"Mission to the American Indians"

I've previously discussed the revisionist history in Saints, Vol. 1, regarding the mission to the Lamanites. A reader, Bruce Lloyd, submitted this analysis, which I post here with his permission.
_____

A Mission to the Lamanites is reported differently in Saints and other documents compared to Parley P. Pratt’s autobiography.

Parley’s 1831 description of Oliver Cowdery preaching to the Delaware Indians (in Indian Territory west of Missouri) states, "This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him Cumorah, which hill is now in the State of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario county. " See History of the Church, Vol 1, p184, The Deseret Book Company 1973.  Missionaries didn't arrive in Guatemala until 1947!

In History of the Church, Page 183 (1950 Copyright, same as above), it states, “* THE MISSION TO THE LAMANITES.—As the “mission to the Lamanites” is a very prominent event in early Church history, it is proper that the labors of the brethren engaged in it should be spoken of more fully than appears anywhere in the Prophet’s narrative, and at this point, following the letter of Oliver Cowdery, seems as appropriate a place as will be found to speak of it.”

The Saints, Vol 1 doesn’t think the mission to the Lamanites is very prominent.  In fact, they totally remove it from the narrative!  Are they trying to promote or accommodate the Mesoamerican model?  On page 98, it states, “The revelation then called Oliver to go nearly a thousand miles to the western edge of the United States to preach the restored gospel to the American Indians, who were remnants of the house of Israel.”  Two paragraphs later, on the same page 98, it states, “The Lord called Peter Whitmer, Jr, Ziba Peterson, and Parley Pratt to join Oliver on the mission to the West.”  On page 108, it states, “After Oliver left on his mission to the West…””

The Book of Mormon Introduction states, “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”  This is the only reference to American Indians in all the scriptures.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/a-mission-to-the-lamanites?lang=eng is described on the Title Page as:

Revelations in Context

The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants Edited by Matthew McBride and James Goldberg

Including Insights from the Joseph Smith Papers

Published by
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Salt Lake City, Utah

© 2016 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America

English approval: 8/16
Translation approval: 8/16
Translation of Revelations in ContextEnglish
14095 000

This 2016 Doctrine and Covenants study manual refers to the Lamanite Mission and the Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, but it doesn’t mention that Parley told the Delaware Indians about Moroni and the metal plates deposited in the hill Cumorah in western New York near Palmyra.

The Preface to Revelations in Context states:

“The stories in this collection, which treat almost all of the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants, were written by historians in the Church History Department. In telling these stories, the authors brought to bear both their faith in the restored gospel and their training and expertise in American and Mormon history. Particularly important to this series was the Joseph Smith Papers Project, which has provided a foundation of meticulous scholarship upon which all historical interpretation of Joseph Smith’s life and work should build. Citations to the Joseph Smith Papers in Revelations in Context typically direct the reader to the documents and materials generously made available on josephsmithpapers.org.”

Sadly, Saints, The Standard of Truth, 1815-1846, Vol 1, calls it a “mission to the West” vice “mission to the Lamanites” on pages 98 and 108.  Footnote 22 on page 98 refers to:

Doctrine and Covenants 30:5–8 (Revelation, Sept. 1830–D, at josephsmithpapers.org); Doctrine and Covenants 32 (Revelation, Oct. 1830–A, at josephsmithpapers.org); Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 60, in JSP, H1:458–60 (draft 2); Givens and Grow, Parley P. Pratt, 36.

Doctrine and Covenants 30:5–8

Revelation, Sept. 1830–D

Doctrine and Covenants 32

Revelation, Oct. 1830–A

Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 60

The footnote is flawed.  It should point to Oliver’s preaching to the Delaware Indians and Moroni and the Hill Cumorah.  I guess flawed narrative has to point to a flawed footnote.  Why no mention of Section 28?  I don’t know what is on page 36 of Parley P. Pratt.

My missionary Triple Combination (Copyright 1970) that I used in the Ontario Quebec Mission from Nov 1971 to Nov 1973 uses the words “mission to the Lamanites” in the section headings for Sections 28 (mentions Lamanites 3 times in the scriptural text) and 30 (Lamanites mentioned 1 time in the scriptural text).  The section heading to Section 32 mentions “Lamanites” once and “Indian tribes in the west” once.  The scriptural text uses the words “into the wilderness among the Lamanites.”

My 1980 Copyright Triple Combination scriptures in Section 28 in the heading doesn’t say anything about Oliver’s mission to the Lamanites and has several fewer sentences than the 1970 version.  The subheading for verses 1-7 does state, “Oliver Cowdery is to preach to the Lamanites.”  The scriptural text does mention Lamanites 3 times like the 1970 version.

Section 30 has different verbiage and no reference to Oliver Cowdery’s mission to the Lamanites in the heading.  The subheading for versus 5-8 does state, “Peter Whitmer, Jun., is to accompany Oliver Cowdery on a mission to the Lamanites.”  The scriptural text does mention Lamanites 1 time like the 1970 version.

Section 32 has different verbiage in the heading and deletes the word “yearning” from “yearning desires.”  The last sentence from the 1970 version has been excluded in the 1980 version, “The missionaries admonished to confine themselves to the expounding of the written word, as they shall be given understanding thereof.”  The subheading for verses 1-3 does state, “preach to the Lamanites.”  The scriptural text matches the 1970 version and uses the words “into the wilderness among the Lamanites.”

As you can see, the 1980 version is drifting away from the “mission to the Lamanites” verbiage.  I didn’t compare with the online version.

Keep taking your vitamins and get some rest the April 2020 Conference is going to be different than any previous conference.  To prepare, we are supposed to study the first vision and early church history, etc.

Rewriting D&C 28, 30, 32

Saints: The Standard of Truth (Volume 1), rewrites D&C 28 to accommodate M2C, as we see in this excerpt from page 98. 

The revelation then called Oliver to go nearly a thousand miles to the western edge of the United States to preach the restored gospel to American Indians, who were remnants of the house of Israel. The Lord said that the city of Zion would be built near these people, echoing the Book of Mormon’s promise that God would establish the New Jerusalem on the American continent prior to the Second Coming of Christ. He did not identify the city’s exact location, but He promised to reveal that information at a later time.20

Here's what the actual revelation says:

D&C 28:8 And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.


9 And now, behold, I say unto you that it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites.

Notice the difference?

The term "Indians" is not found in any of the scriptures, but Saints creates a false historical narrative by telling us Oliver was called to preach to "American Indians" instead of what the scriptures say: "Lamanites."

This is a deliberate change of wording from the scriptures. Note 20 mentions the change from the original to the publication.

20. Knight, Autobiography, 145–47; Doctrine and Covenants 28 (Revelation, Sept. 1830–B, at josephsmithpapers.org); Covenant of Oliver Cowdery and Others, Oct. 17, 1830, in JSP, D1:204; see also Doctrine and Covenants 29 (Revelation, Sept. 1830–A, at josephsmithpapers.org); 3 Nephi 21:23–24; and Ether 13:3–10. The revelation said the place for the holy city would be “among the Lamanites” but was edited for publication to read “on the borders by the Lamanites.” (Book of Commandments 30:9, in JSP, R2:80.) Topics: American Indians; Zion/New Jerusalem; Gathering of Israel.

D&C 30 and 32 reiterate that Oliver and his companions were called to preach to the Lamanites.

D&C 30:5 Behold, I say unto you, Peter, that you shall take your journey with your brother Oliver; for the time has come that it is expedient in me that you shall open your mouth to declare my gospel; therefore, fear not, but give heed unto the words and advice of your brother, which he shall give you.

6 And be you afflicted in all his afflictions, ever lifting up your heart unto me in prayer and faith, for his and your deliverance; for I have given unto him power to build up my church among the Lamanites;

D&C 32:1 And now concerning my servant Parley P. Pratt, behold, I say unto him that as I live I will that he shall declare my gospel and learn of me, and be meek and lowly of heart.

2 And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall ago with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.

Nevertheless, on page 105, Saints tells us Oliver was thinking about American Indians, not Lamanites.

As pleased as he was with their success in Ohio, though, Oliver knew the Lord had called them to preach to the American Indians who lived beyond the western border of the United States. 

Here again, Saints is creating a false historical narrative by changing the wording of the historical record to accommodate a modern theory of Book of Mormon geography.

This isn't the biggest problem with Saints, but it's another unforced error. I think we'd all be much better off if Saints had stuck with the language of the scriptures instead of creating a false historical narrative to accommodate M2C.


The end

Peep stone vs. Urim and Thummim in Saints

One of my favorite aspects of the Saints book, volume 1, is how it ignores the teachings of the prophets while emphasizing the teachings of others, especially the speculation of revisionist Church historians.

We're assured that Saints was reviewed by lots of people, but did anyone check the sources? Did anyone ask why the teachings of the prophets are so methodically censored or overridden by the rhetoric of revisionist Church historians?

The censorship of Cumorah was the most obvious example. The phony story of Moroni showing the plates to Mary Whitmer is an annoying piece of misinformation driven by M2C* that the historic sites missionaries tell everyone who comes. 

The treatment of the translation of the Book of Mormon is equally problematic.

We start off with this:

Moroni spoke of gold plates buried in a nearby hill. On the plates was etched the record of an ancient people who once lived in the Americas. The record told of their origins and gave an account of Jesus Christ visiting them and teaching the fullness of His gospel.8

Buried with the plates, Moroni said, were two seer stones, which Joseph later called the Urim and Thummim, or interpreters. The Lord had prepared these stones to help Joseph translate the record. The clear stones were fastened together and attached to a breastplate.9

8. Joseph Smith, Journal, Nov. 9–11, 1835, in JSP, J1:88.22

9. Joseph Smith—History 1:35; Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 5, in JSP, H1:222 (draft 2); Joseph Smith History, circa Summer 1832, 4, in JSP, H1:14; Oliver Cowdery, “Letter IV,” LDS Messenger and Advocate, Feb. 1835, 1:65–67; Turley, Jensen, and Ashurst-McGee, “Joseph the Seer,” 49–54; “Mormonism—No. II,” Tiffany’s Monthly, July 1859, 164. Topic: Seer Stones

Everything in bold is revisionist history, designed to accommodate modern theories, including M2C.

There are at least two sources that show Moroni himself calling the "nearby hill" Cumorah. Everyone alive during Joseph's lifetime knew this; it is only modern revisionist historians and their M2C colleagues who censor that important component of Church history.

The term "the Americas" appears nowhere in actual documents from early Church history. It's a term invented later to obscure what the actual documents say to accommodate M2C. Below we'll see what Moroni actually said.

The revisionist historians think W.W. Phelps first applied the term Urim and Thummim to the Nephite interpreters, for various reasons I've explained before.

Notice that footnote 9 cites Oliver Cowdery's Letter IV, but they don't actually use that source. Instead, Saints relates the theories of modern revisionist historians that would have been alien to Joseph, Oliver, and their contemporaries.
_____

If the editors of Saints wanted to create an authentic narrative present (meaning if they wanted to show what the historical figures actually thought), they would have presented the version of events that Oliver Cowdery described in 1835.

Everyone at the time accepted this account, including Joseph Smith who had it copied into his own journal as part of his life history. He later had it republished in every Church newspaper so all the members of the Church could know the actual history.

Here is Oliver's account, which Joseph assisted him to write. Notice how different it is from what Saints teaches:

He then proceeded and gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigenes of this country, and said they were literal descendants of Abraham. He represented them as once being an enlightned and intelligent people, possessing a correct knowledge of the gospel, and the plan of restoration and redemption. He said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/68

Here's how the above passage would read if it was an honest narrative present:

Moroni spoke of a history of the aborigines of this country that had been written and deposited not far from Joseph's home in a Hill that Moroni called Cumorah. The ancient people possessed a correct knowledge of the gospel. Buried with the plates, Moroni said, were the Urim and Thummim, which Joseph could use to translate the record if he was obedient to the commandments of the Lord.

You'll never read what Joseph and Oliver actually taught unless you seek out the original sources for yourself.
_____

We won't take the time to go through everything, but let's look at how Saints portrays the translation:

Saints, p. 61:  Meanwhile, Joseph and Oliver started translating. They worked well together, weeks on end, frequently with Emma in the same room going about her daily work.24 Sometimes Joseph translated by looking through the interpreters and reading in English the characters on the plates. Often he found a single seer stone to be more convenient. He would put the seer stone in his hat, place his face into the hat to block out the light, and peer at the stone. Light from the stone would shine in the darkness, revealing words that Joseph dictated as Oliver rapidly copied them down.25

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/ldsorg/media-library/ebook-pdf/Saints-v1-English-PD60001624.pdf?lang=eng 

24. Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 15, in JSP, H1:284 (draft 2); Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–45, book 8, [4]; Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, Oct. 1, 1879, 290. Topic: Daily Life of First-Generation Latter-day Saints 

25. “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics, topics.lds.org; Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 15, in JSP, H1:284 (draft 2); Oliver Cowdery to William W. Phelps, Sept. 7, 1834, LDS Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, 1:14; Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, Oct. 1, 1879, 290; “Golden Bible,” Palmyra Freeman, Aug. 11, 1829, [2]. Topic: Book of Mormon Translation

This all sounds great until you look at the references and think a moment.

The paragraph relies primarily on "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," an account prepared by her son, Joseph Smith III, who was in an ongoing doctrinal battle with the Utah Church led by Brigham Young. I discussed the problems with Emma's "Last Testimony" here:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2019/07/peep-stones-vs-urim-and-thummim-part-3.html

The section of Saints that I bolded above is a mishmash of accounts that contradicts everything Joseph and Oliver actually wrote. They consistently and persistently declared that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that accompanied the plates. The "convenient" seer stone idea came from Martin Harris many years later. The "shine in darkness" language comes from Alma, but Alma referred to directors, not interpreters (the language was changed in the 1920 LDS edition). 

Notice that instead of citing the many accounts from Joseph and Oliver, Saints focuses on dubious statements by others. Certainly Emma's 1879 "Last Testimony" was not part of the narrative present for Joseph and Oliver, who described the translation much differently. 

It continues to amaze me that a book that supposedly portrays a "narrative present" ignores the actual contemporaneous documents and instead creates a "narrative present" from documents created long after Joseph and Oliver were dead. 

_____

*According to David Whitmer, Joseph Smith, and Mary Whitmer herself, it was actually one of the Three Nephites who showed Mary the plates, but that means Cumorah is in New York, contrary to the false historical narrative present that Saints created to accommodate M2C.

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-mary-whitmer-problem.html

 

Saints, Volume 2, looks great

The first chapter of Volume 2 of Saints, titled No Unhallowed Hand, has been released.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/saints-volume-two-chapter-one

You can read chapter 1 here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/saints-v2/part-1/01-gather-up-a-company?lang=eng

I'm happy to say that so far, it's a big improvement over Volume 1.

The chapter opens with Lucy Mack Smith's address in General Conference in October, 1845. After quoting some of her comments, the book's editors established an accurate historical present, meaning they explained the context of her remarks from the perspective of those who were present to hear her.

She paused, remembering Joseph, her martyred son. The Saints in the room already knew how an angel of the Lord had led him to a set of gold plates buried in a hill called Cumorah. They knew that Joseph had translated the plates by the gift and power of God and published the record as the Book of Mormon. Yet how many Saints in the assembly hall had truly known him?

This is a very welcome correction to Volume 1. 

You recall that Volume 1 completely censored Cumorah from the historical record.

That omission created a false historical present because during Joseph Smith's lifetime, every member of the Church, and everyone who heard or read what the missionaries taught, knew about the Hill Cumorah in New York. Letter VII had been published and republished many times. D&C 128:20 was part of a letter Joseph wrote to the entire Church that was published in the Times and Seasons just a year after Letter VII had been published in the same newspaper.

On his first missionary journey in 1830, Oliver Cowdery explained the Book of Mormon to his listeners this way. "This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him, Cumorah, which hill is now in the State of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County."

(You can read these accounts here: http://www.lettervii.com/p/byu-packet-on-cumorah.html.)

Now, in Volume 2, we are reading about members of the Church as they actually were. It's excellent work.
_____

Some may be dissatisfied with the language "a hill called Cumorah" because it is equivocal; i.e., it doesn't say who first called the hill Cumorah. Was it Moroni? Joseph Smith? Oliver Cowdery? Or was it someone else who created a false tradition that Joseph passively accepted, which is the theory being taught by our M2C scholars and revisionist historians?

The historical record shows it was Moroni who named the hill, but those who want Cumorah to be in Mexico dispute the historical record. And that's fine. People will believe whatever they want to believe. They will confirm their biases regardless of what the evidence is.

But at least now, readers will have an accurate historical present in mind when they read this volume of Church history.

(BTW, it's not too late to fix the electronic versions of Saints Vol. 1, The Standard of Truth. I'm still hopeful that happens.)

How Saints portrays the translation of the Book of Mormon

This post is cross-posted at another of my blogs.

It's important for readers of Saints to realize how modern historians are adopting the ideas presented in Mormonism Unvailed, an 1834 anti-Mormon book published near Kirtland. In response to this book, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith wrote a series of 8 essays about Church history. The essays were published as letters in the Messenger and Advocate.

Joseph and Oliver emphasized that they were using facts to contradict the rumors contained in that book.

Revisionist LDS historians are reviving the ideas from Mormonism Unvailed, including the idea that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using a stone in a hat instead of the Urim and Thummim he got from Moroni. This post explains that in more detail.

This is the same tactic these revisionist LDS historians use to reject what Letter VII taught about the New York Cumorah.
_____

Yesterday we looked at the obvious problem that, in many places, the growth of the Church has stalled. IMO, this is due, in part, to obstacles constructed by modern intellectuals.

Today we'll look at one of the obstacles being created by revisionist Church historians. This obstacle is the new narrative about the translation process. I address all of this in far more detail in my upcoming book, but this post discusses the key issues.
_____

Traditional depictions of the translation

Regarding the translation of the Nephite plates, there are many accounts that boil down to two lines of evidence:

1. Joseph and Oliver (and the Book of Mormon and the revelations in the D&C) always said Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by the gift and power of God, using the Urim and Thummim (also called interpreters) that Moroni put in the stone box with the original set of plates (the Harmony plates that contained the abridged record).

2. Others said that Joseph translated by reading words that appeared on a seer stone Joseph put in a hat.

Can these two separate categories be reconciled?
_____

Here is a table in my upcoming book (which delves into this topic in detail, with an appendix containing all known statements about the translation).

Witness Category 1	Witness Category 2
Joseph translated the entire Book of Mormon from engravings on ancient metal plates. He used the Urim and Thummim—the spectacles or the Nephite interpreters—that Moroni put in the stone box	Joseph translated the entire Book of Mormon by putting his face in a hat and reading words that appeared on a seer stone that he put in a hat to block out ambient light.

For decades, Church leaders have reaffirmed what Joseph and Oliver taught; i.e., that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates, as established by Witness Category 1 (and the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants).

The evidence from Witness Category 2 was long known, but mostly ignored.

In recent years, though, some Church historians have revisited the evidence. They have sought to reconcile the two disparate categories of evidence, giving equal weight to both.
_____

There have been three basic approaches toward reconciliation. Below I'll propose a fourth approach that I think makes the most sense.

1. Joseph and Oliver were accurate and complete; the others were wrong (lying or mistaken).
2. Joseph and Oliver were wrong (lying or mistaken); the others were right.
3. Joseph and Oliver used the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to both the Nephite interpreters Moroni put in the stone box and the seer stone Joseph found in a well.

UT=SS - Joseph translating without
looking at the plates

Approach #3 (Urim and Thummim = Seer Stone, or UT=SS) has been widely adopted by Church historians and is now being disseminated throughout the Church as the mainstream view. It's not unreasonable, on its face. But it causes a serious problem, which is why I consider it a serious impediment to missionary and reactivation work, as I'll explain below.

UT=SS has been published in the Ensign, the Gospel Topics essay and the Saints book. It is depicted in the new Church movies about Harmony and Fayette. It is depicted at the Priesthood Restoration site and will soon be in more visitors centers, if it isn't already.

The Saints book describes it this way:

UT=SS - Joseph translating
by staring at a stone in a hat

Meanwhile, Joseph and Oliver started translating. They worked well together, weeks on end, frequently with Emma in the same room going about her daily work.²⁴ Sometimes Joseph translated by looking through the interpreters and reading in English the characters on the plates.

Often he found a single seer stone to be more convenient. He would put the seer stone in his hat, place his face into the hat to block out the light, and peer at the stone. Light from the stone would shine in the darkness, revealing words that Joseph dictated as Oliver rapidly copied them down.²⁵

The obvious problem with UT=SS is that it contradicts what was taught by Joseph, Oliver, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Do you recognize that pattern?

It's the same principle taught by the M2C intellectuals; i.e., the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah because they were ignorant (or negligent) speculators who adopted a false tradition and thereby misled the Church.

Once one accepts that principle (the "distrust the prophets" principle), it's easy to also conclude that Joseph, Oliver and the scriptures were wrong about the translation because they, too, were negligent, imprecise or just didn't want people to know the truth about the seer stone.

I consider this "distrust the prophets" principle inexcusable in both cases because it undermines faith and is not required by the evidence.
_____

Joseph, Oliver and the scriptures all teach that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with the Nephite interpreters called the Urim and Thummim prepared for that purpose. Moroni put the interpreters in the stone box specifically so Joseph could use them to translate the plates.

For example, Joseph explained that it was Moroni himself who used the term:

He told me also of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold. I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited. He said to me the Indians were the literal decendants of Abraham. He explained many of the prophecies to me; one of which I will mention, which is in Malachi 4th chapter. Behold, the day of the Lord cometh <​(&c​> He also informed me that the Urim & Thummim was hid up with the record, and that God would give me power to translate it with the assistance of this instrument; he then gradually vanished out of my sight or the vision closed. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/125

Oliver explained:

These were days never to be forgotten—to <​sit​> assist under the voice sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to  write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites should have said, [“]Interpreters,”32 the history, or reccord, called “the book of Mormon.[”]

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/49

It's true that the Book of Mormon does not use the term Urim and Thummim for the interpreters, but in these quotations, Joseph and Oliver both equated the terms. Neither of them mentioned a "seer stone," let alone a seer stone that Joseph found in a well long before he removed the plates and interpreters from Moroni's stone box.

_____

We wonder, what led the UT=SS intellectuals to conclude that Joseph, Oliver and the scriptures didn't mean what they said?

What led them to equate the Urim and Thummim with the seer stone?

The UT=SS intellectuals note that the first published use of the term "Urim and Thummim" in connection with the translation appeared in an article written by W.W. Phelps in 1833. They conclude that all other references to the "Urim and Thummim" are based on the Phelps article; i.e., that Joseph, Oliver, and the revelations in the D&C adopted Phelps' idea retroactively.

Here is the article.

1833. “The Book of Mormon… was translated by the gift and Power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles—(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim) and while it unfolds the history of the first inhabitants that settled this continent, it, at the same time, brings a oneness to scripture.” (“Book of Mormon,” The Evening and the Morning Star, Jan. 1833, 58.)

https://archive.org/details/EveningAndMorningStar18321834/page/n57

From the grammar here, it's easy to see why the UT=SS intellectuals think Phelps was the first to apply the term "Urim and Thummim" to the Nephite interpreters. They assume Joseph and Oliver were loose with the facts anyway (which is one reason why they reject the New York Cumorah), and they view everything through that filter.

There is another obvious interpretation of the Phelps article. Phelps was writing to a non-LDS audience, explaining the Book of Mormon to the world. If Phelps knew from Joseph and Oliver that Moroni had identified the interpreters as the Urim and Thummim (as Joseph claimed in the excerpt above), he would have introduced the idea to his non-LDS readers just the way he did in this article.

IOW, we can read the Phelps article to be consistent with what Joseph and Oliver taught, or to be inconsistent with what they taught.

The UT=SS intellectuals choose to interpret the article to be inconsistent with what Joseph and Oliver taught; i.e., that it was not Moroni who first described the interpreters as the Urim and Thummim, but instead it was Phelps himself who came up with the idea.

And that's fine, so far as it goes. That, by itself, does not create the impediment.

The problem is when these same UT=SS intellectuals take the next step of equating the Nephite interpreters with the seer stone.
_____

The UT=SS intellectuals have created a narrative that is depicted in the common Internet meme shown here.

Although intended as ridicule, the meme focuses specifically on the logical endpoint of the stone-in-the-hat theory.

Imagine being a youth in the Church, or an investigator, and reading the Saints book, the Gospel Topics essay, etc.

Even if you don't know that UT=SS contradicts the plain teachings of Joseph, Oliver, and the scriptures, how could you not wonder to yourself exactly what this meme depicts?

In my view, UT=SS is a major impediment to accepting the Book of Mormon.

The idea of an angel appearing to Joseph Smith and directing him to the golden plates is difficult enough for many people to accept at first. Translating them with interpreters prepared for that task makes sense once you accept the idea of the angel and the plates.

But the idea that Joseph translated by looking at a stone in a hat undermines the credibility of the entire experience Joseph and Oliver described.

I realize there are plenty of accounts in Church history that support the stone-in-the-hat idea, which is why I propose a fourth reconciliation method (below).

UT=SS contradicts the basic narrative that the interpreters were prepared by the Lord for the translation of the plates, that Moroni put them in the box for that purpose, and that Joseph used them for that purpose.

UT=SS undermines one of the most basic foundations for the Book of Mormon itself.

I urge everyone involved to reconsider the UT=SS path because of the ramifications it is having and will continue to have in the future.
_____

Reconciliation approach #4.

4. Joseph used the seer stone in the hat to demonstrate, but not to actually perform, the translation of the plates.

I explain this in more detail in the book, but there are two key points.

First, I think most of the people involved were simply relating what they observed. They weren't lying.

Second, I think what they observed was a demonstration, not the actual translation.

When you look at the accounts of Joseph translating by reading words off a stone in a hat, none of them relate exactly what words Joseph was dictating.

Think of the situation Joseph was in. Most of the accounts are from Fayette, where he and Oliver were translating the Fayette plates (the plates of Nephi) upstairs in the Whitmer home. The Whitmers were curious. Their neighbors were curious. People were coming by all the time asking about what was going on.

Joseph had been commanded not to show the interpreters or the plates to anyone. How could he satisfy the curiosity so he and Oliver could finish the work in peace?

Naturally, he would perform a demonstration. David Whitmer explains that they arranged chairs around a table so everyone could watch. Joseph came downstairs and showed a stone (whether it was a functioning seer stone or not doesn't matter) and put it in a hat and dictated words to a scribe (presumably Oliver Cowdery).

It would be consistent with Joseph's character to let the audience think he was translating the Book of Mormon, even without claiming he was doing so. [I give similar examples of this in the book.]

The demonstration would solve two problems: it satisfied the curious crowds, and left him and Oliver to work on the translation in relative peace.

[This also explains why Joseph gave the seer stone to Oliver when they finished the translation; he didn't need it any longer because he wouldn't need to do any further demonstrations.]

The accounts from Martin Harris and Emma Smith have similar explanations that I don't have time to explain for now.
_____

The bottom line: The historical evidence is consistent with Joseph Smith translating the entire Book of Mormon with the Urim and Thummim that Moroni put in the stone box.

The stone-in-the-hat meme is the product of an understandable effort by some Church historians to reconcile inconsistent accounts from Church history, but it creates impediments for missionary and reactivation work because it contradicts the teachings of the prophets and the scriptures.

Can they correct Saints?

I frequently encounter members of the Church who are appalled by the Saints book. Some have objections I haven't publicly commented on, but many besides me have noticed the censorship of Cumorah.

It is obvious to everyone who knows Church history that the Saints book creates a false historical narrative present. This was not a mistake. The issue of Cumorah was raised and discussed at the highest levels of the Church history department long before the excerpts were published in the Ensign, which was many months before the book was released.

This means the authors intentionally misled readers. They publicly admitted that they changed the history to accommodate M2C, as we've discussed before.

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-historians-explain-censorship-in.html

All of this leads to the question, can the historians correct Saints?
_____

The easy answer is, yes, of course they can correct Saints. They are capable of fixing the problems, despite the logistics of translation and printing. The book has been out less than a year. They could publish an errata sheet for printed versions.

They can correct the digital versions instantly.

The real question is, will the historians correct Saints?

The answer to that seems obvious: No. 

The revisionist historians who wrote Saints have no intention of relating the truth about Cumorah and everything else related to Cumorah. They are systematically erasing Cumorah from the historical record to accommodate their peers and colleagues who continue to promote M2C (the Mesoamerican/two Cumorahs theory).

Will Church leaders insist that they correct the book?

That appears unlikely. Church leaders delegate everything they can, and they have long trusted the historians and intellectuals. In my view, these employees have violated their trust.

The beauty of censorship is that readers don't know what they're missing.

Just as M2C censorship makes sure that students will never learn what the prophets have taught about the Hill Cumorah in New York, censorship also prevents Church leaders to know what they are missing when they read the materials published by the M2C intellectuals and revisionist Church historians.

Fortunately, President Nelson is emphasizing that Church members have an obligation to do their own study.

We're not beholden to or dependent upon the M2C intellectuals and revisionist Church historians.

But we have to take President Nelson's guidance seriously.

_____

Recently Scott Adams observed that history books are written to promote agendas.

History is written by the winners for the purpose of brainwashing the youth. If you don't know that that is what history is for, you're probably living a confused life. History, in terms of the history books and history lessons, is not designed to tell you what happened. It doesn't have that purpose. 

You're taught that it has that purpose when you go to school. You think you're learning history for the purpose of becoming educated, becoming a citizen who knows how to function, etc. But that's not the purpose. That's not even the intention. 

It is expressly for brainwashing.

Now, I'm not complaining about that because brainwashing children is what you need to do to children. If you didn't brainwash children to be good citizens, they would not be as good a citizens. You have to train children because they have no critical reasoning... If you don't do that you don't get good citizens.

[History can be written in two ways.] The question is, which truth will be in the history books?

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1rmxPeWozNDKN?q=scott+adams