Response to "Letter to a CES Director: Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions"

[[../Book of Mormon Concerns & Questions|Book of Mormon Concerns & Questions]]

A FAIR Analysis of: [[../|Letter to a CES Director]], a work by author: Jeremy Runnells

[[../First Vision Concerns & Questions|First Vision Concerns & Questions]]

Response to section "Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions"

Summary: The author of the letter asks, "Why is the Church not being honest and transparent to its members about how Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon? How am I supposed to be okay with this deception?"

Jump to Subtopic:

Response to claim: "Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat for translating the Book of Mormon" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
Response to claim: "Sources that I clearly demonstrate were either unofficial, extremely obscure, or not clearly educating the member and investigator about the rock in the hat translation" (Source: Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014)
Response to claim: The rock in the hat is confirmed "in an obscure 1992 talk given by Elder Russell M. Nelson" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
Response to claim: "he used the same 'Ouija Board' that he used in his days treasure hunting where he would put in a rock – or a peep stone – in his hat" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
Response to claim: "Why is the Church not being honest and transparent to its members about how Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon?" (Source: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony, April 2013)
Response to claim: "The issue here is the Church's continued displaying - still in 2014 - the incorrect, inaccurate, and deceptive art in its Conference Center, Church History Museum, Temple Square, Missionary publications, and official publications" (Source: Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014)

Response to claim: "Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat for translating the Book of Mormon"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Unlike the story I’ve been taught in Sunday Schools, Priesthood, General Conferences, Seminary, EFY, Ensigns, Church history tour, Missionary Training Center, and BYU…Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat for translating the Book of Mormon.

See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):

Response to claim: "Sources that I clearly demonstrate were either unofficial, extremely obscure, or not clearly educating the member and investigator about the rock in the hat translation"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Joseph used both the Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone, and after 1833 both items were referred to by the name "Urim and Thummim."

Jump to Detail:

Question: Did Joseph Smith use the Nephite interpreters to translate? Or did he use his own seer stone?

Joseph Smith used both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone, and both were called "Urim and Thummim"

Joseph Smith used both the Nephite Interpreters and his own seer stone during the translation process, yet we only hear of the "Urim and Thummim" being used for this purpose.

He described the instrument as ‘spectacles’ and referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim.
He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed, called ‘seer stones’ because they aided him in receiving revelations as a seer. The Prophet received some early revelations through the use of these seer stones.
Records indicate that soon after the founding of the Church in 1830, the Prophet stopped using the seer stones as a regular means of receiving revelations. Instead, he dictated the revelations after inquiring of the Lord without employing an external instrument.

Emma Smith confirmed that Joseph switched between the Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone during the translation

Emma Smith Bidamon described Joseph's use of several stones during translation to Emma Pilgrim on 27 March 1870 (original spelling retained):

Now the first that my <husband> translated, [the book] was translated by use of the Urim, and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color.”^[1]

Joseph Smith's small, egg-shaped seer stone. Emma said that "he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color." Photograph by Welden C. Andersen and Richard E. Turley Jr. Copyright © The Church Historian's Press.

Question: What are the Nephite interpreters?

The Nephite interpreters are two seer stones set in a framework resembling a set of "spectacles"

The Lord provided a set of seer stones (which were formerly used by Nephite prophets) along with the plates. The term Nephite interpreters can alternatively refer to the stones themselves or the stones in conjunction with their associated paraphernalia (holding rim and breastplate). Some time after the translation, early saints noticed similarities with the seer stones and related paraphernalia used by High Priests in the Old Testament and began to use the term Urim and Thummim interchangeably with the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's other seer stones as well. The now popular use of the term Urim and Thummim has unfortunately obscured the fact that all such devices belong in the same class of consecrated revelatory aids and that more than one were used in the translation.

The manner in which the interpreters were used was never explained in detail

The Nephite interpreters were intended to assist Joseph in the initial translation process, yet the manner in which they were employed was never explained in detail. The fact that the Nephite interpreters were set in rims resembling a pair of spectacles has led some to believe that they may have been worn like a pair of glasses, with Joseph viewing the characters on the plates through them. This, however, is merely speculation that doesn't take into account that Joseph soon disassembled the fixture, the spacing between seer stones being too wide for his eyes. The accompanying breastplate also appeared to have been used by a larger man. Like its biblical counterpart (the High Priest's breastplate contained 12 gems that symbolized him acting as a mediator between God and Israel), the Nephite breastplate was apparently non-essential to the revelatory process.

Question: Did Joseph Smith use his own seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon?

Many eyewitness accounts confirm that Joseph employed his seer stone during part of the translation process

"Emma as Scribe" by Robert T. Pack

Joseph Smith translates using the seer stone placed within his hat while Martin Harris acts as scribe. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

Martin Harris states that Joseph used the Nephite interpreters and then later switched to using the seer stone "for convenience." ^[2] In fact, Elder Nelson refers to the use of the seer stone in his 1993 talk:

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.) ^[3]

W.W. Phelps (1833): "through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles—(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)"

W.W. Phelps wrote the following in the January 1833 edition of The Evening and The Morning Star:

The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.-It 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, like the days of the apostles; and opens and explains the prophecies, that a child may understand the meaning of many of them; and shows how the Lord will gather his saints, even the children of Israel, that have been scattered over the face of the earth, more than two thousand years, in these last days, to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the mount Zion. ^[4]

It appears that the seer stone was also referred to as the "Urim and Thummim" after 1833, indicating that the name could be assigned to any device that was used for the purpose of translation.^[5]

Response to claim: "Sources that I clearly demonstrate were either unofficial, extremely obscure, or not clearly educating the member and investigator about the rock in the hat translation"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

FairMormon removed from their webpage...most of the sources they claimed backed up their position that the Church is transparent and honest in how the Book of Mormon is translated. Sources that I clearly demonstrate were either unofficial, extremely obscure, or not clearly educating the member and investigator about the rock in the hat translation.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The falsehood: The Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, Gospel Topics on LDS.org and the Ensign are hardly "extremely obscure" or "unofficial." Is a book written by an apostle, Neal A. Maxwell, that talks of the stone and the hat "obscure" or "unofficial"? Missionaries currently teach investigators that Joseph translated using the Urim and Thummim - a term which historical records apply to both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's own seer stone.The facts: Regardless of which instrument he used, the bottom line is that investigators are taught that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using the "gift and power of God" with the aid of a stone.

Jump to Detail:

Question: What Church sources discuss either the use of the seer stone or the stone and the hat as part of the Book of Mormon translation process?

Question: What Church sources discuss either the use of the seer stone or the stone and the hat as part of the Book of Mormon translation process?

The manner of the translation is described repeatedly, for example, in the Church's official magazine for English-speaking adults, the Ensign. Richard Lloyd Anderson discussed the "stone in the hat" matter in 1977,^[6] and Elder Russell M. Nelson quoted David Whitmer's account to new mission presidents in 1992.^[7]

The details of the translation are not certain, and the witnesses do not all agree in every particular. However, Joseph's seer stone in the hat was also discussed by, among others: B.H. Roberts in his New Witnesses for God (1895)^[8] and returns somewhat to the matter in Comprehensive History of the Church (1912).^[9] Other Church sources to discuss this include The Improvement Era (1939),^[10] BYU Studies (1984, 1990)^[11] the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (1993),^[12] and the FARMS Review (1994).^[13] LDS authors Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler also mentioned the matter in 2000.^[14] Elder Bruce R. McConkie talked about the seer stone in his second edition of Mormon Doctrine (1966), clearly distinguishing it from the Urim and Thummim, loosely implying that it was involved in the translation of the Book of Mormon, and quoting President Joseph Fielding Smith who said that "[t]his seer stone is now in the possession of the Church."^[15]

2016

Translation display at the Church-owned Priesthood Restoration site in Pennsylvania

A translation display at the Church-owned Priesthood Restoration historical site in Pennsylvania showing the hat, the plates (covered with a cloth) and writing instruments

2015

"Joseph the Seer," Ensign (October 2015)

In fact, historical evidence shows that in addition to the two seer stones known as “interpreters,” Joseph Smith used at least one other seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, often placing it into a hat in order to block out light. According to Joseph’s contemporaries, he did this in order to better view the words on the stone.
—Richard E. Turley Jr., Robin S. Jensen and Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Joseph the Seer," Ensign (October 2015)

The stone pictured here has long been associated with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon translation. The stone Joseph Smith used in the Book of Mormon translation effort was often referred to as a chocolate-colored stone with an oval shape. This stone passed from Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery and then to the Church through Brigham Young and others.
—Richard E. Turley Jr., Robin S. Jensen and Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Joseph the Seer," Ensign (October 2015)

A picture of Joseph Smith's seer stone from the October 2015 Ensign. Photograph by Welden C. Andersen and Richard E. Turley Jr.

From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

Joseph Smith prepares to translate using the seer stone placed within his hat while the plates are wrapped on the table. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

Joseph Smith prepares to translate using the seer stone placed within his hat while Oliver Cowdery acts as scribe. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

Joseph Smith translates using the seer stone placed within his hat while Martin Harris acts as scribe. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

Joseph Smith translates using the seer stone placed within his hat while Emma Smith acts as scribe. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

Joseph Smith translates using the seer stone placed within his hat while Oliver Cowdery acts as scribe. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

2013

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 2013

The Urim and Thummim was “an instrument prepared of God to assist man in obtaining revelation from the Lord and in translating languages” (Bible Dictionary, “Urim and Thummim”). Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim to aid in the translation of the Book of Mormon. In addition to the Urim and Thummim, the Prophet used a seer stone in the translation process.
Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said the following about the translation process and Joseph Smith’s use of the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone:
“The Prophet Joseph alone knew the full process, and he was deliberately reluctant to describe details. We take passing notice of the words of David Whitmer, Joseph Knight, and Martin Harris, who were observers, not translators. David Whitmer indicated that as the Prophet used the divine instrumentalities provided to help him, ‘the hieroglyphics would appear, and also the translation in the English language … in bright luminous letters.’ Then Joseph would read the words to Oliver (quoted in James H. Hart, “About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News, 25 Mar. 1884, 2). Martin Harris related of the seer stone: ‘Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin’ (quoted in Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses: Incidents in the Life of Martin Harris,” Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, 6 Feb. 1882, 86–87). Joseph Knight made similar observations (see Dean Jessee, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History,” BYU Studies 17 [Autumn 1976]: 35).
"Lesson 10: Joseph Smith—History 1:55–65," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 2013 (available online at LDS.org)

"Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on lds.org

Two accounts of the translation process, including the use of a seer stone, have been written by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and published in Church magazines. Historians have also written about the seer stone in Church publications, both in the Ensign and in The Joseph Smith Papers. (See Neal A. Maxwell, “‘By the Gift and Power of God,’” Ensign, Jan. 1997, 36–41; Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, July 1993, 61–63; Richard Lloyd Anderson, “‘By the Gift and Power of God,’” Ensign, Sept. 1977, 78–85; and Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831, xxix–xxxii.)
—"Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on lds.org off-site

Ensign

Gerrit Dirkmaat (Church History Department - January 2013 Ensign):

Those who believed that Joseph Smith’s revelations contained the voice of the Lord speaking to them also accepted the miraculous ways in which the revelations were received. Some of the Prophet Joseph’s earliest revelations came through the same means by which he translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates. In the stone box containing the gold plates, Joseph found what Book of Mormon prophets referred to as “interpreters,” or a “stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light” (Alma 37:23–24). He described the instrument as “spectacles” and referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim (see Exodus 28:30).2
He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed, called “seer stones” because they aided him in receiving revelations as a seer. The Prophet received some early revelations through the use of these seer stones. For example, shortly after Oliver Cowdery came to serve as a scribe for Joseph Smith as he translated the plates, Oliver and Joseph debated the meaning of a biblical passage and sought an answer through revelation. Joseph explained: “A difference of opinion arising between us about the account of John the Apostle … whether he died, or whether he continued; we mutually agreed to settle it by the Urim and Thummim.”3 In response, Joseph Smith received the revelation now known as section 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which informed them that Jesus had told the Apostle John, “Thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory” (D&C 7:3).

Records indicate that soon after the founding of the Church in 1830, the Prophet stopped using the seer stones as a regular means of receiving revelations. Instead, he dictated the revelations after inquiring of the Lord without employing an external instrument. One of his scribes explained that process: “The scribe seats himself at a desk or table, with pen, ink, and paper. The subject of inquiry being understood, the Prophet and Revelator inquires of God. He spiritually sees, hears, and feels, and then speaks as he is moved upon by the Holy Ghost.”
Gerrit Dirkmaat (Church History Department), "Great and Marvelous Are the Revelations of God," Ensign, January 2013. (emphasis added) off-site

2005

In 2005, Opening the Heavens was published jointly by the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History and Deseret Book. As part of this book, at least twenty-nine references to the stone (often with the hat) are included, from both friendly and hostile sources:

p. 112, 129, 130, 135, 136, 137, 138, 142, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 164, 166, 168, 178, 184, 185, 187, 192, 193, 196.

1997

Ensign

"Martin Harris related of the seer stone: 'Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin'"
—Neal A. Maxwell, “‘By the Gift and Power of God’,” Ensign, January 1997, 36 (emphasis added) off-site

1993

Ensign

"David Whitmer wrote: ' Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.'"
—Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, Jul 1993, 61. (emphasis added) off-site

1988

Not My Will, But Thine

"Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark."
—Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.

Ensign

The scriptures indicate that translation involved sight, power, transcription of the characters, the Urim and Thummim or a seerstone, study, and prayer.

After returning from a trip to Palmyra to settle his affairs, Martin began to transcribe. From April 12 to June 14, Joseph translated while Martin wrote, with only a curtain between them. On occasion they took breaks from the arduous task, sometimes going to the river and throwing stones. Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them." —Kenneth W. Godfrey, "A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon," Ensign (Jan 1988).

1977

Ensign

"There he gave his most detailed view of 'the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated': “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light."
—Richard Lloyd Anderson, "‘By the Gift and Power of God’," Ensign (Sep 1977), 79, emphasis added. off-site

1974

Friend

"To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone."
—“A Peaceful Heart,” Friend, Sep 1974, 7 off-site

1882

Millennial Star 4 (1882).

Others

Hyrum Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus, Personal Glimpses of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Covenant, 2009), 26, 44.
Hyrum Andrus, Joseph Smith, the Man and the Seer (Deseret Book, 1960), 12, 101.

Response to claim: The rock in the hat is confirmed "in an obscure 1992 talk given by Elder Russell M. Nelson"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The rock in the hat is confirmed "in an obscure 1992 talk given by Elder Russell M. Nelson."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: How is one talk on LDS.org more "obscure" than any other?The facts: The talk has always been available on LDS.org.

Jump to Detail:

President Russell M. Nelson and Sister Nelson at the Priesthood Restoration site during its dedication in 2015. The display shows a representation of the plates and the hat that were used during the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Gospel Topics: "Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term 'Urim and Thummim' to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters"

"These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable"

Gospel Topics on LDS.org:

These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters. In ancient times, Israelite priests used the Urim and Thummim to assist in receiving divine communications. Although commentators differ on the nature of the instrument, several ancient sources state that the instrument involved stones that lit up or were divinely illumin[at]ed. Latter-day Saints later understood the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer exclusively to the interpreters. Joseph Smith and others, however, seem to have understood the term more as a descriptive category of instruments for obtaining divine revelations and less as the name of a specific instrument. ^[16]

Ensign (Jan. 2013): "He...referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim...He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed"

Gerrit Dirkmaat (Church History Department - January 2013 Ensign):

Those who believed that Joseph Smith’s revelations contained the voice of the Lord speaking to them also accepted the miraculous ways in which the revelations were received. Some of the Prophet Joseph’s earliest revelations came through the same means by which he translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates. In the stone box containing the gold plates, Joseph found what Book of Mormon prophets referred to as “interpreters,” or a “stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light” (Alma 37:23–24). He described the instrument as “spectacles” and referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim (see Exodus 28:30).2
He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed, called “seer stones” because they aided him in receiving revelations as a seer. The Prophet received some early revelations through the use of these seer stones. For example, shortly after Oliver Cowdery came to serve as a scribe for Joseph Smith as he translated the plates, Oliver and Joseph debated the meaning of a biblical passage and sought an answer through revelation. Joseph explained: “A difference of opinion arising between us about the account of John the Apostle … whether he died, or whether he continued; we mutually agreed to settle it by the Urim and Thummim.”3 In response, Joseph Smith received the revelation now known as section 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which informed them that Jesus had told the Apostle John, “Thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory” (D&C 7:3).

Records indicate that soon after the founding of the Church in 1830, the Prophet stopped using the seer stones as a regular means of receiving revelations. Instead, he dictated the revelations after inquiring of the Lord without employing an external instrument. One of his scribes explained that process: “The scribe seats himself at a desk or table, with pen, ink, and paper. The subject of inquiry being understood, the Prophet and Revelator inquires of God. He spiritually sees, hears, and feels, and then speaks as he is moved upon by the Holy Ghost.”^[17]

Response to claim: "he used the same 'Ouija Board' that he used in his days treasure hunting where he would put in a rock – or a peep stone – in his hat"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

In other words, he used the same “Ouija Board” that he used in his days treasure hunting where he would put in a rock – or a peep stone – in his hat and put his face in the hat to tell his customers the location of buried treasure

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author wishes the reader to associate the seer stone, which he calls the "peep stone" with a "magic" Ouija Board.The facts: Ouija Boards are never mentioned in Mormon history, so this is simply an attempt to negatively influence the reader.

Jump to Detail:

Gospel Topics: "As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture"

"Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on LDS.org (2013):

Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote of two instruments used in translating the Book of Mormon. According to witnesses of the translation, when Joseph looked into the instruments, the words of scripture appeared in English. One instrument, called in the Book of Mormon the “interpreters,” is better known to Latter-day Saints today as the “Urim and Thummim.” ....
The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.” As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure. As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.^[18]

The seer stone display at the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City.

Question: Why would Joseph Smith use the same stone for translating the Book of Mormon that he used for "money digging"?

Would God approve the use of a "magic peep stone" in translating a sacred record?

Joseph was given a set of Nephite interpreters along with the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was produced. In addition, Joseph already possessed and utilized several seer stones. Although Joseph began translating the Book of Mormon using the Nephite interpreters, he later switched to using one of his seer stones to complete the translation. Critics (typically those who reject Mormonism but still believe in God) reject the idea that God would approve the use of an instrument for translation that had previously been used for "money digging."

Regardless of the perspective (believing or non-believing) from which we tell the story of the translation, the essential fact of the translation is unchanged

The conclusion that Joseph used a "magical" or "occult" stone to assist in the translation of the Book of Mormon is entirely dependent upon one's own preconception that the use of such an instrument would not be acceptable by God. Believers, on the other hand, ought not to take issue with a distinction between one set of seer stones versus another. As Brant Gardner notes: "Regardless of the perspective from which we tell the story, the essential fact of the translation is unchanged. How was the Book of Mormon translated? As Joseph continually insisted, the only real answer, from any perspective, is that it was translated by the gift and power of God." ^[19]

The point is not necessarily that the stone had the same ability, but that it provided a means for Joseph to exercise his spiritual abilities.
If one stops assuming that Joseph was a liar and deceiver, we can consider the matter from Joseph's point of view:
- He's being called upon to reveal things that are hidden, and to translate an ancient record.
- Joseph is painfully aware that he cannot do these things.
- How could Joseph know that he wasn't going crazy or being delusional? Tying his early prophetic work to something with which he had already had objective success (the use of the seer stone) allowed Joseph to trust both God and himself.
- The Lord seems to have used Joseph's preexisting beliefs about how the world worked (including seer stones to reveal hidden things) to help Joseph gain confidence in his own abilities.
- The Nephite interpreters had been blessed and dedicated for the purpose of translating the Book of Mormon—this would have increased Joseph's faith, and they did help him receive revelation more effectively, initially. This is what excited Joseph more than even the plates themselves—he was able to do more with the Nephite stones.
- With time, Joseph was able to translate with his "original" stone—thus, his own ability had increased, because he no longer needed the "stronger" Nephite stones.
- Eventually, he did not require the "prop" or "crutch" of the stone at all—his faith and experience had grown.
Critics of the Church often act as if the stone or Urim and Thummim were a type of "magic translator" that anyone could have looked through. They weren't. Joseph always insisted he was only able to do what he did "by the gift and power of God." It is probable that anyone else examining the stones would have found nothing unusual or different about them.
The power to translate or reveal hidden things came from God—as Joseph's experience and spiritual maturity increased, his reliance upon a physical instrument became less and less.
Joseph using this method to receive revelation bodes well with the Lord's words in Doctrine and Covenants 1:24

"Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."

Response to claim: "Why is the Church not being honest and transparent to its members about how Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The above nine images are copyrighted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [images of Joseph looking at the plates in the open] Book of Mormon translation as it actually happened: [images of Joseph looking into a hat] Why is the Church not being honest and transparent to its members about how Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon? How am I supposed to be okay with this deception?

See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):

Response to claim: "The issue here is the Church's continued displaying - still in 2014 - the incorrect, inaccurate, and deceptive art in its Conference Center, Church History Museum, Temple Square, Missionary publications, and official publications"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author simply assumes dishonesty on the part of the Church, and moves forward from that assumption. Again, this is simply an effort to negatively influence the reader.

Jump to Detail:

Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question—The author asks a question that has a presumption already built into it in such a way that an answer cannot be provided without validating that presumption.

The author starts with the assertion that the Church is not being honest and allows no other possibility to explain the data. ∗ ∗ ∗

Here’s an illustration: A traditional view of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon. Now, there are several things wrong with it, and he points to this sort of thing and says this is Church deception. Joseph didn’t have the plates with him quite often, and here is is following along with the text on the plates. Well, you know that’s not true, because the witnesses didn’t see the plates all the time, right? This can’t possibly be true. When the witnesses saw the plates it was a big deal for them, because, Joseph wasn’t just sitting there translating with the plates in front of him all the time as people wandered around and so on. But [the author of the Letter to a CES Director] says, “look, the Church is being deceptive” because it doesn’t show Joseph with his face in the hat using the seer stones. Well, my response to this partly would be “What in the world are you thinking of?” Trying to derive doctrine from illustrations? Or expecting that illustrations are going to give you the accurate picture? Here’s another one: There Joseph has the curtain between him and the scribe....This one is equally wrong. It’s not a sign of evil or deliberate conspiratorial intent. It’s just an indication that the illustrators often just don’t get it right.

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference.

∗ ∗ ∗

Question: Does Church art always reflect reality?

All art, including Church art, simply reflects the views of the artist: It may not reflect reality

Samuel the Lamanite Prophecies from the City Wall by Arnold Friberg

It is claimed by some that the Church knowingly "lies" or distorts the historical record in its artwork in order to whitewash the past, or for propaganda purposes. ^[20] For example, some Church sanctioned artwork shows Joseph and Oliver sitting at a table while translating with the plate in the open between them. Daniel C. Peterson provides some examples of how Church art often does not reflect reality, and how this is not evidence of deliberate lying or distortion on the part of the Church:

Look at this famous picture....Now that’s Samuel the Lamanite on a Nephite wall. Are any walls like that described in the Book of Mormon? No. You have these simple things, and they’re considered quite a technical innovation at the time of Moroni, where he digs a trench, piles the mud up, puts a palisade of logs along the top. That’s it. They’re pretty low tech. There’s nothing like this. This is Cuzco or something. But this is hundreds of years after the Book of Mormon and probably nowhere near the Book of Mormon area, and, you know, and you’ve heard me say it before, after Samuel jumps off this Nephite wall you never hear about him again. The obvious reason is....he’s dead. He couldn’t survive that jump. But again, do you draw your understanding of the Book of Mormon from that image? Or, do you draw it from what the book actually says?^[21]

Question: Why are people concerned about Church artwork?

As the critics point out, there are potential historical errors in some of these images

See also: Does Church art hide the presence of Joseph's siblings at Moroni's visit?

One of the strangest attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an assault on the Church's art. Now and again, one hears criticism about the representational images which the Church uses in lesson manuals and magazines to illustrate some of the foundational events of Church history.^[22]

A common complaint is that Church materials usually show Joseph translating the Book of Mormon by looking at the golden plates, such as in the photo shown here.

Artist's rendition of Joseph and Oliver translating the Book of Mormon.^[23]

Here critics charge a clear case of duplicity—Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith are shown translating the Book of Mormon.

But as the critics point out, there are potential historical errors in this image:

Oliver Cowdery did not see the plates as Joseph worked with them.
For much of the translation of the extant Book of Mormon text, Joseph did not have the plates in front of him—they were often hidden outside the home during the translation.
Joseph used a seer stone to translate the plates; he usually did this by placing the stone in his hat to exclude light, and dictating to his scribe.

The reality is that the translation process, for the most part, is represented by this image:

Joseph Smith prepares to translate using the seer stone placed within his hat while Oliver Cowdery acts as scribe. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat. (11 May 2015)

Anthony Sweat explains more about the history of artistic depictions of the Book of Mormon translation in this presentation given at the 2020 FAIR Conference

Question: Is the Church trying to hide something through its use of artwork?

The manner of the translation is described repeatedly in Church publications, despite the inaccurate artwork

The implication is that the Church's artistic department and/or artists are merely tools in a propaganda campaign meant to subtly and quietly obscure Church history. The suggestion is that the Church trying to "hide" how Joseph really translated the plates.

On the contrary, the manner of the translation is described repeatedly, for example, in the Church's official magazine for English-speaking adults, the Ensign. Richard Lloyd Anderson discussed the "stone in the hat" matter in 1977,^[24] and Elder Russell M. Nelson quoted David Whitmer's account to new mission presidents in 1992.^[25]

The details of the translation are not certain, and the witnesses do not all agree in every particular. However, Joseph's seer stone in the hat was also discussed by, among others: B.H. Roberts in his New Witnesses for God (1895)^[26] and returns somewhat to the matter in Comprehensive History of the Church (1912).^[27] Other Church sources to discuss this include The Improvement Era (1939),^[28] BYU Studies (1984, 1990)^[29] the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (1993),^[30] and the FARMS Review (1994).^[31] LDS authors Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler also mentioned the matter in 2000.^[32]

Neal A. Maxwell: "To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark"

Elder Neal A. Maxwell went so far as to use Joseph's hat as a parable; this is hardly the act of someone trying to "hide the truth":

Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4꞉14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark.^[33]

Those who criticize the Church based on its artwork should perhaps take Elder Maxwell's caution to heart.

Artists have been approached by the Church in the past to paint a more accurate scene, yet denied the request for artistic vision.

From Anthony Sweat’s essay “The Gift and Power of Art”:

When I asked Walter Rane about creating an image of the translation with Joseph looking into a hat, he surprised me by telling me that the Church had actually talked to him a few times in the past about producing an image like that but that the projects fell by the wayside as other matters became more pressing. Note how Walter refers to the language of art as to why he never created the image:
At least twice I have been approached by the Church to do that scene [Joseph translating using the hat]. I get into it. When I do the draw- ings I think, “This is going to look really strange to people.” Culturally from our vantage point 200 years later it just looks odd. It probably won’t communicate what the Church wants to communicate. Instead of a person being inspired to translate ancient records it will just be, “What’s going on there?” It will divert people’s attention. In both of those cases I remember being interested and intrigued when the commission was changed (often they [the Church] will just throw out ideas that disappear, not deliberately) but I thought just maybe I should still do it [the image of Joseph translating using the hat]. But some things just don’t work visually. It’s true of a lot of stories in the scriptures. That’s why we see some of the same things being done over and over and not others; some just don’t work visually.^[34]

Anthony Sweat explains more about the history of artistic depictions of the Book of Mormon translation in this presentation given at the 2020 FAIR Conference

Question: Why doesn't the art match details which have been repeatedly spelled out in Church publications?

The simplest answer is that artists simply don't always get such matters right

Why, then, does the art not match details which have been repeatedly spelled out in LDS publications?

The simplest answer may be that artists simply don't always get such matters right. The critics' caricature to the contrary, not every aspect of such things is "correlated." Robert J. Matthews of BYU was interviewed by the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, and described the difficulties in getting art "right":

JBMS: Do you think there are things that artists could do in portraying the Book of Mormon?
RJM: Possibly. To me it would be particularly helpful if they could illustrate what scholars have done. When I was on the Correlation Committee [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], there were groups producing scripture films. They would send to us for approval the text of the words that were to be spoken. We would read the text and decide whether we liked it or not. They would never send us the artwork for clearance. But when you see the artwork, that makes all the difference in the world. It was always too late then. I decided at that point that it is so difficult to create a motion picture, or any illustration, and not convey more than should be conveyed. If you paint a man or woman, they have to have clothes on. And the minute you paint that clothing, you have said something either right or wrong. It would be a marvelous help if there were artists who could illustrate things that researchers and archaeologists had discovered…
I think people get the main thrust. But sometimes there are things that shouldn't be in pictures because we don't know how to accurately depict them…I think that unwittingly we might make mistakes if we illustrate children's materials based only on the text of the Book of Mormon.^[35]

Modern audiences—especially those looking to find fault—have, in a sense, been spoiled by photography. We are accustomed to having images describe how things "really" were. We would be outraged if someone doctored a photo to change its content. This largely unconscious tendency may lead us to expect too much of artists, whose gifts and talents may lie in areas unrelated to textual criticism and the fine details of Church history.

Even this does not tell the whole story. "Every artist," said Henry Ward Beecher, "dips his brush in his own soul, and paints his own nature into his pictures."^[36] This is perhaps nowhere more true than in religious art, where the goal is not so much to convey facts or historical detail, as it is to convey a religious message and sentiment. A picture often is worth a thousand words, and artists often seek to have their audience identify personally with the subject. The goal of religious art is not to alienate the viewer, but to draw him or her in.

Question: How do non-Mormon artists treat the Nativity?

A look at how other religious artists portray the birth of Christ

The critics would benefit from even a cursory tour through religious art. Let us consider, for example, one of the most well-known stories in Christendom: the Nativity of Christ. How have religious artists portrayed this scene?

		A personal favorite of mine is Belgian painter Pierre Bruegel the Elder. In his Census of Bethlehem (1569, shown at left) he turns Bethlehem into a Renaissance Belgian village. The snow is the first tip-off that all is not historically accurate. But the skaters on the pond, the clothing, and the houses are also all wrong. However, it's unlikely that anyone would suggest Bruegel's tribute was an attempt to perpetuate a fraud.

An Italian work from the thirteenth century gives us The Nativity with Six Dominican Monks (1275, shown at right). There were surely no monks at the Nativity, and the Dominican order was not formed until the early thirteenth century. But any serious claim that this work is merely an attempt to "back date" the order's creation, giving them more prestige would certainly be dismissed by historians, Biblical scholars, and the artistic community.

		Renaissance Italian Madonna Even details of no religious consequence are fair game for artists to get "wrong." Giovanni Bellini's portrait of Mary might seem innocuous enough, until one spots the European castle on the portrait's right, and the thriving Renaissance town on the left.

Non-European cultures Other cultures follow the same pattern. Korean and Indian artists portray the birth in Bethlehem in their own culture and dress. Certainly, no one would suspect that the artists (as with Bruegel the Elder) hope we will be tricked into believing that Jesus' birth took place in a snow-drenched Korean countryside, while shepherds in Indian costume greeted a sari-wearing Mary with no need for a stable at all under the warm Indian sky?

		African example For a final example, consider an African rendition of the Nativity, which shows the figures in traditional African forms. If we were to turn the same critical eye on this work that has been turned on LDS art, we might be outraged and troubled by what we see here. But when we set aside that hyper-literal eye, the artistic license becomes acceptable. Clearly, there's a double standard at work when it comes to LDS art.

As the director of Catholic schools in Yaounde, Cameroon argues:

It is urgent and necessary for us to proclaim and to express the message, the life and the whole person of Jesus-Christ in an African artistic language…Many people of different cultures have done it before us and will do it in the future, without betraying the historical Christ, from whom all authentic Christianity arises. We must not restrict ourselves to the historical and cultural forms of a particular people or period.^[37]

The goal of religious art is primarily to convey a message. It uses the historical reality of religious events as a means, not an end.

Religious art—in all traditions—is intended, above all, to draw the worshipper into a separate world, where mundane things and events become charged with eternal import. Some dictated words or a baby in a stable become more real, more vital when they are connected recognizably to one's own world, time, and place.

This cannot happen, however, if the image's novelty provides too much of a challenge to the viewer's culture or expectations. Thus, the presentation of a more accurate view of the translation using either the Nephite interpreters (sometimes referred to as "spectacles") or the stone and the hat, automatically raises feelings among people in 21st Century culture that the translation process was strange. This type of activity is viewed with much less approval in our modern culture.

Question: What message does the Book of Mormon translation painting convey?

The translation was carried out openly—Joseph had no opportunity to hide notes or books

What religious message(s) does the Del Parson translation picture convey?

Artist Del Parson's rendition of Joseph and Oliver translating the Book of Mormon.

The translation was carried out openly—Joseph had no opportunity to hide notes or books. This was confirmed by Elizabeth Ann Cowdery and Emma Smith.^[38]
The plates had a physical reality, and Oliver Cowdery was convinced of this reality. Unlike some of the other Three Witnesses, who spoke only of seeing the angel and the plates, Oliver Cowdery insisted that "I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true…I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet."^[39] Oliver is also quoted in one account as describing Joseph "as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics..."^[40] This alternative technique was confirmed by John Whitmer, who said of Oliver that "[w]hen the work of translation was going on he sat at one table with his writing material and Joseph at another with the breast-plate and Urim and Thummim. The later were attached to the breast-plate and were two crystals or glasses, into which he looked and saw the words of the book."^[41]
The translation was not a weird, esoteric exercise.

The hat detail causes problems for the critical theory that Joseph cheated with notes while dictating. With a curtain in place, it is much easier to postulate that Joseph used notes or a Bible in the translation process. With the stone and the hat, however, witnesses were able to view the entire process, thus highlighting the total lack of notes or Bible in the translation process. Note also that in Parson's painting, with it's open setting, the cheat-notes theory can't get any traction.

One needs to consider the impressive witness testimonies of the plates' reality, and the fact that the use of a seer stone in a hat is not intrinsically less plausible than the use of two seer stones mounted in a set of "spectacles" attached to a breastplate. In fact, there are even accounts which effectively mix the two methods, with Joseph purportedly removing one of the stones from the "spectacles" and placing it in a hat.

Efforts to diminish the miracle of the translation effort by emphasizing the substitution of one seer stone for another seems to convey something to a modern audience that it never portrayed to the participants—that the Book of Mormon was uninspired and uninspiring.

Response to claim: "The issue here is the Church's continued displaying - still in 2014 - the incorrect, inaccurate, and deceptive art in its Conference Center, Church History Museum, Temple Square, Missionary publications, and official publications"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The issue here is the Church's continued displaying - still in 2014 - the incorrect, inaccurate, and deceptive art in its Conference Center, Church History Museum, Temple Square, Missionary publications, and official publications.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Back when the author of the CES Letter was a believing Latter-day Saint, did he ever see a piece of Church artwork that depicted the Nephite interpreters (a.k.a. the "Urim and Thummim) in use during the translation process? Certainly not, unless he happened upon one single depiction in a 1970s edition of the Book of Mormon Reader. Otherwise, every piece of art depicting the translation process that he saw while a believing member was just as inaccurate as he claims they are now - yet Church manuals and lessons clearly indicate that the Urim and Thummim was used. So the author had no problem with clearly inaccurate artwork prior to his deconversion, but he has a problem with it now. This indicates that the issue of accuracy in Church art is simply a reflection of one's current perspective of the Church: if you are a believer, the artwork doesn't matter. On the other hand, if you are an unbeliever, it suddenly takes on importance in the arsenal of items that can be used against the Church in an effort to portray it as dishonest.

The inaccuracy of this artwork doesn't seem to bother active Church members - they know that the Urim and Thummim were used, yet they know that they aren't seeing it in the artwork. The truth is that depicting the translation instrument, whether it be the Nephite interpreters or the seer stone, would appear equally awkward, and the artists simply choose not to portray it. The "traditional" portrayal would show Joseph looking into a pair of "spectacles," while an alternate portrayal would show Joseph looking at a stone in the bottom of his hat. One is hardly more culturally "uncomfortable" than the other.

Jump to Detail:

The seer stone display at the Church History Museum (2017).

Question: Has The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints deceived its members regarding controversial issues about its origins, history, and/or scripture?

Introduction to Criticism

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is routinely criticized for its treatment of controversial aspects of its history and scripture by critics. It is claimed and has been claimed for a long time that the Church deceives their members by not informing them about issues that are supposedly damning to the Church’s credibility. A mantra of many of those that have left the Church is that "Yesterday's anti-Mormon literature is today's mainstream history" or "Yesterday's anti-Mormon literature is today's Gospel Topics Essays".

Frequently accompanying these charges are portrayals of the Church as a money-making scheme. Church leaders are supposedly seeking to increase tithing donations to defraud people of money and use it to buy up palatial homes and other goods.

About this criticism, President Dallin H. Oaks has said that "[i]t’s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That’s an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn’t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should’ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life."^[42]

This article will examine the assumptions that need to be made in order to believe that the Church has lied to its members about controversial issues and the problems with those assumptions. The criticism is broad enough that we'll need to use a lot of space to unpack it. We'll do so in general terms. Specific cases that critics have pointed to as instances of the Church acting deceptively have been addressed in other FAIR articles and are linked to throughout the course of this article and most especially at the end of it.

Important information is found in both the main body of this article as well as the footnotes. The footnotes contain tangential but still important information related to this topic. We encourage readers to read and explore both.

Assumptions Behind an Accusation of Deception

1. The information must be available

The first assumption we can identify is that there must be information that can actually be discussed. This can be difficult for at least three reasons:

Some historical documents are not made available to the Church since they can be sitting in personal files of people across the United States and other nations where the Church has had a presence. They may not want to share those documents with the Church or other historians and keep them sacred.
Many historical documents are still sitting in large historical archives across the nation and haven’t even been processed.^[43] This is especially true of the Church’s archives in Salt Lake City where thousands of historical documents are waiting to be processed by professional archivists. The Church didn’t even get professional archivists until the 70s. Prior to that time, the Church History Department was run by non-expert General Authorities.
Many documents don’t get looked at until a historian starts asking the right questions and actively seeks that information. For instance, we didn’t know about several historic ordinations of black individuals to the priesthood under Joseph Smith’s administration until Lester Bush asked the necessary questions, researched them, and finally wrote his seminal 1973 Dialogue article “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview”.

As aptly stated by Latter-day Saint historians James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, “[t]he history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is constantly changing as new information becomes available and as each generation asks fresh questions about its past.”^[44]

2. The information must be correct

The information available to Church leaders and scholars must be correct. The facts upon which interpretations are built must be accurately identified and stated and the interpretations of those facts must be the most likely correct interpretation. This can be difficult since historians typically debate the particulars of many issues for years before coming to a consensus on an issue and the Church isn’t going to publish claims in its official literature based on specious scholarship. Sometimes there's more than one interpretation that works for historical evidence. Sometimes one interpretation of that evidence looks more plausible than it actually is—and that interpretation can be the one that makes it to official publications—sometimes to be walked back and rethought later on.

Keith A. Erekson, director of the Church History Library in Salt Lake City, observes that "[s]ometimes errors of fact go unnoticed in the origin, editing, and publishing process. Church curriculum materials or letters about chapel artwork undergo a doctrinal and legal review but not a historical or cultural review."^[45]

Even the Church's newest, most transparent, and most professional official history Saints has this disclaimer near the back of the first volume on page 659:

Saints is a true account of the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based on what we know and understand at the present time from existing historical records. It is not the only possible telling of the Church’s sacred history, but the scholars who researched, wrote, and edited this volume know the historical sources well, used them thoughtfully, and documented them in the endnotes and list of sources cited. Readers are invited to evaluate the sources themselves, many of which have been digitized and linked to the endnotes. It is probable that the discovery of more sources, or new readings of existing sources, will in time yield other meanings, interpretations, and possible points of view.

There are many errors that can be made while doing historical scholarship and they all have to do with the historical method. FAIR has an article that gives a brief overview of how to do history and how to answer criticisms of the Church based in it.

Main article: Question: How can one answer criticisms of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based in history?

3. The information must actually be damning.

The information that is correct must actually be damning either to the character of Joseph Smith, the authenticity of scripture, etc.

This can be a difficult assumption to establish for the simple fact that people can and do react differently to the same information depending on what assumptions they are willing to accept prior to or after confronting that information.

We can take seeming anachronisms in the Book of Mormon for example. Some people might take the presence of seeming anachronisms to be immediately damaging to the credibility of scripture. Others are perfectly fine with the presence of seeming anachronisms since they can be resolved by considering the possibility of loan-shifts. Others might take a seeming anachronism to mean that more information might come to light on it--especially when considering the paucity of archaeological data we have about the ancient New World, preservation conditions for bone deposits, and other factors.

Regarding Church curriculum materials, Keith Erekson observes that "[p]eople draw different conclusions about what is faith promoting, and these judgements, made in the present and influenced by current needs and concerns, have shaped the telling of stories over time. Changes in sensibilities influence what a person or generation deems appropriate for public conversation."^[46]

4. Church leaders must become aware of that information at some point

Leaders of the Church have to become aware of that information at some point. This can be difficult for the simple fact that Church leaders likely don’t have time to become aware of controversial scholarly issues.

The late historian D. Michael Quinn observed that "Church leaders have as much experience with the church’s past history as anyone who graduated from seminary, so they are not trying to conceal any concerns or a great secret or mystery, because they are not aware of them. If they haven’t acquired a knowledge of church history before they become a General Authority, they don’t have time to acquire it."^[47]

5. Church leaders must take proactive steps to suppress that information

Once information has been found to be correct and damning and general Church leaders have discovered that information, those general Church leaders must take proactive steps to suppress that information. This can be difficult for the simple fact that certain forms of information can’t be easily suppressed.

We can take Book of Mormon anachronisms again as our example. All it takes for someone to find a potential anachronism in our scriptural works is to read those works and compare their claims to the current archaeological science we find from scholars. You can find all that information online or other books that are publicly available.

In the case of historical documents, it’s not that hard to suppress them actually. One need simply burn them secretly if they wished. But there have been exactly zero times when anyone has claimed with credibility that Church leaders have burned documents. The documents that are typically restricted by the Church from public access and stored in its archives are patriarchal blessings of early church members and other temple documents from Church history. The rest is generally open to the public.

This assumption is further complicated by the fact that we have access to information about these issues today. The reader being on the FAIR website and seeing all the claims that critics have made about the Church is evidence that we have vital information on these topics from the Church. The critics couldn’t have made their claims without historical and scientific information being made available for them to formulate those claims. The apologists couldn’t have responded without the critics’ information as well as other info gathered from other sources that help respond to the critics.

This assumption is complicated even further by seeing how many times these issues have appeared in official Church publications, semi-official Church publications, and outside venues over the years. FAIR has compiled exhaustive or near-exhaustive bibliographies for issues like plural marriage, the Book of Abraham, and the First Vision. FAIR has collected smaller yet still revealing bibliographies for most other issues of major controversy.

We’ve also collected a number of sources for things like Joseph Smith’s use of the seer stone and/or hat during the translation of the Book of Mormon. Returning to the mantra mentioned before, it's funny that many assert that the Church "is just now admitting" a lot of these facts when they have "admitted" them several decades before the Gospel Topics Essays, for example, were even published. Indeed, nearly all controversial facts that one might find in the CES Letter, for example, can be found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism published in 1992 and republished in 2007. Critics back then were absolutely sure that the Church "was just then admitting the truth" about a lot of these subjects. They were absolutely sure that the Church was "just admitting" that Joseph Smith utilized a seer stone and placed it in a hat during the translation of the Book of Mormon when Elder Russell M. Nelson mentioned it to a group of new mission presidents and when his talk was published in the July 1993 Ensign.^[48] The reality is that nearly all of these issues critics will bring up have been discussed in official, semi-official, and extraofficial literature for a long time.

FAIR also has accurate info and faithful commentary on the artistic depictions of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon that have appeared in Church publications as well as in chapels, temples, and other official Church buildings over the years and that critics say are inaccurate.

Further bibliographic work can be done to find every official, semi-official, and extraoffficial publication done on each controversial issue to further settle debates regarding alleged duplicity on the part of the Church in telling their story. We encourage those interested in this question to do that work. Those interested in doing that work will need to begin their inquiry by first asking when an issue needs to be first mentioned. Because obviously many of the Church's members knew that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy and polyandry, for instance. But when would that issue begin to be forgotten by church members and need to be researched and discussed in publications? That's when it would become an item of potential duplicity on the part of the Church: if they didn't discuss it when it needed to be discussed. Then bibliographers would need to find all publications that discuss the issue, what controversies researchers faced and had to decide on, when those controversies were decided, when Church leaders found out about the information, when the Church decided to place that information in its official literature, and finally when the claims actually appeared in the literature. Only then can potentially valid criticisms of duplicity arise.

There have been periods of time in which the Church was much more guarded and reluctant to open its archives to outsiders. Non-Latter-day Saint historian John G. Turner observes that Church leaders became such after the publication of Fawn M. Brodie's No Man Knows My History (1945) and Juanita Brooks' The Massacre at Mountain Meadows (1950).

Policies for archival access became strict during the 50s and 60s. After Joseph Fielding Smith was relieved of his duties as the Church Historian in 1972, policies for archival access became much more open. From 1972–1982 there was this period of openness to historical research known today among academic historians of Church history as the "Camelot Years," "Camelot Period," or "Camelot Era".^[49]

Beginning in the 60s and 70s there were attempts to write history about the Church that was more academically-grounded. This work typically did not overtly state that angels, God, and other divine agents were involved in many events of Church history. Rather, phraseology was typically something like "X person claimed to see angels and God." It was called by academics at the time and is still called by historians today "New Mormon History".^[50]

This more professional approach presented Church history in a tone that was meant to be palatable to both member and non-member alike. Elders Boyd K. Packer, Mark E. Petersen, and Ezra Taft Benson bristled at this. They wanted to be able to tell the Church's story assuming confidently the existence of God, angels, visions, miracles, etc.^[51] Instead of "X person claimed to see angels", they'd say that "X person saw angels". Instead of saying "Joseph Smith, like many other religious figures, sought for a primitive version of Christianity and founded a church claiming to be a restoration of Christ's New Testament church", they wanted to simply say that "Joseph Smith restored the Church of Jesus Christ back to the earth". Their concerns were reinforced by the tendency of LDS critics and dissidents to use Church archive access to distort Church history or only tell "part of the story."

Since the mid 1980s onward there has been a trajectory towards greater and greater historical transparency and rigor. Beginning in 2001, researchers began the Joseph Smith Papers Project: an attempt at publishing all known documents belonging to Joseph Smith or at least passing through his hands. This project was moved to Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City in 2005 and has been publishing under the Church's auspices since then.

Beginning in 2008, the Church planned a new narrative history of the Church to replace B.H. Roberts' old Comprehensive History of the Church published in 1930. Its first volume was released in 2018 entitled Saints: The Standard of Truth. The second and third volumes of this four-volume history have also been published: Saints: No Unhallowed Hand (2020) and Saints: Boldly, Nobly, and Independent (2022). These volumes have consciously been written to address thorny issues in the Church's history and move members' historical knowledge of the church to one that includes "warts and all".

The Church has also digitized large and important swaths of its historical archives and interested parties can peruse these documents in the Church History Catalog.

6. Church leaders must take those proactive steps to suppress information with malicious intent

It’s also important to establish that Church leaders must take those proactive steps to suppress information with malicious intent. The author says “malicious” intent because some information seems to have been kept from church members because there was no scholar who could be trusted to take the information and be forthright about its implications while also being sensitive to church members and their beliefs (such as in the case of the First Vision and Joseph Fielding Smith that critics love to talk about).

It may take time for Church leaders and other officers to decide how to roll out information to its members so that it doesn’t end up hurting their faith and trust in the Church and it’s past leaders because of misrepresentation by the Church's critics or enemies. Often, doubt about the Church is not a matter of information being damning, but the way in which that information is presented that makes it appear as such. It may take time for Church leaders to present the necessary theological and intellectual groundwork that can help other information be integrated into members' understanding. As Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “[y]ou don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place.”^[42]

The Church has the right to tell its own story in its own way and at its own time. This does not mean that the Church has a right to lie or distort the truth; but to present the truth in a way that ultimately advances the Church’s mission of creating Zion and helping others follow God. Church leaders must find the right time (in their incredibly busy schedules and given all the other pressing issues that face the Church and are on the leaders' agendas), the right venue (in the many venues that are available to them and that would be the best conduits to the right hearts and minds), and the right way (given many other circumstances) to present information on these controversial topics. Figuring out all of that is an incredibly tricky task to say the least.

This assumption is further complicated by the fact that the apostles and other General Authorities live lifestyles roughly commensurate with the vocations they held prior to their calls into Church hierarchy. They don't buy up a fleet of yachts nor Lamborghinis just for Church use. Church funds are always geared towards the benefit of the Church. They’re not used for top Church leaders to just live off of the backs of the people. Indeed, they don't need to. They have all the resources, given their stipends and past succesful careers, that they need to live happy, productive lives in their callings and to cover all their necessary expenses.

Many critics insist that Church leaders are trying to just get money—citing things like some General Authorities’ living stipends and the construction of City Creek mall. Information about those topics from an accurate and faithful perspective can be found by following the hyperlinked text.

Finally, it’s doubtful that a lot of information absolutely needs to shared. For example, can one imagine what it would be like if the Church had to announce with trumpet and scrolled proclamation every plagiarism accusation against Joseph Smith? Every argument made against his character? Every argument against other prophets’ characters? Indeed, as Boyd K. Packer correctly observed, "some things that are true are not very useful." Think especially about how you would write the history of a beloved family member that was about to pass and asked you to compile and/or write it. Would you include every single unsavory or negative thing about their life in that history you wrote? Elder Dallin H. Oaks addressed this perspective and urged us to "[s]ee a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation."^[42]

7. You must be a good reader.

People need to read to get information. It’s a simple fact of life. It’s also a fact that, as a species, we are fairly bad at reading anything. We aren’t typically interested in something until we feel that we absolutely must be interested in that thing. This is especially true with Latter-day Saints in a crisis of faith: they now feel that their faith is on the line with certain critical arguments made based on history and scripture, whereas before they didn’t feel that and so likely didn’t get interested in Church history and scholarly literature on the scriptures.

As Latter-day Saint apologist Michael Ash has observed:

It [has] been said that America is a nation of non-readers. We are, by and large, literate, but we are often [uninformed] and tend to spend less time reading than watching TV or surfing the Internet. A 2011 survey, for instance, found that the average U.S. adult spends about 7-12 times more time watching TV than reading books.^[52] Studies indicate that in the past two decades about 25% fewer American adults spent time reading books.^[53] According to another study,

One-third of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.

58% of the U.S. adult population never reads another book after high school.

42% of college graduates never read another book.

80% of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year

70% of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.

57% of new books are not read to completion.^[54]

When we do read, we often choose pop magazines or novels over nonfiction. Most Americans, for example, are severely uninformed in regards to significant historical issues, current events, or scientific facts. According to a 2003 Gallup poll, a full 83% of Americans could not name the then-current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, and nearly a third of Americans were unable to name the then-current vice president Dick Cheney.^[55] According to Carl Sagan, 63% of Americans are unaware that the last dinosaur died before the first humans lived, and nearly half of American adults do not know that the Earth goes around the sun and that it takes a year to do so.^[56]
The problem is even more pronounced among [the United States’] teens. One third of U.S. teens, for instance, were unable to associate Hitler with Germany.^[57] Pulitzer prize-winning historian David McCullough complains that many high school and college students are unaware that George Washington was commander of the Continental Army, or that the 13 original colonies were all on the East Coast.^[58]
One recent study showed that many Americans were significantly ignorant on what should be common matters of religious knowledge. Only 54% of respondents, for instance, knew that the Koran (Qu'ran) is an Islamic holy book. Only 51% knew that Joseph Smith was a Mormon, and only 46% knew that Martin Luther inspired the Reformation. Although the vast majority of the people polled [were] Christian, only 37% said they read the scriptures at least once a week (not counting worship services), and only 45% knew that the Gospels [were] comprised of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Only 63% knew that Genesis was the first book in the Bible, and only 60% knew that Abraham was a figure in the Bible who was willing to sacrifice his son for God.^[59]
According to one author who wrote about the decline in American religious knowledge, 60% of Americans cannot name five of the Ten Commandments and 50% of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were married.^[60] Another study claims that one third of Americans polled believe that evangelist Billy Graham delivered Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.^[61]
With such non-reader ignorance, is it really any wonder that a number of Mormons are unfamiliar with Joseph Smith's involvement with plural marriage? To repeat a comment generally attributed to Mark Twain: "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."^[62]^[63]

It’s also true that we need to be reading the right publications to get the information we’re looking for. Elder Dallin H. Oaks observed that "what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem."^[42] The Church, including its leaders and scholars, are going to want to place the information in settings that are designed for specific types of explorations in Church history and scripture. Publications like BYU Studies, the Journal of Mormon History, Church magazines, Seminary manuals, Institute Manuals, Church newspapers, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Interpreter, Element, and others will all have different topics that they are going to want to explore and different levels that they will address them at. They know that there are going to be different audiences that want different content. Even if you are reading the right literature and reading a lot there’s no guarantee that the issues will be addressed the way that you might prefer. This is because the publications might be written in a style, scope, or at particular reading level that simply doesn’t permit the issue being addressed that way.

Some may complain that they wanted the information to be presented in Sunday School classes. But as Michael Ash has observed:

The purpose of Church curriculum. . .including Sunday School, Priesthood [meetings], and Relief Society [meetings] is to support the mission of the Church: to bring people to Christ. Very little actual history is discussed in Church classes. Even every fourth year when the Doctrine and Covenants is taught (which includes some Church history) the primary goal of the class is to help members draw closer to God, seek the Spirit, and understand gospel principles. Thousands of virtually untrained volunteers, with varying degrees of gospel and historical knowledge, endeavor to bring the Spirit into the classroom so that class members can be spiritually edified. While some Gospel Doctrine teachers may be knowledgeable enough to share detailed historical information, the manuals generally give basic historical outlines that specifically relate to lessons focusing on one or more gospel principles and how to apply those [principles] in the lives of members. In short, Church is a place for worship, spiritual edification, and enlightenment, not for in-depth historical discussion."^[64]

Along similar lines, Keith Erekson observed that "[t]he common teaching technique of identifying principles for application [by Sunday school and other teachers in local congregations] inadvertently omits facts. A lesson that uses the First Vision as a template for receiving personal revelation rarely mentions all the historical accounts." Regarding the curriculum writing and publishing of the Church, Erekson observes that "[b]ecause of its latter-day mission, the Church has prioritized messages about conversion and salvation, which means that information about some historical events or issues receives less priority.""^[65] Elder Dallin H. Oaks observed that "the Sunday School teacher that gives 'Brother Jones' his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that."^[42]

Along with these points from Ash and Erekson, we would do well to remember that those who control curriculum at the Church Office Building, the Correlation Committee, can be conservative in their approach and be suspicious of new information being distributed to members. This is especially true if that information has typically come through and been promulgated by anti-Mormon sources. We can also remember that the Church has, for the first 200 years or so, been on the defensive from many, many critics. Our approach for defense has sometimes been to “circle the wagons” as it were and shield people from attack. It's understandable why there might be some skittishness. Thus, some charity is encouraged toward those dealing with this concern.

If you want to find information about a particular facet of criticism that the Church faces, then you need to be reading a lot, reading the right things, and to expect the issue to be addressed in a way unique to the style, scope, and audience of that publication.

See also: Question: How has the Church responded to issues related to Church history?

8. You must remember what you read.

This assumption might seem a bit superfluous, but it may become more relevant with experience with those who struggle with this question. You have to remember what you read. Many people might actually be exposed to good information regarding a topic that addresses the concern but not remember the issue itself or the details surrounding the issue and responses to it that would inoculate them to that issue.

When they’re confronted with the issue again they may feel that the Church deceived them on this or that detail, when in reality they just have innocently forgotten much about the issue when they first confronted it.

Other Relevant Considerations

There are very few new discoveries related to Church history

Many critics will present a faithful member with some fact of church history and would have them believe that this is a new discovery. The reality is that there are very few new discoveries related to Church history. In fact, most, if not all of these documents have been well known to church historians for many years. Occasionally, a new document will be discovered which sheds additional light on some aspect of Church history. One such example is the discovery of documents that clarify that the Church was actually organized in Fayette, New York rather than Manchester, New York as some have claimed. However, situations such as this are rare. When a critic presents a "new" historical fact, you can be assured that this very same "fact" has been discussed by Latter-day Saint scholars for many years. There is truly little new information for the critics to draw from.

The critic presents these historical facts in order to shake the member's testimony, hopefully to the point of leaving the church. They attempt to present contradictions, such as "Joseph Smith drank wine at Carthage Jail, and therefore violated the Word of Wisdom." They attempt to catch Church leaders in deceit or portray them as hypocrites. Yet, there are many LDS experts on Church history that remain fully aware, faithful, actively attending church members. There are no facts that unarguably disprove the authenticity of the church. As always it comes down to faith and a personal witness between an individual and the Lord.

Past Histories of the Church Were Written in Line With the Hagiographic Style of the 19th and 20th Century

Apologist Michael Ash has observed that past histories of the Church were written in the hagiographic style of the early 19th and 20th centuries. This sometimes affected what information was or wasn't shared:

Information can be withheld intentionally or unintentionally. First we will discuss the intentional reasons. In the context of early creations of LDS history, we find a tradition among most-nineteenth century biographies (the primary form of historical creations) that emphasized the positive aspects of heroic figures in the hopes of inspiring readers while often exaggerating or even fabricating anecdotes--such as George Washington chopping down his father's cherry tree. Frequently, in cases of early American biographies involving religious or philosophical movements, the movement took center stage and the "history" was a tool for evangelizing the movement. Any information that might harm the movement was withheld from the biography/history.

Early Mormon historians, like many historians of their era, were not trained in history but were instead influenced by the English Puritans whose histories were written as faithful explanations of their events. These Puritans (as well as early LDS historians) believed that, like the Hebrews before them, they were God’s chosen people whose coming to America was part of God's unfolding plan. "Their history and biography" note three prominent historians, "told the saga of God's dealings as seen in their personal lives. In short, Puritan biography and autobiography were simultaneously scripture as well as history." "Accuracy and realism were...largely things of the future."^[66]
Apostle George Q. Cannon, whose faith-promoting stories were intended for the youth of the Church, wrote some of the more popular historical accounts of early Mormonism. Such works, like many other non-LDS works of the nineteenth century, were defensive in tone, biased, one-dimensional, and devoted to evangelizing a particular perspective. Today such writings are often referred to as hagiographies. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the modern biography—critical, multi-dimensional, and objective (at least in principle)—"began to take its present form."^[67] The early faith-promoting histories, however, became the source of historical knowledge for many Church members and launched similar popular works for decades to come. While it can be said that early LDS histories intentionally withheld challenging and non-flattering information, in the context of the times this was not unique to Mormonism and is to be expected.^[68]

President Dallin H. Oaks observed that "we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of 'warts and all' kind of history."^[42]

Conclusion

The Church has not been perfect in the dissemination of information about its history and scripture. That’s rather expected in any institution managed by imperfect mortals. But to say that it hasn’t done a good job or that it has consistently, deliberately, and/or maliciously hidden unsavory parts about its history and/or scripture from others cannot be taken seriously. There are simply too many confounding variables and complicating data points to validly make this claim. In general, it seems fair to say that anyone could have known about all these controversial issues about the Church; but that does not necessarily mean that they should have known about these issues. We all have busy lives with school, work, families, and other responsibilities. It makes sense that we’re not going to be able to have the time and energy to pursue all of these issues at the depth that others might.

Hopefully everyone will evaluate this issue with faith, hope, and charity.^[69] Such will be the only way to come to peace with it.

Critics will want to be aware of these assumptions if they want to try and establish their criticism more fully in the future and defenders will want to be aware of these to know how to approach response to critics.

Defenders should keep in mind, as Dallin H. Oaks has observed about this criticism, that "we will never satisfy every complaint along [this] line and probably shouldn’t."^[42]

Appendix 1: Specific Incidents Critics Claim are Examples of Deception

Several specific incidents that critics believe are examples of the Church deceiving its members about controversial aspects of Church history and responses to those critics' arguments are linked below. Important to remember that whether or not these accusations are true, they have little to no bearing on the amount of trust that people should have in today’s church leaders since these incidents all occurred in the past and would have been done by people that aren’t today’s church leaders.

Related questions about 'hiding' or distorting Church history

FAIR articles	Question: Does Church manual, ''The Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young'', attempt to "hide history" by portraying Brigham Young (a well-known polygamist) as having only one wife? Question: What does ''The Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young'' say about Brigham's wives? Question: Do Mormon histories have a long history of omitting mention of plural marriage as a cause for the Saints' troubles in Illinois? Question: Why does the account of Sidney Rigdon's 'trial' recorded in the Times and Seasons differs markedly from the version available in the History of the Church? Question: Does Oliver Cowdery's blessing and promise to Orson Hyde contain a false prophecy, which was then altered before being printed in History of the Church? Question: Did Wilford Woodruff criticize assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson's decision to publish the names of those who were married to Joseph Smith because he wanted to hide the fact that Joseph was married to other women? Question: Did the Church order Ronald L. Poelman's 1984 conference talk to be re-recorded with a "cough track" in order to hide the fact that changes had been made? Latter-day Saint scholar Paul Reeve has argued that the Church attempted to erase from collective memory the ordination of Elijah Abel in order to shore up the authority of the priesthood and temple restrictions on members of the Church of black African descent.^[70]

⍗

Learn more about the reliability of Church history

Key sources	Ron Barney, "The Reliability of Mormon History Produced by the LDS Church," Proceedings of the 2009 FAIR Conference (August 2009). link Steven Olsen, "Is the Church Archives Closed?," Proceedings of the 2007 FAIR Conference (August 2007). link
FAIR links	Michael Parker, "The Church's Portrayal of Brigham Young" FAIR link
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Plural marriage essays Church history Template:To learn more box:First Vision: Church hiding different versions

Appendix 2: Further video content

Church historians Matthew Grow and Kate Holbrook, along with Elder Quinten L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, addressed this issue at a youth Face-to-Face event sponsored by the Church. They answer the question from 14:25-20:42 of the video below:

President Dallin H. Oaks and Elder M. Russell Ballard gave other perspective on this question in a Face-to-Face event with young adults of the Church. Elder Ballard begins at 46:34 of the video below and their commentary on the issue goes until 48:40.

Alleged hiding of facts in Church history

Summary: The Church is routinely accused of suppressing and hiding uncomfortable facts from its own history. Yet, the very same people quote Church sources in order to provide proof of their claims. This concern often rests on a misunderstanding. It is true that the Church's teachings are primarily doctrinal and devotional—Church lessons are neither apologetic nor historical in scope or intent. It is remarkable, however, how many of the issues which some charge the Church with "suppressing" are discussed in Church publications.

Jump to Subtopic:

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Latter-day Saint history

Overview	Latter-day Saint history Approaching history Responding to criticisms about Church history Primary source documents of early Church history
Accuracy of Church History	Alleged whitewashing of Church history Alleged hiding of facts in Church history History scholars and Church discipline Accuracy of Church art History of the Church (6-volume history) Lucy Mack Smith's biography of Joseph Smith Histories written by scholars
Forgeries and folklore	Mark Hofmann Kinderhook Plates The Sealed Book of Mormon by Mauricio Berger The Mentinah Papers The Ang Aklatan The Bat Creek Stone The Burrows Cave artifacts Mormon urban legends or folklore

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon Translation

The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.

From our perspective in the present, the past is mostly gone. The people have passed away; their experiences have ended. However, pieces of the past remain . . . Today, we can learn about the past only indirectly through the pieces that remain. Information is always lost between the past and the present.^[71]

We can only ever partly understand the past. We don't have all the "pieces," and the evidence of what happened is not the same thing as what happened. For example, consider eating a meal today. You could video record eating the meal, but that recording leaves out a lot of what actually happened: what was the situation leading up to the meal? what was happening beyond the view of the camera? what was your emotion while eating? All of these can't be fully captured or understood through the video.

This is even more true about the "distant" past. We have only fragmentary writings, and sometimes a photograph or painting, to help us understand an event. Thus, we must try and interpret what the fragmentary records are telling us about what actually happened. This is even harder because we don't fully understand the context of the past. They had different customs and norms, and trying to understand the past based on our present customs and norms is called "presentism."

Video by BYU Religious Education.

Understanding Information and Records

When trying to interpret the past, we use information in an attempt to demonstrate that some belief can at least be true. This information comes from records, which are compiled by people (sources). Understanding information and records can help in addressing doubts. Understanding the perspective and bias of sources is also important.

Information

In our context, information can be objective (descriptive) or subjective (normative).

Objective (descriptive) information is a statement about the physical condition of something at a moment in time, or in other words. The statement is either true or false for everyone. For example, "Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son" is an objective statement. Either the event happened or it didn't. People may disagree on whether or not it happened, but the event cannot have happened for some people but not for others.
Subjective (normative) information is a statement about the value condition (good or bad, better or worse) of something at a moment in time. Whether the statement is true or false depends on who is speaking. For example, "Joseph Smith was a good person" is a subjective statement. Good is a judgment of value and its meaning depends on the opinion of the person speaking. Joseph Smith could be seen as good by some people and not by others.

Information can come from a primary or secondary source.

A primary source means someone directly involved in whatever is being discussed. In addition, generally the person needs to share the information close to whatever moment in time is referenced. (This is due to how human memory works.)
A secondary source means someone not directly involved in whatever is being discussed. It can also apply to someone directly involved if the person did not share the information close to whatever moment in time is referenced. For example, "Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son" would be secondary information if it was stated by someone other than Joseph.

Finally, information can be direct or indirect.

Direct information is an explicit statement. For example, suppose we want to know the year Joseph Smith had his First Vision. The statement "Joseph Smith saw his First Vision in 1820" explicitly gives the information we want.
Indirect information is not an explicit statement, but information can be inferred based on what is or isn't stated as well as other information we already have. For example, the statement "Joseph Smith was 14 years old when he saw his First Vision" does not tell us what year the vision happened. However, combining that information with information we already had about Joseph's birth year (1805) allows us to determine the year of the vision (1820).

Records

Information is contained in records. Records are either original or derivative.

An original record is, well, original. It is probably best described by what it is not. It is not a derivative record. For example, Joseph Smith's original 1832 history is an original record. (An image of the original record is available on the Joseph Smith Papers website. It should be noted that images of original records are generally also considered original records.)
A derivative record is any record with information that is translated, transcribed, abstracted, extracted, indexed, and so forth. For example, the transcription of Joseph's 1832 history that appears next to the image is a derivative record. Some derivative records are more reliable than others. For example, the transcription of the history on the Joseph Smith Papers website is more reliable than a transcription appearing in a self-published book by an anonymous author.

Perspectives and Bias

When evaluating information and records, it is important to understand the source of the information or record. In addition to affecting the category of information or record provided, knowing the source helps to be aware of whatever perspective or bias affected the information and records searched or cited. (Everyone has some sort of perspective or bias, and anyone who thinks they don't are deceiving themselves. If you want to know more about biases, just do an internet search for something like "everyone has a bias.")

Evaluating Information and Records

There are various ways to evaluate information and records about Church history, doctrine, or practice.

Five Questions

BYU professors Anthony Sweat and Kenneth Alford encourage asking five questions about an account or information discussing Church history:^[72]

Is it a primary account?
What is its relationship to other sources?
Is it a contemporary account?
Does it have an objective perspective?
Are its claims supported by evidence?

Seeing Historical People in Context

Another part of interpreting the past is understanding the context. Elder Dallin Oaks discusses the issue of church history and facts that are not discussed frequently in church approved curriculum during an interview with Helen Whitney (HW) for the PBS documentary, The Mormons. He gives a good description of this dilemma and the church's method for confronting it. ^[73]

Referring to the importance of not focusing on a person's negative aspects while learning of their history Elder Oaks said,

...See a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.

Elder Oaks is then asked how the church deals with imperfections of early church members and current members coming across this information themselves on the internet rather than through teachings of the church. Elder Oaks responds,

It’s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That’s an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn’t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should’ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life.

People's Readiness to Understand History

There are several different elements of that. One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.
On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.

Apologist Michael Ash has observed something similar:

Information can be withheld intentionally or unintentionally. First we will discuss the intentional reasons. In the context of early creations of LDS history, we find a tradition among most-nineteenth century biographies (the primary form of historical creations) that emphasized the positive aspects of heroic figures in the hopes of inspiring readers while often exaggerating or even fabricating anecdotes—such as George Washington chopping down his father's cherry tree. Frequently, in cases of early American biographies involving religious or philosophical movements, the movement took center stage and the "history" was a tool for evangelizing the movement. Any information that might harm the movement was withheld from the biography/history.
Early Mormon historians, like many historians of their era, were not trained in history but were instead influenced by the English Puritans whose histories were written as faithful explanations of their events. These Puritans (as well as early LDS historians) believed that, like the Hebrews before them, they were God’s chosen people whose coming to America was part of God's unfolding plan. "Their history and biography" note three prominent historians, "told the saga of God's dealings as seen in their personal lives. In short, Puritan biography and autobiography were simultaneously scripture as well as history." "Accuracy and realism were...largely things of the future."^[74]
Apostle George Q. Cannon, whose faith-promoting stories were intended for the youth of the Church, wrote some of the more popular historical accounts of early Mormonism. Such works, like many other non-LDS works of the nineteenth century, were defensive in tone, biased, one-dimensional, and devoted to evangelizing a particular perspective. Today such writings are often referred to as hagiographies. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the modern biography—critical, multi-dimensional, and objective (at least in principle)—"began to take its present form."^[75] The early faith-promoting histories, however, became the source of historical knowledge for many Church members and launched similar popular works for decades to come. While it can be said that early LDS histories intentionally withheld challenging and non-flattering information, in the context of the times this was not unique to Mormonism and is to be expected.^[76]

Notes

↑ "Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma Pilgrim, 27 March 1870," in Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Press, 1996-2003) 1:532.
↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 1:128–129. GospeLink "[Martin Harris] said that the Prophet possessed a Seer Stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as with the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he sometimes used the Seer Stone."
↑ Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign (July 1993): 61.
↑ W.W. Phelps, "The Book of Mormon," The Evening and The Morning Star 1:58 .
↑ Stephen D. Ricks, The Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, Featured Papers, Maxwell Institute, Provo UT. off-site
↑ Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign (September 1977): 83.
↑ Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign (July 1993): 61.
↑ Brigham H. Roberts, "NAME," in New Witnesses for God, 3 Vols., (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909 [1895, 1903]), 1:131–136.
↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 1:130–131. GospeLink
↑ Francis W. Kirkham, "The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON," Improvement Era (1939), ?.
↑ Dean C. Jessee, "New Documents and Mormon Beginnings," Brigham Young University Studies 24 no. 4 (Fall 1984), 397–428.; Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," Brigham Young University Studies 30 no. 1 (Winter 1990), 51–52.
↑ Stephen D. Ricks, "Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/2 (1993). [201–206] link
↑ Matthew Roper, "A Black Hole That's Not So Black (Review of Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book, vol. 1 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review of Books 6/2 (1994): 156–203. off-site
↑ Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2000), commentary on D&C 9.
↑ Bruce R. McConkie, "Urim and Thummim," Mormon Doctrine 2nd edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 818-19. Quoting Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation vol. 3 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956), 225. It should be mentioned that President Smith did not believe that the seer stone was used during the Book of Mormon translation process.
↑ "Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on LDS.org (2013).
↑ Gerrit Dirkmaat (Church History Department), "Great and Marvelous Are the Revelations of God," Ensign (January 2013).
↑ "Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on LDS.org (2013)
↑ Brant A. Gardner, Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat?, FAIR Conference 2009.
↑ Accusations of the Church lying because of inaccurate artwork are offered by the following critical sources: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 8. ( Index of claims ); MormonThink.com website (as of 8 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm; MormonThink.com website (as of 28 April 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm; Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 1. ( Index of claims )
↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," FairMormon Conference 2014
↑ Note: Most of the images used in this paper are centuries old, and so are in the public domain. I have tried to indicate the creator each of these works of art. No challenge to copyright is intended by their inclusion here for scholarly purposes and illustration. Click each photo for title and author information.
↑ Del Parson, "Translating the Book of Mormon," © Intellectual Reserve, 1997. off-site
↑ Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign 7 (September 1977): 83.
↑ Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign 23 (July 1993): 61.
↑ Brigham H. Roberts, "NAME," in New Witnesses for God, 3 Vols., (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909[1895, 1903]), 1:131–136.
↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 1:130–131. GospeLink
↑ Francis W. Kirkham, "The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON," Improvement Era (1939), ?.
↑ Dean C. Jessee, "New Documents and Mormon Beginnings," BYU Studies 24 no. 4 (Fall 1984): 397–428.; Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 30 no. 1 (Winter 1990): 51–52.;
↑ Stephen D. Ricks, "Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/2 (1993). [201–206] link
↑ Matthew Roper, "A Black Hole That's Not So Black (Review of Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book, vol. 1 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review of Books 6/2 (1994): 156–203. off-site
↑ Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2000), commentary on D&C 9.
↑ Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.
↑ Anthony Sweat, “The Gift and Power of Art," in From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2015), 236–37.
↑ Anonymous, "A Conversation with Robert J. Matthews," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/2 (2003). [88–92] link
↑ Henry Ward Beecher, Proverbs from Plymouth Pulpit, 1887.
↑ P. Pondy, "Why an African Christ?" jesusmafa.com. off-site
↑ Cowdery: “Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe” [John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone, “The Translation of the Book of Mormon: Basic Historical Information,” F.A.R.M.S. report WRR–86, 25.] Emma: Joseph translated "hour after hour with nothing between us." [Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Advocate 2 (October 1879).]
↑ Reuben Miller Journal (21 Oct. 1848), Church Historian's Office; Richard L. Anderson, "Reuben Miller, Recorder of Oliver Cowdery’s Reaffirmations," Brigham Young University Studies 8 no. 3 (Spring 1968), 278.
↑ Oliver Cowdery; as cited by Personal statement of Samuel W. Richards, 25 May 1907, in Harold B. Lee Library, BYU, Special Collections, cited in Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," 85.
↑ John Whitmer, in S. Walker, "Synopsis of a Discourse Delivered at Lamoni, Iowa," 26 Saints' Herald 370 (15 December 1879).
↑ ^42.0 ^42.1 ^42.2 ^42.3 ^42.4 ^42.5 ^42.6 "Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary," Church Newsroom, July 20, 2007, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary.
↑ A comprehensive guide to these archives has been published in the book Mormon Americana through BYU Studies.
↑ James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1992), xi.
↑ Keith A. Erekson, Real vs. Rumor: How to Dispel Latter-day Myths (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 214.
↑ Ibid.
↑ D. Michael Quinn at Utah Valley State College, 3 February 2005; reported in Caleb Warnock “Historian delivers talk at UVSC,” Daily Herald, February 4, 2005, D1. Cited in Gregory L. Smith, "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication," FAIR Papers, 2005, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/smith-Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf.
↑ Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign 23, no. 7 (July 1993).
↑ For a personal memoir and reflection on this period of time, see Davis Bitton, "Ten Years in Camelot: A Personal Memoir," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 16, no. 3 (Fall 1983): 9–19.
↑ A collection of essays exemplifying this new approach can be found in D. Michael Quinn, ed., The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the Past (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992). We encourage mature, faithful members and seasoned consumers of Church history volumes to read it. For further reflections on New Mormon History from one of its founders, see Reid L. Neilson and Ronald W. Walker, eds., Reflections of a Mormon Historian: Leonard J. Arrington on the New Mormon History (Norman, OK: Oklahoma University Press, 2006).
↑ John G. Turner, "'All Truth Does not Always Need to be Told': The LDS Church, Mormon History, and Religious Authority," in Out of Obscurity: Mormonism Since 1945, ed. Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 326–27.
↑ "Time spent in leisure and sports activities for the civilian population by selected characteristics, 2011 annual averages," Bureau of Labor Statistics, at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm (accessed 9 December 2012).
↑ "Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America," National Endowment for the Arts, Research Division Report #46 (June 2004), xi; available online at https://www.arts.gov/about/publications/reading-risk-survey-literary-reading-america-executive-summary.
↑ Jerrold Jenkins survey (www.JenkinsGroup.com) posted at http://parapublishing.com/sites/para/resources/statistics.cfm (accessed February 2008). The infographic is no longer there. An updated graphic can be found at http://www.robertbrewer.org/surprising-book-facts-infographic/.
↑ George H. Gallup, Jr., "How Many Americans Know U.S. History? Part 1." Gallup News Service; available online at http://www.gallup.com/poll/9526/how-many-americans-know-us-history-part.aspx (accessed 2 December 2012).
↑ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Ballentine Books, 1996), 324.
↑ Joseph Carroll, "Teens' Knowledge of World History Slipping," Gallup News Service; available online at http://www.gallup.com/poll/5785/teens-knowledge-world-history-slipping.aspx (accessed 2 December 2012).
↑ David McCullough, "The De-Emphasis of History Education," posted 21 March 2007 at http://shrewdnessofapes.blogspot.com/2007/03/de-emphasis-of-history-education.html (accessed 17 September 2012).
↑ U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, The Pew Research Center (8 September 2010); available online at https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/ (accessed 17 September 2012).
↑ Cathy Lynn Grossman, "Americans Get an 'F' in Religion," USA Today (14 March 2007); available online at http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-03-07-teaching-religion-cover_N.htm (accessed 17 September 2012).
↑ "What Americans Should But Don't Know About Religion," Pew Research Center Publications (6 February 2008) at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/723/what-americans-should-but-dont--know-about-religion (accessed 17 September 2012). That link is broken and no other link can be found. Readers can find the most up-to-date information about religious knowledge in Pew's 2019 survey on the same topic. Available online at https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/07/23/what-americans-know-about-religion/.
↑ While this quote is almost universally attributed to Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain), I have been unable to find the original source for this quote. See James Glen Stovall at http://jprof.com/writing/quotations.html (accessed 14 December 2012). That link is also broken. Try this: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/12/11/cannot-read/.
↑ Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome, 2nd ed. (Redding, CA: FairMormon Press, 2014), 15–16.
↑ Ibid., 13–14.
↑ Erekson, Real vs. Rumor, 213.
↑ Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whitaker, and James B. Allen, Mormon History (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 117.
↑ Ibid., 117, 119–120.
↑ Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome, 13.
↑ Moroni 7:40-45
↑ Paul Reeve, "'From Not White Enough, to Too White: Rethinking the Mormon Racial Story'," Proceedings of the 2015 FAIR Conference (August 2015). link See under "Restriction is Solidified, 1908".
↑ Keith A. Erekson, “Understanding Church History by Study and Faith,” Ensign, February 2017.
↑ Anthony Sweat and Kenneth L. Alford, "A Method for Evaluating Latter-day Saint History," Religious Educator 21:3 (2020).
↑ Dallin Oaks, "Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary," Newsroom (20 July 2007) off-site
↑ Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whitaker, and James B. Allen, Mormon History (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 117.
↑ Ibid., 117, 119–120.
↑ Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome (Redding, CA: FairMormon Press, 2014), 13.

⍗

Learn more about Church history

Key sources	Anthony Sweat and Kenneth L. Alford, “A Method for Evaluating Latter-day Saint History,” Religious Educator 21, no. 3 (2020): 61–81.
FAIR links	Davis Bitton, "I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church," Proceedings of the 2004 FAIR Conference (August 2004). link Jeffrey Bradshaw, "Stories of the Saints in the DR Congo," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link Elder Craig C. Christensen, "Foundations of Our Faith," Proceedings of the 2019 FAIR Conference (August 2019). link Scott Hales, "'The Exodus and Beyond: A Preview of Saints, Volume 2: No Unhallowed Hand'," Proceedings of the 2019 FAIR Conference (August 2019). link Steve Harper, "Making Saints: A Look into the Writing of the New Church History," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link Matthew McBride, "Answering Historical Questions with Church History Topics," Proceedings of the 2019 FAIR Conference (August 2019). link
Online	Craig L. Foster, "The Continuing Saga of Saints," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 53/6 (23 September 2022). [91–94] link
Video	BYU Religious Education, “Understanding Latter-day Saint Doctrine and History,” BYU Religious Education, December 7, 2020, video, 6:32, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4U2OI00tCs</ref>
Primary sources	Elders' Journal Evening and Morning Star Journal of Discourses Messenger and Advocate Times and Seasons
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Plural marriage essays
Sub categories	Council of Fifty Council of Fifty intellectual history intellectual history Kirtland Kirtland miscellaneous miscellaneous Missouri Missouri Nauvoo Nauvoo reliablity reliablity RLDS and Community of Christ RLDS and Community of Christ

Notes

[1] "Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma Pilgrim, 27 March 1870," in Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Press, 1996-2003) 1:532.

[2] Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 1:128–129. GospeLink "[Martin Harris] said that the Prophet possessed a Seer Stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as with the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he sometimes used the Seer Stone."

[3] Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign (July 1993): 61.

[4] W.W. Phelps, "The Book of Mormon," The Evening and The Morning Star 1:58 .

[5] Stephen D. Ricks, The Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, Featured Papers, Maxwell Institute, Provo UT. off-site

[6] Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign (September 1977): 83.

[7] Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign (July 1993): 61.

[8] Brigham H. Roberts, "NAME," in New Witnesses for God, 3 Vols., (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909 [1895, 1903]), 1:131–136.

[9] Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 1:130–131. GospeLink

[10] Francis W. Kirkham, "The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON," Improvement Era (1939), ?.

[11] Dean C. Jessee, "New Documents and Mormon Beginnings," Brigham Young University Studies 24 no. 4 (Fall 1984), 397–428.; Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," Brigham Young University Studies 30 no. 1 (Winter 1990), 51–52.

[12] Stephen D. Ricks, "Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/2 (1993). [201–206] link

[13] Matthew Roper, "A Black Hole That's Not So Black (Review of Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book, vol. 1 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review of Books 6/2 (1994): 156–203. off-site

[14] Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2000), commentary on D&C 9.

[15] Bruce R. McConkie, "Urim and Thummim," Mormon Doctrine 2nd edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 818-19. Quoting Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation vol. 3 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956), 225. It should be mentioned that President Smith did not believe that the seer stone was used during the Book of Mormon translation process.

[16] "Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on LDS.org (2013).

[17] Gerrit Dirkmaat (Church History Department), "Great and Marvelous Are the Revelations of God," Ensign (January 2013).

[18] "Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on LDS.org (2013)

[19] Brant A. Gardner, Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat?, FAIR Conference 2009.

[20] Accusations of the Church lying because of inaccurate artwork are offered by the following critical sources: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 8. ( Index of claims ); MormonThink.com website (as of 8 May 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm; MormonThink.com website (as of 28 April 2012). Page: http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm; Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 1. ( Index of claims )

[21] Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," FairMormon Conference 2014

[22] Note: Most of the images used in this paper are centuries old, and so are in the public domain. I have tried to indicate the creator each of these works of art. No challenge to copyright is intended by their inclusion here for scholarly purposes and illustration. Click each photo for title and author information.

[23] Del Parson, "Translating the Book of Mormon," © Intellectual Reserve, 1997. off-site

[24] Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," Ensign 7 (September 1977): 83.

[25] Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign 23 (July 1993): 61.

[26] Brigham H. Roberts, "NAME," in New Witnesses for God, 3 Vols., (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909[1895, 1903]), 1:131–136.

[27] Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 1:130–131. GospeLink

[28] Francis W. Kirkham, "The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON," Improvement Era (1939), ?.

[29] Dean C. Jessee, "New Documents and Mormon Beginnings," BYU Studies 24 no. 4 (Fall 1984): 397–428.; Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 30 no. 1 (Winter 1990): 51–52.;

[30] Stephen D. Ricks, "Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/2 (1993). [201–206] link

[31] Matthew Roper, "A Black Hole That's Not So Black (Review of Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book, vol. 1 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner)," FARMS Review of Books 6/2 (1994): 156–203. off-site

[32] Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2000), commentary on D&C 9.

[33] Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.

[34] Anthony Sweat, “The Gift and Power of Art," in From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2015), 236–37.

[35] Anonymous, "A Conversation with Robert J. Matthews," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/2 (2003). [88–92] link

[36] Henry Ward Beecher, Proverbs from Plymouth Pulpit, 1887.

[37] P. Pondy, "Why an African Christ?" jesusmafa.com. off-site

[38] Cowdery: “Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe” [John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone, “The Translation of the Book of Mormon: Basic Historical Information,” F.A.R.M.S. report WRR–86, 25.] Emma: Joseph translated "hour after hour with nothing between us." [Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Advocate 2 (October 1879).]

[39] Reuben Miller Journal (21 Oct. 1848), Church Historian's Office; Richard L. Anderson, "Reuben Miller, Recorder of Oliver Cowdery’s Reaffirmations," Brigham Young University Studies 8 no. 3 (Spring 1968), 278.

[40] Oliver Cowdery; as cited by Personal statement of Samuel W. Richards, 25 May 1907, in Harold B. Lee Library, BYU, Special Collections, cited in Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God," 85.

[41] John Whitmer, in S. Walker, "Synopsis of a Discourse Delivered at Lamoni, Iowa," 26 Saints' Herald 370 (15 December 1879).

[oaks-42] 42.0 ^42.1 ^42.2 ^42.3 ^42.4 ^42.5 ^42.6 "Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary," Church Newsroom, July 20, 2007, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary.

[43] A comprehensive guide to these archives has been published in the book Mormon Americana through BYU Studies.

[44] James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1992), xi.

[45] Keith A. Erekson, Real vs. Rumor: How to Dispel Latter-day Myths (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 214.

[46] Ibid.

[47] D. Michael Quinn at Utah Valley State College, 3 February 2005; reported in Caleb Warnock “Historian delivers talk at UVSC,” Daily Herald, February 4, 2005, D1. Cited in Gregory L. Smith, "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication," FAIR Papers, 2005, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/smith-Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf.

[48] Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign 23, no. 7 (July 1993).

[49] For a personal memoir and reflection on this period of time, see Davis Bitton, "Ten Years in Camelot: A Personal Memoir," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 16, no. 3 (Fall 1983): 9–19.

[50] A collection of essays exemplifying this new approach can be found in D. Michael Quinn, ed., The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the Past (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992). We encourage mature, faithful members and seasoned consumers of Church history volumes to read it. For further reflections on New Mormon History from one of its founders, see Reid L. Neilson and Ronald W. Walker, eds., Reflections of a Mormon Historian: Leonard J. Arrington on the New Mormon History (Norman, OK: Oklahoma University Press, 2006).

[51] John G. Turner, "'All Truth Does not Always Need to be Told': The LDS Church, Mormon History, and Religious Authority," in Out of Obscurity: Mormonism Since 1945, ed. Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 326–27.

[52] "Time spent in leisure and sports activities for the civilian population by selected characteristics, 2011 annual averages," Bureau of Labor Statistics, at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm (accessed 9 December 2012).

[53] "Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America," National Endowment for the Arts, Research Division Report #46 (June 2004), xi; available online at https://www.arts.gov/about/publications/reading-risk-survey-literary-reading-america-executive-summary.

[54] Jerrold Jenkins survey (www.JenkinsGroup.com) posted at http://parapublishing.com/sites/para/resources/statistics.cfm (accessed February 2008). The infographic is no longer there. An updated graphic can be found at http://www.robertbrewer.org/surprising-book-facts-infographic/.

[55] George H. Gallup, Jr., "How Many Americans Know U.S. History? Part 1." Gallup News Service; available online at http://www.gallup.com/poll/9526/how-many-americans-know-us-history-part.aspx (accessed 2 December 2012).

[56] Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Ballentine Books, 1996), 324.

[57] Joseph Carroll, "Teens' Knowledge of World History Slipping," Gallup News Service; available online at http://www.gallup.com/poll/5785/teens-knowledge-world-history-slipping.aspx (accessed 2 December 2012).

[58] David McCullough, "The De-Emphasis of History Education," posted 21 March 2007 at http://shrewdnessofapes.blogspot.com/2007/03/de-emphasis-of-history-education.html (accessed 17 September 2012).

[59] U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, The Pew Research Center (8 September 2010); available online at https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/ (accessed 17 September 2012).

[60] Cathy Lynn Grossman, "Americans Get an 'F' in Religion," USA Today (14 March 2007); available online at http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-03-07-teaching-religion-cover_N.htm (accessed 17 September 2012).

[61] "What Americans Should But Don't Know About Religion," Pew Research Center Publications (6 February 2008) at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/723/what-americans-should-but-dont--know-about-religion (accessed 17 September 2012). That link is broken and no other link can be found. Readers can find the most up-to-date information about religious knowledge in Pew's 2019 survey on the same topic. Available online at https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/07/23/what-americans-know-about-religion/.

[62] While this quote is almost universally attributed to Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain), I have been unable to find the original source for this quote. See James Glen Stovall at http://jprof.com/writing/quotations.html (accessed 14 December 2012). That link is also broken. Try this: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/12/11/cannot-read/.

[63] Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome, 2nd ed. (Redding, CA: FairMormon Press, 2014), 15–16.

[64] Ibid., 13–14.

[65] Erekson, Real vs. Rumor, 213.

[66] Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whitaker, and James B. Allen, Mormon History (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 117.

[67] Ibid., 117, 119–120.

[68] Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome, 13.

[69] Moroni 7:40-45

[70] Paul Reeve, "'From Not White Enough, to Too White: Rethinking the Mormon Racial Story'," Proceedings of the 2015 FAIR Conference (August 2015). link See under "Restriction is Solidified, 1908".

[71] Keith A. Erekson, “Understanding Church History by Study and Faith,” Ensign, February 2017.

[72] Anthony Sweat and Kenneth L. Alford, "A Method for Evaluating Latter-day Saint History," Religious Educator 21:3 (2020).

[73] Dallin Oaks, "Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary," Newsroom (20 July 2007) off-site

[74] Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whitaker, and James B. Allen, Mormon History (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 117.

[75] Ibid., 117, 119–120.

[76] Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome (Redding, CA: FairMormon Press, 2014), 13.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

Main navigation

Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Mormon Translation

Response to "Letter to a CES Director: Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions"

Response to section "Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions"

Jump to Subtopic:

Response to claim: "Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat for translating the Book of Mormon"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Jump to Detail:

Question: Did Joseph Smith use the Nephite interpreters to translate? Or did he use his own seer stone?

Joseph Smith used both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone, and both were called "Urim and Thummim"

Emma Smith confirmed that Joseph switched between the Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone during the translation

Question: What are the Nephite interpreters?

The Nephite interpreters are two seer stones set in a framework resembling a set of "spectacles"

The manner in which the interpreters were used was never explained in detail

Question: Did Joseph Smith use his own seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon?

Many eyewitness accounts confirm that Joseph employed his seer stone during part of the translation process

W.W. Phelps (1833): "through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles—(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)"

Response to claim: "Sources that I clearly demonstrate were either unofficial, extremely obscure, or not clearly educating the member and investigator about the rock in the hat translation"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

Jump to Detail:

Question: What Church sources discuss either the use of the seer stone or the stone and the hat as part of the Book of Mormon translation process?

2016

Translation display at the Church-owned Priesthood Restoration site in Pennsylvania

2015

"Joseph the Seer," Ensign (October 2015)

From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

2013

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 2013

"Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on lds.org

Ensign

2005

1997

Ensign

1993

Ensign

1988

Not My Will, But Thine

Ensign

1977

Ensign

1974

Friend

1882

Others

Response to claim: The rock in the hat is confirmed "in an obscure 1992 talk given by Elder Russell M. Nelson"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Jump to Detail:

Gospel Topics: "Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term 'Urim and Thummim' to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters"

"These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable"

Ensign (Jan. 2013): "He...referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim...He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed"

Response to claim: "he used the same 'Ouija Board' that he used in his days treasure hunting where he would put in a rock – or a peep stone – in his hat"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Jump to Detail:

Gospel Topics: "As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture"

Question: Why would Joseph Smith use the same stone for translating the Book of Mormon that he used for "money digging"?

Would God approve the use of a "magic peep stone" in translating a sacred record?

Regardless of the perspective (believing or non-believing) from which we tell the story of the translation, the essential fact of the translation is unchanged

Response to claim: "Why is the Church not being honest and transparent to its members about how Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Jump to Detail:

Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question—The author asks a question that has a presumption already built into it in such a way that an answer cannot be provided without validating that presumption.

Question: Does Church art always reflect reality?

All art, including Church art, simply reflects the views of the artist: It may not reflect reality

Question: Why are people concerned about Church artwork?

As the critics point out, there are potential historical errors in some of these images

Question: Is the Church trying to hide something through its use of artwork?

The manner of the translation is described repeatedly in Church publications, despite the inaccurate artwork

Neal A. Maxwell: "To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark"

Artists have been approached by the Church in the past to paint a more accurate scene, yet denied the request for artistic vision.

Question: Why doesn't the art match details which have been repeatedly spelled out in Church publications?