that translation was accomplished.
The translation of the Book of Mormon (whether involving hat or breastplate) although a translation, seems very different from what occurs every day. Joseph’s translation was “by the gift and power of God,” and did not involve any intellectual knowledge of the original language. It also involved the use of stones (whether in a hat or attached to silver bows). As I read the historical and “official” accounts, I don’t really see that they imply an ordinary intellectual translation as opposed to a spiritual one. Your mileage may vary.
I can certainly agree that translating from a stone is quite a different process from normal translation. I guess the my situation is different because I pretty much accepted from day one that the Book of Mormon was not translated by any ordinary means.
Thanks, Dan. I’ve read Anderson’s book and his article. Seems to me he doesn’t really address ALL the issues. And I must say the witnesses have never been all that impressive to me, even when I was an uber-faithful TBM sporting my CLD2SRV license plate. Of course, I never really cared whether Joseph used a rock in a hat or a set of ancient binocular thingys. The point is the church tells stories it knows are false, demands absolute adherence to those stories, says those stories are the bedrock of a testimony, hides the truth about what really went on, and then when people manage to discover the truth the church says, “oh, those things aren’t really important after all. Details shmetails.” It’s not about whether Joseph used a stone or whatever. It’s the fact that the church consistently portrays one (inaccurate) version of events, correlates away all competing (often more accurate) versions of events, and disciplines members of the church who dare express views considered too far out the nebulously defined mainstream of church doctrine. And then the apologists tell those members of the church who are offended by the church’s actions that the church doesn’t engage in hiding away historical documents, correlating away uncomfortable truths, and suppressing embarrassing teachings, practices, and historical events.
This whole attitude from the apologetic crowd that all the stuff disaffected members cite as reasons for their disaffection are really not problematic at all, and that the problem lies only with the spiritual state of the disaffected individual is, I think, given the lie by a simple thought experiment. I ask you, if the issues raised by disaffected members are really not things the church doesn’t want discussed and isn’t suppressing, how about giving a sacrament meeting talk on: the true translation method for the Book of Mormon; the various First Vision accounts; the changes to the revelations from the Book of Commandments to the Doctrine and Covenants; Joseph’s polygamy, polyandry, juvegymy, and lying about the same; anachronisms in the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon (which, of course, can all be explained with Ostler’s Expansion Theory); the Mountain Meadows Massacre and Brigham Young’s participation in it; the changing Word of Wisdom; etc. I mean, if these really aren’t things that should give anyone in the church with a testimony any cause for concern, there wouldn’t be anything wrong with raising the issues in church, right? I mean, if they aren’t really embarrassing and the church has nothing to hide.
I also understood Joseph to have God’s help in the translation process. However, some early discussions and lessons in my membership emphasized the “study it out in your mind” episode with Oliver in the D&C. This probably cemented in my mind the English-Spanish interpretation of what “translate” meant.
I can’t believe this is still going!
While I concur with DKL’s beef against many LDS apologists, I find the objection too narrowly focused. My beef with apologists and antis alike is just the general lack of objectivity. It is so rare to hear something candid like “While I don’t share your position, you make a good point there……….and I need to research that more before I can respond.” or “Now, that is an evolving and problematic area for my side, but…….”. It’s the lack of objectivity and self challenge to the bias we all carry that leads most apologists and antis to say anything in support of their dogma, including irrelevant personal attacks that DKL rightly condemns.
On the “translation” process I again find the antis nit picking. The general pattern in our church is orthodoxy cementing institutional errors (I refer to this as organizational orthodoxy always leading to apostasy). Normally that orthodoxy (our BKPs) would prevent correction of possible mistakes in understanding the English BofM origins, such as Smith always translating glyphs directly from plates. That general pattern is broken here, albeit at too slow a pace for some. It just seems there’s much more fertile ground for the antis elsewhere, and I don’t get the focus on the “hat thing”. On reason apologist Nibley looked so good was the antis of his day were so lame (For background, I’m no Nibley groupie).
Perhaps I don’t get this harping on the hat thing because I don’t care about historicity vs. allegory. I don’t care if the setting is American, Malaysian or fictional. I reject fraud, because I read the BofM and believe, and you can’t argue with belief. I don’t care that JS apparently grossly misinterpreted the geographic scale of the book. He said it wasn’t his book; a big misinterpretation is consistent with that claim. I don’t care about one stone or two or the hat because, if Smith’s “translation” claim is valid, in the end he saw the English “translation” in his mind, not the stones. I wouldn’t expect a modern LDS Pres or me to see anything looking at those stones, nor do I believe there was actually anything there when Smith looked at them. But I believe much, if not all, of the BofM is a gift from G-d.
The LDS church is much improved today, largely thanks to a call from Pres Benson for the church to take the BofM more seriously. The transition is far from complete, but more and more we are the faith-grace preaching church that I believe was originally intended, thanks to that renewed emphasis on “Smith’s” BofM. The self salvation LDS crowd is more and more a distant memory. Was a conservative political activist turned LDS church Pres also a closet theological radical? Or does divine inspiration and guidance still play in our day?
Breathe deep and look at the big picture. It’s great for your blood pressure.
Steve EM -
Your beliefs are entirely consistent with the Community of Christ Church (formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and very similar to the direction Grant Palmer would like the church to move in. I do agree that it would be an improvement in the church if the church started downplaying the historicity of its scriptures.
But, the problem is the LDS church today is orthodox. The leadership of the church will not permit one to pick and choose what one will believe. How many general conference talks say that the gospel is not like a buffet in which one can take what one likes and leave the rest. The leadership of the church emphasizes the all-or-nothing approach. “If the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a true prophet then everything else is true”.
If I wanted to pick only the inspirational passages out of the LDS scriptures, I could join the Unitarian Universalist who find inspiration in all religious traditions. I still quote scripture from time to time, not because I believe they are authoritative, but I do it in the same way that I might quote the words of Confuscious.
Perhaps the church is starting to make room for people like you and I think that is good. You really seem like a New Order Mormon and don’t know it. Good luck my friend!
First, Read this, from mormonstories.org:
The Church leadership spends remarkably little time talking about any of the details of the founding story. However, the seer stone has been mentioned in the Church’s official magazine almost once a year for the past thirty-five years, and the stone and hat have been mentioned, and even discussed at length, in books from Deseret Book, FARMS, Bookcraft, and Covenant, and in numerous articles in such places as BYU Studies, Dialogue, Mormon Historical Studies, the Journal of Mormon History, BYU Studies, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the Journal of the John Whitmer Historical Association, Sunstone, the FARMS Review, and etc.
-Daniel Peterson, July 31st, 2006
Then read this:
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=536
which includes this:
Orson Scott Card—described by Signature Books as a member of its original “impressive editorial board”17—has, like many others, become, if not deeply disillusioned, at least skeptical of the Signature agenda. He argues that “Signature is an anti-Mormon publisher that covers itself the way Playboy has traditionally covered its pornography, by publishing a few articles by serious writers in every issue.”18 He adds:
By publishing a few books that meet standards of respectable scholarship on LDS topics, Signature gives the false impression that they are a “balanced” publisher, when in fact their unrelenting agenda is to publish books designed to shake the foundations of the Mormon religion. Their prey is the budding Mormon intellectual who takes pride in being smart and educated but does not yet have the critical skills to recognize manipulation and deception when they are masked in the forms of scholarship.19
These observers have not felt the need to elaborate or to explain the meaning of the language they employed, perhaps because they all recognize that their readers will correctly understand what they seek to convey. It is likely that all these observers have correctly assumed that by describing Signature Books as “an anti-Mormon publisher” or a “renegade” publisher, or as being “liberal,” or as a “dissenting imprint,” or as “challeng[ing] . . . orthodoxy,” their meaning would be easily and correctly understood. In addition, these writers do not seem to have believed that, in the Latter-day Saint context, by using labels such as liberal to describe Signature Books or its owner’s ideology, they would imply some political rather than strictly religious orientation, or that the word activist would imply an engagement in partisan politics. It is also likely that these authors had in mind, among other things, something like the numerous books published by Signature Books that are either implicitly or explicitly critical of Joseph Smith’s prophetic truth claims, including those that attack the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon20 or set out radically revisionist accounts of the crucial historical foundations of the faith of the Saints.21
Then finally, Go here for a laugh and to see who is publishing and distributing the sources Dan suggests:
http://www.signaturebooks.com/periodic.htm#sun
incredile irony that the Journal of Mormon History is edited by Lavina Fielding Anderson: (from wiki)
a feminist writer who edited the books Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective (1992), and Lucy’s Book the definitive edition of the Lucy Mack narrative, a former editor for the Ensign and the current editor for the Journal of Mormon History. She was excommunicated September 23.
Anderson still attends LDS church services as a non-member. She continues to write on Mormon issues, including editing the multi-volume Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance, an ongoing collection of interviews with Mormons who believe they were unfairly disciplined by the Church
Conclusion:
Dan is right, there really is a conspiracy. The church leaders are conspiring to promote Signature Books by limiting relevent information to Signatures Publications. Somebody please pass the memo to Midgley
Bottom line; if you want to know the truth, you are going to have to read it in Playboy.
“and in numerous articles in such places as BYU Studies, Dialogue, Mormon Historical Studies, the Journal of Mormon History, BYU Studies, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the Journal of the John Whitmer Historical Association, Sunstone, the FARMS Review, and etc.” Quote from DCP.
Thanks, Mayan. I had missed this quote from Professor Brother Peterson. So, let me get this straight. On the details of church history, we are not to expect to hear from the prophets and apostles, who don’t really talk much about them. Instead, we should rely on what we read in publications like Dialogue, where Jerald and Sandra Tanner have been published in the past. This apologetic stuff makes my head spin.
Mayan Elephant writes:
“you and blake ostler alike. its interesting how little sympathy you show for the people that had that experience that lunar described, that are having it now, and will have it in the future.”
I don’t deny your experience. I am not denying Lunar Quaker’s experience. What I am denying is that your experience is universal, or that it somehow deserves some special status. I am suggesting that your experience isn’t more valid than mine. Does this offend you? Do you want a pitty party? Are you willing to discuss (as much as your own disaffection with the church) the many members who go through the same process of discovery that you did and still find belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be rational and natural? What sort of sympathy do you want?
Lunar Quaker wrote:
“I don’t know any disaffected Mormons that blame their
Primary teachers for the church’s deceptions.”
Then read this thread. Mayan Elephant wrote:
“it comes down to the realization that one has been allowed to believe something happened one way, with perpetual reinforcement of that belief. and then, learning that, uh oh, ohhhhhh boy, that one was sold snake oil, that in fact, it didnt happen the way my primary teacher said.”
Then Enochville piped up:
“I’d like to chime in here. Not only did the primary teacher say that Joseph used a urim and thummimum to translate the BoM, not a seer stone …”
Mayan Elephant commenting on what Ann said, made this remark:
““I probably wouldn’t have been inclined to join the church if I’d been told that Joseph read the text of the Book of Mormon from the characters that appeared to him on a rock in a hat.”
BINGO.
and that is why hatpeeping is not part of the missionary discussions. “Translated”, on the other hand, is part of the discussions.
and i am not screaming conspiracy here, just pointing out the usefulness of the various stories and chosen semantics.”
See, this is something of a puzzle to me. Which part of an angel appearing and leading Joseph to the plates did you not accept? What was it about the mode of translation that made the angel less real? As Mayan Elephant points out, neither version is more unrealistic. Yet somehow one is less believeable than the other over this detail. Mind you, as I noted earlier, I know LDS today who have conveyed the fact that it would destroy their testimony if the rock in the hat could be proven. And my point is that there is already something horribly wrong with their testimony if that is the case. If it isn’t the rock in the hat that gets them, something else almost certainly will.
And I enjoyed this (by Steve EM):
“While I concur with DKL’s beef against many LDS apologists, I find the objection too narrowly focused. My beef with apologists and antis alike is just the general lack of objectivity.”
And I suppose you are just the model of objectivity? What makes you think that objectivity in any form is even possible? What makes you think that every thought that you have isn’t shaped at the very least by the culture you were raised in and the language you were given? That language has already placed boundaries on what you can observe and what you can think. Objectivity is a myth promoted by those who want to ground meaning and to claim that there is some kind of absolute (and achievable) truth that we can arrive at. You cannot take yourself out of your reality.
Ben
Ben,
I think you misunderstood LQ’s statement and the statements of others who wrote about what their primary teachers or the missionaries taught them. LQ said that he didn’t know anyone who blamed their primary teachers. Your quotes don’t refute that point. Mayan himself said he doesn’t blame the teachers but the church that provides them with the manuals and instructs them not to stray from what is in the manual. Is that distinction not clear? It is the church’s deliberate acts of deception, suppression, and discouragement of honest exploration over many years that it the object of the disaffected member’s scorn, not anyone’s primary teacher.
Equality wrote:
“And to your point about “second sight.” I wonder, do you take the statements using similar langauge from the witnesses concerning the Cumorah Cave as literally as you take their statements on the Book of Mormon? If not, why not? Why is it OK for apologists to “spiritualize” the words of witnesses to the cave under Cumorah but not for Palmer to do the same for the statements on the Book of Mormon? For more on that particular issue, see the excellent entry at Lunar Quaker’s blog”
This is the problem. In defining this dichotomy – natural eyes versus spiritual eyes, we create an artifical distinction between these two terms. Yet, the common usage of these terms (also used by non-LDS in the early 19th century) does not display this intent, and the term isn’t used with the idea in mind that it is describing second-sight exclsuive of normal sight. These terms do not seem to have been considered synonyms in the rest of the early 19th century American environment. Which is to say that in using these terms, early LDS members were not attempting to sugges that “the eyes of our understanding” excluded seeing it with “natural eyes”, or that it meant “second sight” – it was meant to convey some other meaning entirely.
I am suggesting is that Palmer has created a sense of a community within a community. In labeling certain people as sharing a magic world view, he has created a community. He then goes on to create definitions specific to that community. Like his suggestion that “eyes of our understanding” should be understood as “second sight” – a point which cannot be understood as applying to the larger community in which this smaller community exists – particularly since that larger community draws that phrase “eyes of our understanding” from the biblical text where this exclusionary understanding doesn’t occur. And in which these kinds of phrases used by the early LDS members are regularly used in religious literature and statements in ways that contradict Palmer’s suggestions.
That is a significant problem. On top of this, how do we determine who shares this common magic world view? And do all of these others share this new technical usage that Palmer introduces?
So getting back to your question – “do you take the statements using similar langauge from the witnesses concerning the Cumorah Cave as literally as you take their statements on the Book of Mormon?” My answer is, You bet. Now, what those statements mean (when understood literally) is open to discussion. I certainly reject the definition of those phrases that Palmer gives.
Ben
Equality writes:
“I think you misunderstood LQ’s statement and the statements of others who wrote about what their primary teachers or the missionaries taught them. LQ said that he didn’t know anyone who blamed their primary teachers. Your quotes don’t refute that point. Mayan himself said he doesn’t blame the teachers but the church that provides them with the manuals and instructs them not to stray from what is in the manual. Is that distinction not clear? It is the church’s deliberate acts of deception, suppression, and discouragement of honest exploration over many years that it the object of the disaffected member’s scorn, not anyone’s primary teacher.”
But yet, the primary teacher is the church. I think that your position is merely one of semantics (although mine may certainly be as well). I do not think that the church (of which primary teachers are a part) is engaged in a systematic process of supression and deception. You can claim that the church is. I do not believe that it is so.
Ben
Thanks for the clarifications, Ben. To be sure I understand you correctly, are you saying you disagree with the FARMS paper on the Cumorah Cave (i.e., that the testimony of those who saw the cave did not necessarily see a real physical cave but a visionary one)?
On the other issue, of course my use of the phrase “deliberate acts of deception, suppression,” etc. was a description of an opinion held by some diaffected members and I do not expect that you would hold the same opinion. When I (and I think when many disaffected members) use the term “church” as in “The church ought to …” or “the church ought not . . .” or “The church does x . . .” we are referring to the church leadership and those in positions of power and authority. A primary teacher is a cog in the machine and when levying a criticism at the church I don’t think most folks have in mind all of the people operating at all of the levels in most contexts. And I think in this context, it is clear that LQ and mayan are referring to the church leaders as bearing responsibility for what has been taught regarding church history and not their primary teachers.
Respectfully yours,
Equality
yeah ben, what equality said. i dont blame the primary teachers, more than anything, i empathise with them.
hey, all that natural eyes, spiritual eyes, 19th century, biblical phrase, dreamscape stuff makes me dizzy.
let me settle this for everyone: there is no cave under cumorah. there never has been. there never will be. and anyone who said they saw a cave under cumorah is a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer . . .[if that's you, and] if you’re a pretender, come sit by my fire, …… i am all for imagination. but lets not spin this into something silly and blame the neighborhood for creating a community of dreamers and liars. it was just a dream and imaginary schtick. we can dismiss it outright, thats quite ok.
i sure find it strange and in some ways sad, when all this pretzeling twists of logic and semantics are projected onto someones god. i cant imagine playing all these headgame tricks on my kids. i surely cant picture an omnipotent god doing that to his kids while hanging the eternal carrot in front of them.
I know of at least one cave in Cumorah although it’s debatable about when it was created. (Many suspect it was made during prohibition)
Ben,
You can’t be serious. I addressed what I meant by objectivity. It’s a self challenge to the bias we all carry. It’s an ideal like perfection, freedom, the pursuit of happiness. It’s something to be approached, not achieved. Under your notion, mankind would have never progress beyond arithmetic as most of the working methods in mathematics are built on such unreachable ideals. So the next time I calculate how much hollow glass microspheres my factory needs to compound into a given density resin, I’ll have to warn them, that it might not work this time because Ben says the methodology is all based on myth.
I’m still waiting for Mr. Peterson to respond…
I was born a Roman Catholic, served on the Roman catholic church, have deep beliefs on their teachings. For the past 2 years, I have been investigating the Mormon since it aroused my interest. I have read the Mormon bible, Pearl of Great Price and the LDS doctrines. Since I was intrigued by there beliefs, I tried to diversify my investigation by also reading the history of Muslim religion and the Roman catholic. What surprises me is that the three religions have common grounds>>> that is they were founded by a man whom God talked or communicated to. Muhammed was approach by an angel and God spoked to him “recite, recite”, hence the birth of Muslim; as with Paul, he was walking to Damascus and heard God talking to him” Saul, why have you persecuted me” — hence the birth of Christianity… Paul was the most intelligent and well spoken of the other apostles; with the Mormons, Joseph Smith , God and Jesus appeared to him to advise him of the golden tablet >> hence, the birth of Mormons. Overall, all these religions teaches good things and the bottom line is it really doesn’t matter what religion you are in as long as you live a Christ-like life. As for others who espouses fear, bless our soul:) Live life!!!
I was disappointed that they went to so many people other than LDS Leaders to talk about doctrines and beliefs of the LDS church. They decide to interview journalists, ‘former’ (disgruntled) LDS Teachers (members), and various other historians, but only a few times during the program were members/leaders of the church quoted or interviewed. Do they want the documentary to teach people about the true history of the church (not someone’s interpretation of it), or are they only fueling the fire for more anti-Mormons to come out the woodwork and spread their hatred toward the LDS church as a whole? If they made a documentary about the Buddhist religion (for example), would they go to every Tom, Dick and Harry’s ‘interpretation’ of the Buddhist religion for their information, or would they go to the leaders of the Buddhist Church/Religion to get their facts straight? How should members of the Buddhist church feel then when only 25-35% of the information in the documentary is true about their religion, and the rest of it is just people’s opinions regarding the church’s beliefs? Why then, should members of the LDS church feel any differently after a documentary like this is made?
It truly was a “hatchet job” on mormonism. LDS Leaders were rarely included in the interviews, and those who were interviewed gave interpretations and opinions that suited their personal agendas rather than give fact. In fact, their was more screen time given to “Fundamentalists” than the actual leaders of the LDS church. What was that all about?” If you want to make a documentary of the church, your star interviews shouldn’t consist of former members with a grudge against the church. Well, I already had a chance to vent when I sent feedback to PBS. I recommend anybody else who was disturbed and disgusted by this “documentary” to do the same at the PBS website.
Were there any facts presented that you dispute or are you just unhappy to learn the truth about your church? I’ll tell you exactly why they interview ex-mormons.
1. They typically know much more about the mormon church (and the history of the mormon church) than the average mormon. That’s why they are ex-mormons.
2. They are free to discuss the true history of the mormon church without having to worry about how they will be punished.
3. Some have been through ridiculous judgement/church court scenarios that are interesting, creepy, and typically not talked about by current mormons.
Obviously the piece was fair and unbiased – because many non-mormons think it was too positive and many mormons thought it was too negative. I think they got it right on. The history of the mormon church is crazy, making it very difficult for rational people (who are able to look at these facts objectively, which most lifetime mormons are not due to their faith) to believe it is the only true church. But, modern day mormons are, in general, good people that help others. What part of the documentary was not accurate?
“LDS Leaders were rarely included in the interviews, and those who were interviewed gave interpretations and opinions that suited their personal agendas rather than give fact.”
I agree with you, RJS: when the LDS Leaders were interviewed, they did indeed give interpretations and opinions that suited their personal agendas rather than give fact.
I happened upon your website, and I am very interested in each of your stories. I am curious about what type of religious faith each of you have joined since you left the Mormon church? What influenced each of your decisions? Do Mormon guidelines such as the Word of Wisdom still influence your decisions?