Checking references-seer stones, foreign languages, etc.

We can read Saints, volume 1, two ways. 

1. Read (or listen to) the narrative and just accept it the editors' spin on Church history.

3. Read the citations (references) and learn the actual history.

This wouldn't be a problem if the editors had decided to accurately present the historical events from the perspective of the people involved; i.e., if they had presented an accurate historical narrative. Instead, they chose to promote modern ideas about Cumorah and the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Consequently, passive readers ("lazy learners") will simply assume the narrative accurately reflects the original sources and will not bother to read the references.

People listening to an audio version of Saints will never hear the references.

For non-English speakers it's a bigger problem. Few of the references have been translated into other languages. I've checked the foreign-language editions of Saints and they cite English-only references, particularly the Joseph Smith Papers and Rough Stone Rolling, which (so far as I know) has never been translated into another language. 

A good example is in Chapter 3. Look at the sentence in Saints, and then look at the reference in the footnote. You'll see the two are quite different.

Saints, volume 1, Chapter 3	Reference: Lucy Mack Smith
Joseph’s gift for using the stone impressed family members, who saw it as a sign of divine favor. 4	4.  A short time before the house was completed, a man by the name of Josiah Stoal came from Chenango County, New York, to get Joseph to assist him in digging for a silver mine. He came for Joseph from having heard, that he was in possession of certain means, by which he could discern things, that could not be seen by the natural eye. Joseph endeavered to divert him from his vain project; but he was inflexible, and offered high wages to such as would dig for him; and was still very anxious to have Joseph work for him; consequently, he returned with the old gentleman; besides several others that who were picked up in the neighborhood, and commenced digging. After laboring about a month without success, Joseph prevailed on his employer to cease his operations. It was from this circumstance, namely, working by the month at digging for a silver mine, that the very prevalent story arose, of his having been a money digger.
	https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/102

Note 3 in the previous paragraph cites Rough Stone Rolling instead of any original sources. 

Rough Stone Rolling is an awesome book, but it is written in a style that portrays the author's opinions and inferences as fact. You can see my line-by-line analysis of the section on the seer stones here:

https://www.mobom.org/rsr-review

Here are images of the pages I'm referring to.

Accuracy matters?

Readers here already know how the Saints books, especially volume 1, created a false historical narrative present (meaning, how did historical figures think and act in their day) to accommodate M2C and SITH. 

Every historical figure we read about in Volume 1 accepted the New York Cumorah, yet readers of Saints have no idea about that. The New York Cumorah was an important defense of the historicity of the Book of Mormon against claims that the book was fiction, copied from Solomon Spalding's manuscript or another source. If Church members knew that history, they could learn from it when the historicity of the Book of Mormon is challenged in our day.

It's impossible to understand Joseph, Oliver and their contemporaries without also understanding their experience and teachings. Yet the editors of Saints deliberately changed history by eliminating the New York Cumorah completely, purely to accommodate their colleagues who teach M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). 

Recently The Church News interviewed Keith A. Erekson, Director of the Church History Library. Brother Erekson does a phenomenal job at the library. I wish everyone could visit and see how well managed the library is. 

Here's the link to the transcript of the podcast.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/podcast/2021-08-10/episode-43-church-history-library-director-keith-a-erekson-on-dispelling-latter-day-myths-rumors-221819

This article about accuracy included a photo of the Saints book!

It's constantly amazing that they chose as the subtitle "The Standard of Truth" when the editors knowingly and intentionally falsified early Church history on these topics to create a version of history that aligns with their editorial preferences. The repercussions are wide-ranging and ongoing.

During the interview, Brother Erekson made the point that the retelling of our history should be accurate.

Sarah Jane Weaver: Well, from the earliest days that I had the opportunity to interact with you, you have been promoting this idea that we should be telling accurate and better stories. Why is it so important that our history and the retelling of history be accurate?

4:45  

Keith A. Erekson: Well, I think there are several levels where accuracy matters. At the most basic level, we want to get the story right and we want to be true to the people who lived it. It was their experience, so we don’t want to distort their experience or turn it into something that it wasn’t.

Had the editors of Saints followed this advice, they would not have censored the New York Cumorah. The conversation progressed to discuss the very point of this blog.

Sarah Jane Weaver: And tell us what happens when we promote stories that aren’t true or that aren’t entirely true.

6:07  

Keith A. Erekson: A couple of things happen when we tell those kinds of stories, and some of the most damaging results are for the hearers....

I think it also can be harmful if people then later learn: “Oh, there are parts of the story that they left out. Well, why did they do that?” Sometimes it can lead to feeling betrayed...

Everyone who is aware of the problems with Saints wonders why they left out part of the story. We all recognize it's not an encyclopedia. But the editors took care to both (i) falsify the history about Cumorah and (2) promote the fake Moroni/Mary Whitmer story. Both examples accommodate M2C at the expense of historical accuracy and harming readers who later learn the truth about these topics.

The next part of the interview highlights the problem of not correcting the Saints book.

Sarah Jane Weaver: Well, and I think we’re hearing more from a lot of Church members who are troubled by history. What is your message to them?

8:11  

Keith A. Erekson: I think that’s true, and I think it’s important to first of all, acknowledge that anytime someone is struggling with a question about history or any other practice in the Church that their feelings are really important and really significant. And so, we need to pay attention to our thoughts, to our feelings, and if something is unsettling, then we need to address it. 

The historians are absolutely refusing to address the problem of the New York Cumorah. Actually, it's not a problem; it's the omission that is the problem. They could easily correct Saints by relating what historical figures actually said and wrote, but they refuse, purely to accommodate M2C. 

The interview proceeds to discuss the resources devoted to making historical information available, including the Joseph Smith Papers, but what good are the resources when the Church historians censor and de-correlate important aspects of the history? Not to mention, the editorial comments in the Joseph Smith Papers are full of M2C and SITH accommodation.

Brother Erekson spoke about truth:

[Truth is] more of a process. It’s more of a way of being. It’s kind of a way of thinking: “Am I pulling in all of the evidence that I can find? Am I connecting it to everything that I know about the present? Am I staying humble for what may come in the future that may change what I put everything together the best that I know how, and then something may come in the future that changes it? Am I humble enough to accept that too?” I think all of that is part of us seeking after truth.

Here again, this is a thoughtful, meaningful description of truth, but we can all see that the Saints book does the opposite of pulling in all the evidence that is available. 

Finally, Brother Erekson gave a series of criteria for determining the best sources. I'll annotate it here.

Sarah Jane Weaver: Great, and how do people know how to know what is a good source? What is the key to say, “I’m going to keep this”?

20:50  

Keith A. Erekson: Well, I think there are a handful of criteria that I use. One of them is accuracy. You want to look for information that is accurate, and that test for accuracy in history, but also in other kinds of information, is a word that we call “corroboration.” So, can we find another source that shares the same information? That increases the likelihood. If two people were in a room, and they heard Joseph Smith give a sermon and they both recorded similarly, that increases our confidence that we’ve got an accurate account of what Joseph said. So, I think accuracy is an important criteria. 

Regarding the New York Cumorah, there are numerous sources that corroborate one another. Not only Oliver Cowdery's Letter VII, which you can read in Joseph's own journal and other Church publications from the time, but in the writings and recorded sermons of all of Joseph's contemporaries. Heber C. Kimball joined the Church in 1832 and visited the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra, saying he could still see the embankments around the hill.

It was only after Joseph and those who knew him died that RLDS scholar L.E. Hills determined Cumorah could not be in New York, but had to be in Mesoamerica. Eventually, many LDS scholars adopted the Hills approach.

Another one that we’ve touched on with the Elvis Presley example would be authenticity. Is it actually the thing that it purports to be? And so, in history, authenticity means it was actually created by that person at the time it was created, and we know where it’s been, and so we can say, “This is an authentic source of information.” 

The authenticity of Letter VII and the other sources is beyond question.

And I think a third criteria would be reliability, and this one grows out of the first two, because for some kinds of information, there is only one source, and so you can’t corroborate it, and so you have to make judgments about it being reliable. So one way you do that is you look at all of the things that you can judge, and you can say, “OK, this person or this source has told me 10 things. Nine of them I can test or corroborate and nine of them hold up. The chances are that the 10th one is also going to be sound.” But if I’m going through, and I’ve got 10 things from this source, and the first three are just not accurate at all, then you know, “OK, I’m already in trouble here, because this isn’t a reliable source; they’re telling me stuff that doesn’t hold up.” 

There are few more reliable sources than Oliver Cowdery, particularly because Joseph did not leave many written explanations. Oliver was an eyewitness to the translation, the plates and other artifacts, the repository of Nephite records inside the Hill Cumorah, and the restoration of Priesthood keys in the Kirtland temple.  

I think the fourth criteria would be fairness. You talked about this a little bit earlier about knowing what people mean. I think there are ways that people can take information and take it out of context and present it in a way that’s not fair to the way it was originally used.

Fairness supports Letter VII because Oliver did not leave room for misunderstanding. He was so clear that the only way the M2C advocates can suppress his work is by censoring it, as we see in the Saints book. 

I think the last criteria for me would be comprehensive search. So if somebody just said, “Hey, I Googled something, and I found the first hit, and here’s what you need to do for this latest health issue.” That’s going to be less persuasive than somebody who has studied comprehensively every major medical study on that issue in the last 40 years and synthesized that. And so now we have a comprehensive view, rather than just one piece of information that I found in a whole pile.

This is a key point. People who "Google" Cumorah typically find a barrage of M2C material, both from apologists in the M2C citation cartel and from critics who point out how the apologists have censored and de-correlated the New York Cumorah. It's not easy to find all the sources that teach and corroborate the New York Cumorah, but they do exist. If you haven't found them, keep trying.

Brother Erekson summarized the inherent challenges of historical research very well. Now, let's see if he can influence Church scholars to do the same.

The end.

Creative Writer wanted to work on Saints books

Important job opening for anyone interested and qualified:

The Church History Department announces an opening for a Creative Writer....

The Creative Writer will work under the direction of the Managing Historian.

QUALIFICATIONS

• A bachelor’s degree in English, history, or other related field. Preference will be given to applicants with a master’s or doctoral degree who have experience with writing narrative (fiction, creative non-fiction, journalism, etc.)

https://careersearch.churchofjesuschrist.org/public/jobdetail.aspx?jobid=306669&fbclid=IwAR19YL9jvkNTjm9woHJ1QeKby5WaYzyfad8uWvpZzaM1-fXz9n0SxbbDC2c

Opacity instead of clarity

Everyone agrees that we have more access to Church history materials than ever before. The Joseph Smith Papers are a phenomenal resources. The Church History Library has been digitizing records that were largely unknown just a few years ago.

All of this openness is refreshing.

However, modern Church history--the events taking place right now--are opaque.

The Saints books, for example, are anonymous. We don't know who wrote or edited them, we don't have access to editorial decisions, and despite the numerous footnotes, readers can't tell what was omitted or spun unless they have extensive background in the source materials.

Steven Harper was one of the most important figures behind the creation of the Saints book, volume 1. He also wrote First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins.

Much of that book is an examination of the creation of the narrative about the First Vision that we have today. 

Such a book could never be written about the creation of the narrative in the Saints book because of the lack of openness.

For example, Harper has a chapter on B. H. Roberts' work on preparing Church history. He writes, "Roberts experienced dissonance when he came to Smith's account of what happened when he saw the divine beings... [after listing the well-known discrepancy in the 1842 version of JS history] The two lines seemed a contradiction to Roberts.... So Roberts silently elided the line "for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong."

It could be that Harper is merely mindreading, but even if so, at least the history Roberts prepared was Roberts' work. This level of detail is possible because of the records Roberts left.

There is no comparable source material behind Saints, at least not that anyone can see.

Harper continues. Roberts "felt licensed to edit as his predecessors in the Church Historian's Office did--redacting with no hint to readers that the end result was anything other than Smith's voice."

He next points out that "the editorial practices of B. H. Roberts made no difference to Latter-day Saints in the early decades of the twentieth century."

That's similar to the case today, when most Latter-day Saints don't care about the editorial decisions made when compiling Saints. 

But some of us do care, because we see in Saints a deliberate effort to change the narrative about Church history.

Opacity prevents us from studying the editorial decisions that produced Saints. We are left to infer the agenda of the editors and authors.

It's understandable why current historians prefer opacity. But it's not acceptable from a historian's perspective.

SIFTing Saints

The Saints books are wonderful, important resources for Church members throughout the world. But surely readers of Saints, volume 1, realize they're reading a restatement of history, not always actual history. 

The editors had specific goals in mind that they achieved by careful editing and rewriting. 

To their credit, the editors provided numerous citations to original sources. That enables readers to "trust but verify" what they read in Saints.

There's an easy formula to follow to assess restatements of history such as the Saints book, volume 1. It goes by the acronym SIFT, as in "sift the opinions from the facts." 

1. Stop.

2. Investigate the source.

3. Find better coverage.

4. Trace claims, quotes and media to the original context.

Otherwise known as SIFT.

If you follow this approach, you soon find that Joseph, his family, and all of his contemporaries knew that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 was in western New York. You find that Joseph, his mother, and Oliver Cowdery always said Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim, not with any stone in a hat. You find that the actual history, contained in the original sources, makes more sense than much of the revisionist restatement of history in Saints. 

Saints and the crumbling pillar of social trust

In a comment on the Mark Hoffman Netflix series, Patrick Mason wrote this great insight:

The evilest thing Hofmann did was to kill two innocent people in cold blood. But perhaps the second most sinister thing he accomplished was to undermine our collective confidence in facts. Hofmann was a master forger, yes, but even more deeply he was a master manipulator of one of the pillars of social trust — the ability to agree on what the facts are. When that pillar begins to crumble, it’s not just the Saints and the nerds who have reason to worry.

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/3/9/22315949/murder-among-the-mormons-netflix-review-reaction-mark-hofmann-latter-day-saint-history-scholars

That concept of "social trust" expresses my disagreement with the way the current correlated history has been edited to accommodate M2C.

For example, the Saints book quotes Lucy Mack Smith's history 127 times. That's a legitimate and emphatic endorsement of her credibility and reliability, as well as her unique relationship with Joseph Smith and the insights that ensued.

But Saints omitted every reference to Cumorah, even though Lucy's account of what Joseph told her Moroni told him includes some important details available nowhere else.

As Patrick Mason pointed out, everyone interested in Church history should at least agree on what the facts are.

But Church members can't agree on the facts when they don't even know the facts.

_____

Here are two examples of what I'm referring to.

A common theme among LDS scholars lately is that Joseph never identified the hill as Cumorah, or at least not until he wrote the letter that became D&C 128:20, by which time, according to the scholars, Joseph had adopted the false tradition that Cumorah was in New York. This false tradition, supposedly, was created by unknown persons in the early days of the Church. 

Yet we have David Whitmer claiming repeatedly that he first heard about Cumorah directly from the divine messenger who had the abridged plates. This was in June 1829 before he had ever read a word in the Book of Mormon. We have Parley P. Pratt saying in 1831 that Moroni called the hill Cumorah anciently. We have Martin Harris referring to the hill as Cumorah in 1829.

What explains these accounts?

It's actually very simple and clear.

Lucy explained that Moroni identified the hill as Cumorah during his first visit to Joseph Smith. 

Now Joseph beware or when you go to get the plates your mind will be filled with darkness and all manner of evil will rush into your mind. To prevent you from keeping the commandments of God that you may not succeed in doing his work…

the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the  record under it laying on 4 pillars of cement— then the angel left him.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41 

Certainly, historians and everyone else can debate whether Lucy accurately remembered what Joseph told her, or whether her memory was "tainted" by a false traditions started later by Oliver Cowdery or someone else.

But to erase this important account from Church history, as presented in Saints, just to erase and de-correlate the New York Cumorah for ideological reasons is just as destructive to the pillar of social trust as Hoffman's effort to create new history through forged documents.

Censoring actual history is the mirror image of forging new history.

Apart from the Cumorah element, Lucy's recollection is significant because of the detail about the grass and moss. We don't get that detail anywhere but in Lucy's account. Such a detail helps explain why the stone remained hidden for all these centuries. Plus, it would help inform LDS artists. In the painting above, for example, we have a large boulder with no moss on it. Such a stone would not have concealed the stone box but would have called attention to it over the centuries.

_____

BTW, this reference brings up an anomaly in the Joseph Smith Papers. I did a search for "moss" and the reference above did not appear in the results. The only result from Lucy's history was this page:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/44

On that page, the section about moss is lined out, although it's not lined out on the original manuscript. I'm sure there's a reason for that, but I can't tell what it is.

The point here is that the above reference to moss in connection with Cumorah is not indexed in the search function. 

Actually, if you search in the Joseph Smith Papers for "Cumorah" several of the references don't show up. Try it yourself. (click to enlarge)

I have found similar gaps in other databases, where a search term does not produce a result even when I'm looking at a document in the database that includes the search term. It's impossible to tell whether this was an oversight, a programming error, or intentional. 

Regardless, this situation leaves us with a double problem involving the pillar of social trust.

(i) Saints omits important information about Moroni's visit to Joseph Smith.

(ii) The Joseph Smith Papers don't index this information even if you search for specific terms such as "Cumorah" and "moss."

How can we possibly have social trust when such important information is censored, withheld, unindexed, and undiscussed?

_____

A second example is the one I've brought up before, about the re-telling of the time when Moroni chastised Joseph Smith when he was coming home from Manchester. This event took place in January 1827, before Joseph obtained the plates. He referred to the hill as Cumorah on this occasion. Obviously, he could have learned the name Cumorah only from Moroni.

The Saints editors simply omitted the reference to Cumorah. It's unbelievable.

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/09/chapter-4-be-watchful.html

Here, I'm putting it in a side-by-side comparison so you can see how deliberate this editing was. Note how the section in the 1844-5 version was lined out on the original document, yet the Saints editors chose to use it instead of the revised 1845 version. In the 1845 version, Joseph referred to Cumorah to explain where he was when the angel chastised him. This is an important detail not only to explain where the event took place, but to show that Lucy and her husband knew exactly where the hill was when Joseph referred to Cumorah.

Readers of Saints never learn this. 

Nor do readers of the Joseph Smith Papers. This reference to Cumorah also does not show up in their results if you search for "Cumorah."

Saints, Vol. 1, p. 36	Lucy History 1844-5	Lucy History 1845
The Smiths liked having Joseph and Emma with them. But their son’s divine call made them anxious. People in the area had heard about the gold plates and sometimes went looking for them.18 One day, Joseph went to town on an errand.   Expecting him back for dinner, his parents were alarmed when he did not return. They waited for hours, unable to sleep. At last Joseph opened the door and threw himself into a chair, exhausted.     “Why are you so late?” his father asked.                   “I have had the severest chastisement that I ever had in my life,” Joseph said.   “Who has been taking you to task?” demanded his father.           “It was the angel of the Lord,” Joseph replied. “He says I have been negligent.”   The day of his next meeting with Moroni was coming soon. “I must be up and doing,” he said. “I must set myself about the things which God has commanded me to do.”19	<​Soon after​> this Mr. Smith had occasion to send Joseph to Manchester on buisness he set out in good season And we expected him <​to be​> at home as soon as 6 oclock but he did not arrive…. he did not return home till the night was considerably advanced his Father and myself were together I no one else was present   when he entered the house he seemed threw himself into a chair seemingly much exhausted he was <​as​> pale as ashes his Father exclaimed Joseph why have <​you​> staid so late has anything happened you we have been in distress about you these 3 hours after Joseph recovered himself a little he said Father I have had the severest chastisement that I ever had in my life   Chastisement indeed! said Mr Smith Well upon my word I would like to [know?] who has been takeing you to task and what their pretext was its pretty well too if you are to be detained till this time of night to take lectures for your bad practises— Joseph smiled to see his Father so hasty and indignant. Father said he it was the angel of the Lord. he says I have been negligent  that the time has now come when the record should be brought forth and that I must be up and doing that I must set myself about the things which God has commanded me to do but Father give yourself no uneasiness as to this	Not long after this his father had occasion to send him to Manchester on business. <​And,​> as he started quite early in the morning, we expected him home, at the outside, by 6. o clock in the evening. But when 6. came he did not arrive.— we always had a peculiar anxiety about him whenever he was absent from us; for, it seemed as if something was always taking place to jeopardize his life. But to return, he did not get home till the night was far spent.  On coming in, threw himself into a chair, apparently much exhausted.    My husband did not observe his appearance, and immediately exclaimed, “Joseph, why have you staid so late? has anything happened you? we have been much distressed about you these three hours.  As Joseph made no reply, he continued his interrogations until I finally said: now, father, (as that was the manner in which I commonly addressed him) let him rest a moment— dont touble him now— you see he is home safe, and he is very tired; so pray wait a little…. Presently he smiled, and said in a very calm tone, “I have taken the severest chastisement, that I have ever had in my life”.  My husband, supposing it was from some of the neighbors, was quite angry; and observed, “I would would like to know what business any body has to find fault with you.”       “Stop, father, Stop.” said Joseph, “it was the angel of the Lord— as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me and said, that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord;  that the time had come for the record to <​be​> brought forth; and, that I must be up and doing, and set myself about the things which God had commanded me to do: but, Father,’ continued he, ‘give yourself no uneasiness concerning the reprimand that I have received; for I now know the course that I am to pursue; so all will be well.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/59

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/111