So, with virtually every question about Jeremy Runnells you could probably summarize like this: Interviewer: Jeremy claims “___” in the CES letter Bushman: Jeremy was right and if you employ these mental gymnastics then “____” is fine
Ummm. He didn’t offer a single solid answer to the CES letter. In fact many of his answers directly oppose church history and doctrine until 5 minutes ago.
At the end of the interview Bushman says he thinks the “CES Letter is wrong”. Yet, throughout the interview he agrees with most of the content/questions he was asked about the CES Letter. Which parts are “wrong”. Can he please explain?
It's so good to see faithful Latter Day Saints acknowledging the depth and breadth of the lies of LDS leadership going back to, and including, Joseph Smith - and you two don't seem scared of reprisals! This is as important as Mormon Stories Podcast! I do believe that a day of truth, reckoning, and goodness is coming to the Church! Keep up the good work! Get Jeremy Runnels on - he deserves to hear first hand how much his letter has improved the Church and your lives!
So Richard Bushman basically validates everything in the CES letter. Not exactly the flex you think it is. Welcome to Mormonism in 2024: ignore everything we’ve told you for 150 years.
While Bushman offers some interesting insights, nothing he presented contradicts 150 years of historical records, which in not surprising because he bases his research on those records. He disagree with Joseph Fieldings personal opinions, which were never unanimous among the 12 and which Joseph Fielding did not promote when Prophet. People keep trying to attribute to President Smith foibles from more than 20 years earlier. It was during Smith's presidency that the changes to the Church's history department started, and a qualified historian was hired. Pres Smith was also the one responsible for Evolution courses at BYU. His policies as President of the Church differed greatly from the public opinions he had expressed earlier in his life.
The top hat and seer stone theory is important because anyone in the past who claimed this as the method was labelled as "anti-Mormon". This included Fawn Brodie, The Tanners, Runnels, and others. In some cases people were excommunicated for supporting this theory. Today in the 2024 there is a church video with President Nelson explaining the translation method with the seer stone and top hat.
Good comment. Joseph Smith was the one who first started changing the history excluding the magical world view (things were removed from D&C and his journal). Leadership continied to 'hide' things, but people like the Tanners and Marvin J. Ashton helped break down the barriers to the factual history. Bushman's telling of things has helped the church be more transparent but his telling is still softened tremendously.
@@jkaccounting Plus he throws Joseph Smith and the church under the bus so many times without knowing it. Some of his answers align with the CES letters. Don't the producers of this video see that?? He says Joseph changes the history which means if he does it once, he can continue.
BH Roberts was not labeled an anti-Mormon, neither was John Witsoe, Hugh B Brown, or Dallen H Oaks. Russel M Nelson has been talking about the Seer Stone since his before his article was published in the Ensign in the early 1990s. Both BYU Studies and Dialogue: Journal of Mormon Thought were publishing on the topic in the 1980s. It was not accounts about Seer Stones that got Brodie, the Tanners, and Runnels labeled as antagonists from the Church. All four of those voluntarily withdrew their membership. The Tanners and Runnels have both publicly admitted the goal and purpose of their respective books was to convince readers to leave the LDS Church. While I disagree with many of her conclusions, I think Brodie was attempting to write a neutral biography as filtered through her atheist perspective. I am unaware of anyone excommunicated explicitly for supporting the Seer Stone narrative. Generally, excommunication is not about individual beliefs, but explicit actions. None of your examples were excommunicated, and all taught other things that would have been better justifications for membership withdrawals.
@@loum111 Bushman interpretation of historical facts never agrees with the CES Letter. The Letter is more than just a listing of facts, many of which are erroneous, but also an interpretative lens. Recognition of history is not the same as agreement of interpretation. Moreso I do not know of anyone who was excommunicated for claiming Joseph used Seer Stones. BH Roberts, John Witdsoe, and even Russel M Nelson wrote about the seer stones and were never disciplined for doing so. Brody, Tanners, and Runnels all voluntarily resigned before they could have possibly been excommunicated. And all had much better justifications than teaching about seer stones.
@@brettmajeske3525 History and all data is always viewed from an interpretive lens. On a simple level, the CS Letter speaks of Joseph's and church leaders dishonesty and the withholding of historical data that could be damaging to the ":good name" of the church. Bushman validates some of those lies and withholds, even though he applies subjective reasons why they did it. They still did it. Even some of the pundits on tis channel present subjectivities as if they are facts, just like Jeremy.You can spin that anyway you want it.
Yeah I said this in my other comment, it started with Josheph Smith (changes to his journal and D&C). For sure the church is more transparent now, and everything is on the internet anyway, but they could do better. Full disclosure is important. Growing up in the church my knowledge of the factual history was a 1/10, and I followed the standard recipie that suggests a feeling is what determines truth. Over the past 5 years I've challenged and reviewed many of my beliefs (not just spiritual). This process of figuring out what I believe & why has refined me in a way that I could never have imagined, and in many ways has changed my heart. Figuring out what you believe and why (the why is so important, read "How Minds Change ") and then living your beliefs is critically important. It leads living in a sincere and authentic way, which brings pure happiness (at least that's been my experience).
The seer stone in a hat story was considered an anti-mormon lie for so long because Joseph Fielding Smith said it was unreasonable: "While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes." Doctrines of Salvation Vol 3:225-226 It's hard to argue with this logic, why would God provide special stones to do the translation when Joseph Smith already had his own he liked to use? As for treasure digging, this is particularly troubling as Joseph claimed to see treasure in the ground, but these were always protected by a spirit guardian. Joseph would see how to bypass these protections, but inevitably one of the workers would violate one of the rules that triggered the spirit guardian, who then moved the treasure further into the hillside, outside of their reach. It's hard to believe Joseph was seeing real treasure and was working against real treasure guardians, and he also used the same seer stone for treasure digging that he used for translating the Book of Mormon. It's also troubling that this treasure digging lore ended up in the Book of mormon, when the ground was cursed because of the people's wickedness and their treasures became slippery. Men had to sleep on their swords to prevent them from disappearing during the night. Treasure digging lore also seeps into the angel Moroni story, as the plates were engraved on gold and Moroni acts as the treasure guardian protecting the plates. The account of Joseph's first visit to the plates, given by his mother says Joseph had been instructed not to put the plates down until he got them home safe. But he picks them up, sets them on the ground, and looks to see if there's anything else and to replace the stone, which violated the angel's instructions. Immediately the plates disappeared and teleported back into the box, and the angel told him what he did wrong. Joseph tried to grab the plates again, but was shocked and knocked back. When he came to, the angel was gone and he couldn't get the plates that year. This account includes details of the special steps Joseph had to take to bypass the spirit guardian's protections and moving treasures when the protections were triggered. These instructions also didn't seem to be important the night he got the plates as he just took them out of the ground and put them in a nearby log where he collected them from a couple days later. I would love to hear Bushman's explanation for why it's ok that Joseph claimed he could see treasure in the ground with his seer stone, used that same seer stone for translation in spite of God providing better tools, and why so much of treasure digging lore is embedded in the Book of Mormon and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I've found these stories very troubling.
Why do you think the GAs denied the top hat and seer stone theory? An alleged prophet buries his face in a top hat and translates to a scribe. The only story implying more of a insane person would be having a salamander talk to Joseph Smith. The top hat imagery would be laughable even in 1830. So they buried the story with the one we were brought up with : The eyeglasses and a scribe.
Huge respect for Bushman One of my favorite lds historians I think this is what we need to hear, truthful and honest Be upfront with the facts is mostly the only change i hope for Im in the the minority but i believe the light of day to be a good thing that can strengthen faith
As a missionary in Ohio from November 1990-1992, I was told that the seer stone translation was "Anti-Mormon lie." That I should refute it - albeit nicely, and refocus investigators to the Urim & Thumim. 🤔🤔 This modern apologetic recognition of the use of the seer stone, along with the associated Book of Mormon Gospel Topics Essays, demonstrates the Church throwing itself under the bus and pretending like the information was always out there. Jeremy Runnell's published the CES Letter in 2013. The Church wasn't serious about acknowledging the seer stone until 2015. The umbrage felt is justifiable. We can only talk about spiritual witnesses of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon translation. The crazy plot twist of this interview is how the comparison between the Book of Mormon, The Book of Abraham, & The Kinderhook plate translation works against the belief narrative and creates a faith crisis Hydra effect. The Egyptian alphabet & and grammar are evidence against the catalyst theory and that Joseph Smith Jr. was trying to complete a natural translation. Why didn't he use the seer stone? That would have given us an undeniable proof of the gift & power to translate. Enter the catalyst theory Apologetic roughly 100 years after Egyptologists published in the New York Times that the Book of Abraham translation was a fraud. We know the Kinderhook plates were a fraud, and Joseph claimed them to be the history of a decent of Ham. Where again was Joseph's seer stone? Where was Joseph's seer stone when he tried to identify the Greek Psalter language? The line Bushman retreats to here with the seer stone revelation is that the Book of Mormon wasn't translated at all. It was a revelation through a seer stone. In a Pagan magical worldview, that's called scrying. There's something similar you see in popular Ghost Hunting shows today referred to as Automatic writing. As also noted by Elder Bushman here, though, as recorded in Lucy Mack Smith's history, Joseph would regail the family with stories about the Nephites & Lamanites before he had obtained the plates. Why is it that we have in our possession today a seer stone kept on display more as a tchotchke than a tool of Prophets seers and revelators to continue translation efforts unto other languages? I am glad to have Bushman here addressing the points he does but its a real, crazy mental gymnastics game to understand the Church's treatment of Leonard Arrington, Gerald & Sandra Tanner, Jeremy Runnell's, & others excommunited for asking challenging questions the Church has known for quite some time and only recently decided to begin to try to answer. For myself, I read the CES letter and understood the criticism without it crushing my testimony. I studied more heavily Judaism, Messianic Judaism, & Biblical history.
Ummm... (pushing up rhetorical glasses up my nose) none of those people were ever excommunicated. Leonard Arrington continued to be a faithful member of the Church and employee of the Church until his death. Gerald and Sandra Tanner both resigned their memberships in 1960 before starting their evangelical ministry. Jeremy Runnel's likewise voluntarily withdrew his membership in 2016 rather than submit to a Membership Council.
@@brettmajeske3525Jeremy Runnell's attended his court and read his own letter where he said that he "excommunicated" the council and left the room. I have watched Sandra Tanner tell her side of things with John Dehlin. We have the "Saints" new historical narrative because Arrington's more open history was mothballed.
@@Gideonslc You say the Church did not admit the Seer Stone until 2015, but the Gospel Topic Essay was first published in a booklet for Seminary Teachers in 2005 and it was based on a BYU Studies article from 1997.
These episodes are often a last resort for believing members of the church to hold on to their faith. I can only imagine the damage being done here by Bushman acknowledging pretty much everything that the CES letter says.
Yeah there was alot of what he said was in favour of the letter. I don’t remember ever hearing at testimony meeting I believe/know the Book of Mormon to be good it’s always I believe/know the Book of Mormon to be true. So if it’s not true but it’s good you can apply that to any other fictional story.
FYI, Neville and Lucas' book is "By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration." Appendix C discusses the sections of the CES Letter covered in this Interview.
I share the same opinion as Bushman's. At the end of the day this is history and we have do deal with it. And I would add this: its all about faith. If I dont have answers about an specific topic, I just wait. But the evidences (or lack of them) dont affect my faith in Christ and the tesmony of the Church.
I read 1 nephi the other day … I’m still blown away at what I consider to be evil patterns… I love the Bible so much that I listen to it a lot on the job or even let it play in the background and in the night… the stories are beautiful and have meaning The ending of the Bible has us waiting for Jesus to return So…The beginning of the Book of Mormon starts with a vision of an Angel of light descending from heaven with a book That definitely gives the impression of Jesus or some Angel bringing another Bible? Right? That’s the impression I got… **** what makes us think this Angel of light is from God…what if it’s the counterfeit Angel of light Paul talks about that brings a false gospel like Paul warns us about in Galatians? Btw… Galatians is totally anti-Mormon since it shows you don’t need to obey laws and covenants of Mormonism Read Galatians if you want to read something truly anti Mormon Anyhow…. Angel of light brings book & in other places… People eating the fruit of the tree of life that God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat after they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? What’s this appetite ? why is it that the fruit of that tree is so desirable to them in the Book of Mormon like that? Weird 😂 Then nephi gets taken to the top of the mountain… Is that like when Satan took Jesus to the top of the mountain?… and another Angel of light shows nephi a magic ball that can show him the past present and future… is that like a Crystal ball or seer stone? Oh ya, I forgot about the god of the Book of Mormon ordered an innocent guy to get murdered… so they could get the five books of Moses to keep the laws that include the Ten Commandments 😂 & use the guy’s own sword to kill him… kinda like with David and Goliath? Is this a joke I guess if they tell the Mormons that the Bible is questionable then they don’t read it and see how Book of Mormon is just a ripoff of it and lots of its stories and principles just hodgepodged together… it would be easy to write the Book of Mormon based on the Bible as a lot of the source material….which is obvious Read 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 for what the Bible says the true gospel is Love you all ❤
Of all the answers to the question "why were the plates needed?" I like Dan Peterson's the best: essentially, to stick in the craw of people who try to explain the Book of Mormon naturalistically. At the very beginning, people were already saying that Joseph must have gotten the text in a trance, like automatic writing, which was very popular throughout the 19th century. Having the plates as a demonstrable physical object made the text harder to dismiss as a mere product of automatic writing. But what difference would it make whether he was looking at the plates or not, if the instrument and agent were working miraculously? I wonder how many people have a vague idea that the interpreters were super-advanced computers that had to capture images of the glyphs in order to mechanically project an English "word for word" translation for Joseph to see and then piece together into coherent English sentences - and somehow, not take years doing so. That's an understandable fantasy for someone with a parochial ignorance about how languages, writing, and translation actually work - let alone how pre-alphabetic writing systems work. With all the analysis that has been done on the text so far, and considering the divine directive we're under to seek learning, there's not much excuse to remain in such ignorance. And if someone wants to weaponize that ignorance to try to emotionally manipulate us in bad faith (Runnells), we don't owe him the benefit of the doubt when his motives are made clear. Talk about the Interpreters and Seerstones commonly reveals a dismaying paucity of imagination regarding what is commonly called magic. It's related to the impaired mythological and ritual thinking that the Church culture still has: this hangover of the early-mid 20th century built on Protestant attitudes. Jerry Grover's translation work on the 'Caractors' document deserves serious attention: painstaking intellectual work, inviting peer review.
Except that all his answers confirm the CES letter claims and then he says…”But I believe anyway” the problem is that there were mass excommunications in the 1990s of scholars for saying the same things Richard says here. I agree with Bushman that the details are not that important and don’t affect truth claims, and we could leave it there IF the church leadership didn’t spend decades excommunicating anyone who hinted that there might be a seer stone. It’s well documented that the leadership, Especially Joseph Fielding Smith actively hid the information, lied to the membership and excommunicated anyone who disagreed with him. 🤷🏼♂️ that’s the problem, not the history.
Is it not amazing that so many faithful will claim that rough stone rolling supports their conclusions, . . . on another note - it feels so weird to type "faithful". Also - go pound rocks, like meeting Bushman would deter me from politely questioning his words in the book. Mormonism broke then I found RSR. Here is what sucks about discussions between believing and not believing - is believers can easily discredit all your sources until you use their own sources back at them. Its a little like going to comic con and having to prove Klingon language is fictitious while using Klingon language. So Richard Bushman in RSR on page 75 stated the priesthood has evidence of backdating and the first vision. Thank you RB for helping me understand why priesthood and FV never passed the smell test for me. Another Mormon quote for you: From James Talmage - [ he's the one that wrote Jesus the Christ. kind of a big deal ] “The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one sided, but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion and criticism is worth defending.” And a quote from Dr Nelson [ currently the top big deal ] "How can we have freedom of religion if we are not free to compare honestly, to choose wisely, and to worship according to the dictates of our own conscience?12 While searching for the truth, we must be free to change our mind-even to change our religion-in response to new information and inspiration. Freedom to change one's religion has been emphasized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms." I think the big lesson that can be learned here is that Bushman can have the difficult conversation [Talmage quote] and understand / respect the person that chooses [Nelson] to step away from the belief.
@@rtharalson My point is that while Bushman was not trying to write a faith promoting biography, neither does he feel that the evidence based text should be faith breaking. I have been in many discussion with antagonists and former members who have asserted that the purpose of Rough Stone Rolling was to destroy the faithful positions, which is either ignorance or a straw man. Further conversation with such people often reveals that it is not so much that RSR contradicts official Church positions, as it does their preconceived notions. When someone assumes their personal understanding is the common experience, then they are likely anything that contradicts their personal views must negate the larger social construct.
@@brettmajeske3525 - P 1 and P 2 - sounds like you are saying RB was writing to simply deliver the information. I would agree with that. I would not agree with former members if they state RB's purpose was to destroy the faithful position. Personally I am grateful for his making the information more available than it was in my youth. [side note I too had an experience similar to what was mentioned in the conversation where Jeremy said he received bad information from a BYU instructor. Mine was my Mission president in 1996. I was told to testify that it was anti mormon lies. No references - data, fact checking. Where in mormonism would I have learned to question authority?] Anyway - sorry for the tangent. I am grateful for RB's information. I think it was a fine line he walked in presenting it in a softer manor than Fawn Brodie, while not totally projecting how one needs to conclude. So when I read it I was able to talk Dr Nelson at his word and come to my own conclusions. The church as a whole I think does not believe its own stuff and allow people to come to their own conclusions. As for your last Paragraph - I don't follow what you are saying. Are you hinting at the collective illusions present in classes in church?
@@rtharalson I do not like it when leaders or teachers express their own opinions as if it was authorized doctrine. On the other hand, I don't like it when people blame "the Church" for the errors that are not found in any of the official publications. Every student manual or teacher's guide published by the church since the 1950s warns teachers about straying from the authorized material in classes. That doesn't stop people from teaching their own opinions, but one can hardly blame the correlation committee for things they didn't want taught in classrooms.
Host's audio has levels too high; guest is too quiet. Otherwise thanks for the interview! My view is Joseph Smith would have an allergic reaction to the corporatized, dogmatized, systematized LDS church as it exists today. Though he started that centralizing, flattening process by subordinating others' "revelations" to his own. (I have in mind the handling of Hiram Page's claimed revelations.) Weber's routinization of charisma is an unflattering lens with which to view the church, as there has been little "spark" since the founder's time, while all the church presidents and associates have claimed to be equally prophets, seers, and revelators. (Or, at least, the latest generations of them have made that claim prominent.) Mormonism would be a lot more fun if it opened up to the magical-worldview substrate underlying so much of it. Undo that reinterpretation of the seer stone as a "Urim & Thummim". Maybe over time it could happen - who knows? Obviously I no longer have a traditional view of Mormonism, but I find it is a wonderful and distinct culture and worldview, but marred by the controlling authoritarianism of the LDS church. With freedom to experiment, much could be accomplished. Though, perhaps like the Soviet Union, without the control of the center, the thing may come apart. Wishing everyone the best.
The most damning part of this interview is the suggestion that everyone reqrites their own history to try to make themselves look better. 🤦♂️🤦♀️ One of the big missionary toolkit items in Ohio for me was showing Joseph's published rebuke for losing the 116 page manuscript in the Doctrine & Covenants. Revising his personal narrative opens up more questions about the versions of the First vision and how it evolved from one Divine visitor in the 1832 account, forgiving his sins. Next some ministering angels were involved. Then it was God & Jesus without other ministering angels. Finally how God the Father & Jesus looked so much alike as now presented in the modern, official narrative & art work... some how that all happens contrary to the writing of D&C 84... which perhaps needs cross reference to the Stoning of Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles. Joseph Smith & his family changing their history actually makes it easier to view what the wrote with more critical review.
So he says the Book of Mormon is not historical along with the book of Abraham being not what is written on the papaya. This is very damaging to the faith.
Not really. The LDS Church has never made a positive claim that the fragments now is their possession were the source text for the Book of Abraham. At the time the Church published a warning, written by Hugh Nibley, that members should not expect any of the fragments to contain the text of the Book of Abraham when translated. Afterwards the Church published the academic translations themselves in Church magazines with Nibley's accompanying explanation. It was the Tanner's who first publicly claimed that the fragments should contain the text of the Book of Mormon, not any faithful believers. I think you misunderstood what Bushman said about the Book of Mormon. Because what he said agrees with the official positions of the Church. There is a lack of definitive historical evidence. Absence of evidence is not itself evidence of lack. That is the key difference between Bushman and Runnels. In the CES Letter Runnels offers the strawman argument that the LDS Church claims a level of evidence based historicity that it does not, nor ever has made,
@@brettmajeske3525actually they have. That’s the acknowledgement they make in the Joseph Smith’s papers project. That’s the official project of the Church.
@@gerardosumano3059 I had read the majority of the Joseph Smith Papers publications, I didn't see anything where they stated either was not historical.
21:15 Dr. Bushman believes that the seer stone was used. 23:14 Kinderhook plates didn't spark translation 38:50 Church relying less on charismatic leader
At 17:00 Bushman talks about changing the story in 1834 after the publication of Mormonism Unveiled. I respectfully disagree with this interpretation. While it is true that Oliver published several accounts and codified the terms Urim and Thummim around this time, there are hints at the changing narriative as early as 1830 or 1831 when Smith refuses to discuss the translation method in the Ohio church conference (where seer stones were presumably less main-stream). Slightly prior to this event, Oliver was a missionary in Ohio and talked about Joseph looking through the magical spectacles and then placing his head into the hat and the translation flowed into his mind. So it seems that the narriative was evolving at least as early as 1831 even though 1834 was a key year in how this evolving narriative was publically communicated.
Honestly I can understand the church if they didnt talk about it. Was it the best decision? Probably not but that’s how we learn. Remember, Moses used the magic stick to turn it into a snake, hit a rock and water came out. And used a magic metal snake on a pole to heal people. Some of these were symbols of Christ but some might call it culty. After all Moses came from a worldly kingdom which practiced the dark arts too. The snake is sometimes seen as a symbol of the devil. My point is if Moses can use an object to show the power of God, and testify of Jesus, Joseph Smith certainly can too.
Re: “Probably not but that’s how we learn.” This raises the question: Where was the leaders’ power of discernment? Many, many leaders over many, many decades were hiding it - or, if you prefer, not talking about it. Could not one of them discern, using prophetic and seer skills, that this would be become a problem in the future? Could not one of these esteemed leaders discern that covering it up was not a good idea?
@@AvadenSV you speak of discernment as if it’s a magic power. It’s a gift of the spirit coming from a conscious being giving inspiration as seen fit. Like I said, I don’t know what was going through the leaders minds or what inspiration they received but whatever it was it doesnt seem to harm too much. I’m not saying it’s not tragic that people lost their faith, that is really tragic. Sometimes I feel God wants us to exercise faith and this is a good example. When I first heard of the seer stone I was like “oh that’s cool but a little odd” but when I moved on the answer came and it doesn’t bother me. When I read the ces letter it felt different and it’s because it is trying to manipulate me into thinking the church is covering things up. It’s intentionally trying to get me to lose trust in the church. Hasn’t happened to me.
I don't think most critics are bothered that JS was using an object to aid in his translation (as you point out, if you believe in the God of the Bible and accept those stories as veridical, then that's totally within scope). The issues with the seer stone are these: 1. Use of the seer stone frames the Book of Mormon as a treasure digging extension. 2. The stone’s dubious utility in helping find treasure undermines expectations that it would be efficacious in producing genuine translations. 3. Why was the seer stone unhelpful in recovering the lost 116 pages? 4. The stated functional purpose of the interpreters and the plates becomes questionable. In addition, there are issues with the coherence and propagation of the narrative about the seer stone: A. Inconsistencies in translation narratives cast suspicion on one or more of those involved. B. Poor promulgation by the LDS Church suggests a failure in transparency or handling. If you search "faenrandir The significance of the seer stone for LDS truth-claims" then you'll find my essay that elaborates and documents each of the points I made above.
@@johnprince5356 I fail to see why any of those concerns warrant any doubt in the truth claims of the Lord’s church. The Lord specifically said not to retranslate the manuscript for good reason which can be found in d+c 10. The purpose of the plates was beyond translation (never mind that Joseph used many methods besides the seer stone like the urim and thummim ) as it was for the witnesses and perhaps for Joseph who if he didn’t have the plates, would have thought he was crazy as for everyone else around him. And again you are bringing up a point I just spoke about, which is if the seer stone was used as a superstitious tool to find treasure just as moses’ magic stick was used to turn into a snake then it does not bother me. The angel told Joseph to stop hanging with the treasure digging crowd and for good reason as well. I think one point that critics don’t seem to pay attention to is the power of God. With that in mind we would do well to read what Joseph translated by the gift and power of God which is a testimony of Jesus Christ from an ancient people in the Americas. I’ve read it and followed its teachings and I’m not a dark cult member, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ who has found great joy and love following Him. Joseph Smith really was a Prophet and how grateful I am for the Book of Mormon!
Wow. So basically the CES letter was correct about everything. I’m shocked but glad you guys posted this.
So, with virtually every question about Jeremy Runnells you could probably summarize like this:
Interviewer: Jeremy claims “___” in the CES letter
Bushman: Jeremy was right and if you employ these mental gymnastics then “____” is fine
Ummm. He didn’t offer a single solid answer to the CES letter. In fact many of his answers directly oppose church history and doctrine until 5 minutes ago.
At the end of the interview Bushman says he thinks the “CES Letter is wrong”. Yet, throughout the interview he agrees with most of the content/questions he was asked about the CES Letter. Which parts are “wrong”. Can he please explain?
Wow, I thought the olympics were over on Sunday!! This is some next level mental gymnastics. Gold Medal all the way Richard Bushman
It's so good to see faithful Latter Day Saints acknowledging the depth and breadth of the lies of LDS leadership going back to, and including, Joseph Smith - and you two don't seem scared of reprisals! This is as important as Mormon Stories Podcast! I do believe that a day of truth, reckoning, and goodness is coming to the Church! Keep up the good work! Get Jeremy Runnels on - he deserves to hear first hand how much his letter has improved the Church and your lives!
Were you watching the same video?
So Richard Bushman basically validates everything in the CES letter. Not exactly the flex you think it is. Welcome to Mormonism in 2024: ignore everything we’ve told you for 150 years.
While Bushman offers some interesting insights, nothing he presented contradicts 150 years of historical records, which in not surprising because he bases his research on those records.
He disagree with Joseph Fieldings personal opinions, which were never unanimous among the 12 and which Joseph Fielding did not promote when Prophet. People keep trying to attribute to President Smith foibles from more than 20 years earlier. It was during Smith's presidency that the changes to the Church's history department started, and a qualified historian was hired. Pres Smith was also the one responsible for Evolution courses at BYU. His policies as President of the Church differed greatly from the public opinions he had expressed earlier in his life.
The top hat and seer stone theory is important because anyone in the past who claimed this as the method was labelled as "anti-Mormon". This included Fawn Brodie, The Tanners, Runnels, and others. In some cases people were excommunicated for supporting this theory. Today in the 2024 there is a church video with President Nelson explaining the translation method with the seer stone and top hat.
Good comment. Joseph Smith was the one who first started changing the history excluding the magical world view (things were removed from D&C and his journal). Leadership continied to 'hide' things, but people like the Tanners and Marvin J. Ashton helped break down the barriers to the factual history. Bushman's telling of things has helped the church be more transparent but his telling is still softened tremendously.
@@jkaccounting Plus he throws Joseph Smith and the church under the bus so many times without knowing it. Some of his answers align with the CES letters. Don't the producers of this video see that?? He says Joseph changes the history which means if he does it once, he can continue.
BH Roberts was not labeled an anti-Mormon, neither was John Witsoe, Hugh B Brown, or Dallen H Oaks. Russel M Nelson has been talking about the Seer Stone since his before his article was published in the Ensign in the early 1990s. Both BYU Studies and Dialogue: Journal of Mormon Thought were publishing on the topic in the 1980s.
It was not accounts about Seer Stones that got Brodie, the Tanners, and Runnels labeled as antagonists from the Church. All four of those voluntarily withdrew their membership. The Tanners and Runnels have both publicly admitted the goal and purpose of their respective books was to convince readers to leave the LDS Church.
While I disagree with many of her conclusions, I think Brodie was attempting to write a neutral biography as filtered through her atheist perspective.
I am unaware of anyone excommunicated explicitly for supporting the Seer Stone narrative. Generally, excommunication is not about individual beliefs, but explicit actions. None of your examples were excommunicated, and all taught other things that would have been better justifications for membership withdrawals.
@@loum111 Bushman interpretation of historical facts never agrees with the CES Letter. The Letter is more than just a listing of facts, many of which are erroneous, but also an interpretative lens. Recognition of history is not the same as agreement of interpretation.
Moreso I do not know of anyone who was excommunicated for claiming Joseph used Seer Stones. BH Roberts, John Witdsoe, and even Russel M Nelson wrote about the seer stones and were never disciplined for doing so.
Brody, Tanners, and Runnels all voluntarily resigned before they could have possibly been excommunicated. And all had much better justifications than teaching about seer stones.
@@brettmajeske3525 History and all data is always viewed from an interpretive lens. On a simple level, the CS Letter speaks of Joseph's and church leaders dishonesty and the withholding of historical data that could be damaging to the ":good name" of the church. Bushman validates some of those lies and withholds, even though he applies subjective reasons why they did it. They still did it. Even some of the pundits on tis channel present subjectivities as if they are facts, just like Jeremy.You can spin that anyway you want it.
At 18:49. Richard Bushman admits the church tried to cover up Smith's involvement with treasure digging and the seer stone.
Yeah I said this in my other comment, it started with Josheph Smith (changes to his journal and D&C).
For sure the church is more transparent now, and everything is on the internet anyway, but they could do better.
Full disclosure is important. Growing up in the church my knowledge of the factual history was a 1/10, and I followed the standard recipie that suggests a feeling is what determines truth. Over the past 5 years I've challenged and reviewed many of my beliefs (not just spiritual). This process of figuring out what I believe & why has refined me in a way that I could never have imagined, and in many ways has changed my heart. Figuring out what you believe and why (the why is so important, read "How Minds Change ") and then living your beliefs is critically important. It leads living in a sincere and authentic way, which brings pure happiness (at least that's been my experience).
Wow, this was embarrassing.
@@melissabodily3675because he admits to lies and how ridiculous it all is and how the smiths were a low class majic practitioners
Richard admitted true the things that Jeremy Runnels got excommunicated for
The seer stone in a hat story was considered an anti-mormon lie for so long because Joseph Fielding Smith said it was unreasonable:
"While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes."
Doctrines of Salvation Vol 3:225-226
It's hard to argue with this logic, why would God provide special stones to do the translation when Joseph Smith already had his own he liked to use? As for treasure digging, this is particularly troubling as Joseph claimed to see treasure in the ground, but these were always protected by a spirit guardian. Joseph would see how to bypass these protections, but inevitably one of the workers would violate one of the rules that triggered the spirit guardian, who then moved the treasure further into the hillside, outside of their reach. It's hard to believe Joseph was seeing real treasure and was working against real treasure guardians, and he also used the same seer stone for treasure digging that he used for translating the Book of Mormon. It's also troubling that this treasure digging lore ended up in the Book of mormon, when the ground was cursed because of the people's wickedness and their treasures became slippery. Men had to sleep on their swords to prevent them from disappearing during the night.
Treasure digging lore also seeps into the angel Moroni story, as the plates were engraved on gold and Moroni acts as the treasure guardian protecting the plates. The account of Joseph's first visit to the plates, given by his mother says Joseph had been instructed not to put the plates down until he got them home safe. But he picks them up, sets them on the ground, and looks to see if there's anything else and to replace the stone, which violated the angel's instructions. Immediately the plates disappeared and teleported back into the box, and the angel told him what he did wrong. Joseph tried to grab the plates again, but was shocked and knocked back. When he came to, the angel was gone and he couldn't get the plates that year. This account includes details of the special steps Joseph had to take to bypass the spirit guardian's protections and moving treasures when the protections were triggered. These instructions also didn't seem to be important the night he got the plates as he just took them out of the ground and put them in a nearby log where he collected them from a couple days later.
I would love to hear Bushman's explanation for why it's ok that Joseph claimed he could see treasure in the ground with his seer stone, used that same seer stone for translation in spite of God providing better tools, and why so much of treasure digging lore is embedded in the Book of Mormon and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I've found these stories very troubling.
Why do you think the GAs denied the top hat and seer stone theory? An alleged prophet buries his face in a top hat and translates to a scribe. The only story implying more of a insane person would be having a salamander talk to Joseph Smith. The top hat imagery would be laughable even in 1830. So they buried the story with the one we were brought up with : The eyeglasses and a scribe.
Huge respect for Bushman
One of my favorite lds historians
I think this is what we need to hear, truthful and honest
Be upfront with the facts is mostly the only change i hope for
Im in the the minority but i believe the light of day to be a good thing that can strengthen faith
As a missionary in Ohio from November 1990-1992, I was told that the seer stone translation was "Anti-Mormon lie." That I should refute it - albeit nicely, and refocus investigators to the Urim & Thumim. 🤔🤔 This modern apologetic recognition of the use of the seer stone, along with the associated Book of Mormon Gospel Topics Essays, demonstrates the Church throwing itself under the bus and pretending like the information was always out there. Jeremy Runnell's published the CES Letter in 2013. The Church wasn't serious about acknowledging the seer stone until 2015.
The umbrage felt is justifiable. We can only talk about spiritual witnesses of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon translation. The crazy plot twist of this interview is how the comparison between the Book of Mormon, The Book of Abraham, & The Kinderhook plate translation works against the belief narrative and creates a faith crisis Hydra effect.
The Egyptian alphabet & and grammar are evidence against the catalyst theory and that Joseph Smith Jr. was trying to complete a natural translation. Why didn't he use the seer stone? That would have given us an undeniable proof of the gift & power to translate. Enter the catalyst theory Apologetic roughly 100 years after Egyptologists published in the New York Times that the Book of Abraham translation was a fraud.
We know the Kinderhook plates were a fraud, and Joseph claimed them to be the history of a decent of Ham. Where again was Joseph's seer stone?
Where was Joseph's seer stone when he tried to identify the Greek Psalter language?
The line Bushman retreats to here with the seer stone revelation is that the Book of Mormon wasn't translated at all. It was a revelation through a seer stone. In a Pagan magical worldview, that's called scrying. There's something similar you see in popular Ghost Hunting shows today referred to as Automatic writing.
As also noted by Elder Bushman here, though, as recorded in Lucy Mack Smith's history, Joseph would regail the family with stories about the Nephites & Lamanites before he had obtained the plates.
Why is it that we have in our possession today a seer stone kept on display more as a tchotchke than a tool of Prophets seers and revelators to continue translation efforts unto other languages?
I am glad to have Bushman here addressing the points he does but its a real, crazy mental gymnastics game to understand the Church's treatment of Leonard Arrington, Gerald & Sandra Tanner, Jeremy Runnell's, & others excommunited for asking challenging questions the Church has known for quite some time and only recently decided to begin to try to answer.
For myself, I read the CES letter and understood the criticism without it crushing my testimony. I studied more heavily Judaism, Messianic Judaism, & Biblical history.
Ummm... (pushing up rhetorical glasses up my nose) none of those people were ever excommunicated. Leonard Arrington continued to be a faithful member of the Church and employee of the Church until his death. Gerald and Sandra Tanner both resigned their memberships in 1960 before starting their evangelical ministry. Jeremy Runnel's likewise voluntarily withdrew his membership in 2016 rather than submit to a Membership Council.
@@brettmajeske3525Jeremy Runnell's attended his court and read his own letter where he said that he "excommunicated" the council and left the room.
I have watched Sandra Tanner tell her side of things with John Dehlin.
We have the "Saints" new historical narrative because Arrington's more open history was mothballed.
@@Gideonslc My point still stands, none of those three were excommunicated. Two choose to leave, and the third choose to stay.
@@Gideonslc You say the Church did not admit the Seer Stone until 2015, but the Gospel Topic Essay was first published in a booklet for Seminary Teachers in 2005 and it was based on a BYU Studies article from 1997.
These episodes are often a last resort for believing members of the church to hold on to their faith. I can only imagine the damage being done here by Bushman acknowledging pretty much everything that the CES letter says.
Yeah there was alot of what he said was in favour of the letter. I don’t remember ever hearing at testimony meeting I believe/know the Book of Mormon to be good it’s always I believe/know the Book of Mormon to be true. So if it’s not true but it’s good you can apply that to any other fictional story.
I really love and respect Richard Bushman. I especially appreciate his message of goodness.
Also honest and straightforward responses.
Who else is here from Mormon Stories?
FYI, Neville and Lucas' book is "By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration." Appendix C discusses the sections of the CES Letter covered in this Interview.
I share the same opinion as Bushman's. At the end of the day this is history and we have do deal with it. And I would add this: its all about faith. If I dont have answers about an specific topic, I just wait. But the evidences (or lack of them) dont affect my faith in Christ and the tesmony of the Church.
I find it interesting that Joseph Smith himself talked little about the translation process and translation tools.
Brilliant! Thanks for that ❤️
I read 1 nephi the other day … I’m still blown away at what I consider to be evil patterns… I love the Bible so much that I listen to it a lot on the job or even let it play in the background and in the night… the stories are beautiful and have meaning
The ending of the Bible has us waiting for Jesus to return
So…The beginning of the Book of Mormon starts with a vision of an Angel of light descending from heaven with a book
That definitely gives the impression of Jesus or some Angel bringing another Bible? Right? That’s the impression I got…
**** what makes us think this Angel of light is from God…what if it’s the counterfeit Angel of light Paul talks about that brings a false gospel like Paul warns us about in Galatians?
Btw… Galatians is totally anti-Mormon since it shows you don’t need to obey laws and covenants of Mormonism
Read Galatians if you want to read something truly anti Mormon
Anyhow…. Angel of light brings book
& in other places… People eating the fruit of the tree of life that God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat after they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? What’s this appetite ?
why is it that the fruit of that tree is so desirable to them in the Book of Mormon like that? Weird 😂
Then nephi gets taken to the top of the mountain… Is that like when Satan took Jesus to the top of the mountain?… and another Angel of light shows nephi a magic ball that can show him the past present and future… is that like a Crystal ball or seer stone?
Oh ya, I forgot about the god of the Book of Mormon ordered an innocent guy to get murdered… so they could get the five books of Moses to keep the laws that include the Ten Commandments 😂 & use the guy’s own sword to kill him… kinda like with David and Goliath?
Is this a joke
I guess if they tell the Mormons that the Bible is questionable then they don’t read it and see how Book of Mormon is just a ripoff of it and lots of its stories and principles just hodgepodged together…
it would be easy to write the Book of Mormon based on the Bible as a lot of the source material….which is obvious
Read 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 for what the Bible says the true gospel is
Love you all ❤
Oh we feel your love 🤦♂️
Great interview!
Of all the answers to the question "why were the plates needed?" I like Dan Peterson's the best: essentially, to stick in the craw of people who try to explain the Book of Mormon naturalistically. At the very beginning, people were already saying that Joseph must have gotten the text in a trance, like automatic writing, which was very popular throughout the 19th century.
Having the plates as a demonstrable physical object made the text harder to dismiss as a mere product of automatic writing. But what difference would it make whether he was looking at the plates or not, if the instrument and agent were working miraculously? I wonder how many people have a vague idea that the interpreters were super-advanced computers that had to capture images of the glyphs in order to mechanically project an English "word for word" translation for Joseph to see and then piece together into coherent English sentences - and somehow, not take years doing so. That's an understandable fantasy for someone with a parochial ignorance about how languages, writing, and translation actually work - let alone how pre-alphabetic writing systems work. With all the analysis that has been done on the text so far, and considering the divine directive we're under to seek learning, there's not much excuse to remain in such ignorance. And if someone wants to weaponize that ignorance to try to emotionally manipulate us in bad faith (Runnells), we don't owe him the benefit of the doubt when his motives are made clear.
Talk about the Interpreters and Seerstones commonly reveals a dismaying paucity of imagination regarding what is commonly called magic. It's related to the impaired mythological and ritual thinking that the Church culture still has: this hangover of the early-mid 20th century built on Protestant attitudes.
Jerry Grover's translation work on the 'Caractors' document deserves serious attention: painstaking intellectual work, inviting peer review.
Is it not amazing that so many critics will claim that Rough Stone Rolling supports their conclusions, until they are confronted with Bushman himself.
Except that all his answers confirm the CES letter claims and then he says…”But I believe anyway” the problem is that there were mass excommunications in the 1990s of scholars for saying the same things Richard says here.
I agree with Bushman that the details are not that important and don’t affect truth claims, and we could leave it there IF the church leadership didn’t spend decades excommunicating anyone who hinted that there might be a seer stone. It’s well documented that the leadership, Especially Joseph Fielding Smith actively hid the information, lied to the membership and excommunicated anyone who disagreed with him. 🤷🏼♂️ that’s the problem, not the history.
Is it not amazing that so many faithful will claim that rough stone rolling supports their conclusions, . . . on another note - it feels so weird to type "faithful". Also - go pound rocks, like meeting Bushman would deter me from politely questioning his words in the book. Mormonism broke then I found RSR.
Here is what sucks about discussions between believing and not believing - is believers can easily discredit all your sources until you use their own sources back at them. Its a little like going to comic con and having to prove Klingon language is fictitious while using Klingon language. So Richard Bushman in RSR on page 75 stated the priesthood has evidence of backdating and the first vision. Thank you RB for helping me understand why priesthood and FV never passed the smell test for me.
Another Mormon quote for you: From James Talmage - [ he's the one that wrote Jesus the Christ. kind of a big deal ]
“The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one sided, but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion and criticism is worth defending.”
And a quote from Dr Nelson [ currently the top big deal ] "How can we have freedom of religion if we are not free to compare honestly, to choose wisely, and to worship according to the dictates of our own conscience?12 While searching for the truth, we must be free to change our mind-even to change our religion-in response to new information and inspiration. Freedom to change one's religion has been emphasized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms."
I think the big lesson that can be learned here is that Bushman can have the difficult conversation [Talmage quote] and understand / respect the person that chooses [Nelson] to step away from the belief.
@@rtharalson My point is that while Bushman was not trying to write a faith promoting biography, neither does he feel that the evidence based text should be faith breaking.
I have been in many discussion with antagonists and former members who have asserted that the purpose of Rough Stone Rolling was to destroy the faithful positions, which is either ignorance or a straw man.
Further conversation with such people often reveals that it is not so much that RSR contradicts official Church positions, as it does their preconceived notions. When someone assumes their personal understanding is the common experience, then they are likely anything that contradicts their personal views must negate the larger social construct.
@@brettmajeske3525 - P 1 and P 2 - sounds like you are saying RB was writing to simply deliver the information. I would agree with that. I would not agree with former members if they state RB's purpose was to destroy the faithful position. Personally I am grateful for his making the information more available than it was in my youth. [side note I too had an experience similar to what was mentioned in the conversation where Jeremy said he received bad information from a BYU instructor. Mine was my Mission president in 1996. I was told to testify that it was anti mormon lies. No references - data, fact checking. Where in mormonism would I have learned to question authority?]
Anyway - sorry for the tangent. I am grateful for RB's information. I think it was a fine line he walked in presenting it in a softer manor than Fawn Brodie, while not totally projecting how one needs to conclude. So when I read it I was able to talk Dr Nelson at his word and come to my own conclusions. The church as a whole I think does not believe its own stuff and allow people to come to their own conclusions.
As for your last Paragraph - I don't follow what you are saying. Are you hinting at the collective illusions present in classes in church?
@@rtharalson I do not like it when leaders or teachers express their own opinions as if it was authorized doctrine. On the other hand, I don't like it when people blame "the Church" for the errors that are not found in any of the official publications. Every student manual or teacher's guide published by the church since the 1950s warns teachers about straying from the authorized material in classes. That doesn't stop people from teaching their own opinions, but one can hardly blame the correlation committee for things they didn't want taught in classrooms.
Host's audio has levels too high; guest is too quiet. Otherwise thanks for the interview!
My view is Joseph Smith would have an allergic reaction to the corporatized, dogmatized, systematized LDS church as it exists today. Though he started that centralizing, flattening process by subordinating others' "revelations" to his own. (I have in mind the handling of Hiram Page's claimed revelations.)
Weber's routinization of charisma is an unflattering lens with which to view the church, as there has been little "spark" since the founder's time, while all the church presidents and associates have claimed to be equally prophets, seers, and revelators. (Or, at least, the latest generations of them have made that claim prominent.)
Mormonism would be a lot more fun if it opened up to the magical-worldview substrate underlying so much of it. Undo that reinterpretation of the seer stone as a "Urim & Thummim".
Maybe over time it could happen - who knows?
Obviously I no longer have a traditional view of Mormonism, but I find it is a wonderful and distinct culture and worldview, but marred by the controlling authoritarianism of the LDS church. With freedom to experiment, much could be accomplished. Though, perhaps like the Soviet Union, without the control of the center, the thing may come apart.
Wishing everyone the best.
The most damning part of this interview is the suggestion that everyone reqrites their own history to try to make themselves look better. 🤦♂️🤦♀️ One of the big missionary toolkit items in Ohio for me was showing Joseph's published rebuke for losing the 116 page manuscript in the Doctrine & Covenants. Revising his personal narrative opens up more questions about the versions of the First vision and how it evolved from one Divine visitor in the 1832 account, forgiving his sins. Next some ministering angels were involved. Then it was God & Jesus without other ministering angels. Finally how God the Father & Jesus looked so much alike as now presented in the modern, official narrative & art work... some how that all happens contrary to the writing of D&C 84... which perhaps needs cross reference to the Stoning of Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles. Joseph Smith & his family changing their history actually makes it easier to view what the wrote with more critical review.
So he says the Book of Mormon is not historical along with the book of Abraham being not what is written on the papaya. This is very damaging to the faith.
Not really. The LDS Church has never made a positive claim that the fragments now is their possession were the source text for the Book of Abraham. At the time the Church published a warning, written by Hugh Nibley, that members should not expect any of the fragments to contain the text of the Book of Abraham when translated. Afterwards the Church published the academic translations themselves in Church magazines with Nibley's accompanying explanation.
It was the Tanner's who first publicly claimed that the fragments should contain the text of the Book of Mormon, not any faithful believers.
I think you misunderstood what Bushman said about the Book of Mormon. Because what he said agrees with the official positions of the Church. There is a lack of definitive historical evidence. Absence of evidence is not itself evidence of lack. That is the key difference between Bushman and Runnels.
In the CES Letter Runnels offers the strawman argument that the LDS Church claims a level of evidence based historicity that it does not, nor ever has made,
@@brettmajeske3525actually they have. That’s the acknowledgement they make in the Joseph Smith’s papers project. That’s the official project of the Church.
@@gerardosumano3059 I had read the majority of the Joseph Smith Papers publications, I didn't see anything where they stated either was not historical.
Great podcast! Enjoy what you are doing here. There needs to be more good and positive interviews on UA-cam.
Why is this audio quality so terrible?
He's talking too loud/too close to the mic, it's peaking.
"No point in speculating"? Yet Dr Bushman has already compared the seer-stone to an iPad. God may presumably use whatever technology He wishes.
21:15 Dr. Bushman believes that the seer stone was used.
23:14 Kinderhook plates didn't spark translation
38:50 Church relying less on charismatic leader
At 17:00 Bushman talks about changing the story in 1834 after the publication of Mormonism Unveiled. I respectfully disagree with this interpretation. While it is true that Oliver published several accounts and codified the terms Urim and Thummim around this time, there are hints at the changing narriative as early as 1830 or 1831 when Smith refuses to discuss the translation method in the Ohio church conference (where seer stones were presumably less main-stream). Slightly prior to this event, Oliver was a missionary in Ohio and talked about Joseph looking through the magical spectacles and then placing his head into the hat and the translation flowed into his mind. So it seems that the narriative was evolving at least as early as 1831 even though 1834 was a key year in how this evolving narriative was publically communicated.
Honestly I can understand the church if they didnt talk about it. Was it the best decision? Probably not but that’s how we learn. Remember, Moses used the magic stick to turn it into a snake, hit a rock and water came out. And used a magic metal snake on a pole to heal people. Some of these were symbols of Christ but some might call it culty. After all Moses came from a worldly kingdom which practiced the dark arts too. The snake is sometimes seen as a symbol of the devil. My point is if Moses can use an object to show the power of God, and testify of Jesus, Joseph Smith certainly can too.
Re: “Probably not but that’s how we learn.” This raises the question: Where was the leaders’ power of discernment? Many, many leaders over many, many decades were hiding it - or, if you prefer, not talking about it. Could not one of them discern, using prophetic and seer skills, that this would be become a problem in the future? Could not one of these esteemed leaders discern that covering it up was not a good idea?
@@AvadenSV you speak of discernment as if it’s a magic power. It’s a gift of the spirit coming from a conscious being giving inspiration as seen fit. Like I said, I don’t know what was going through the leaders minds or what inspiration they received but whatever it was it doesnt seem to harm too much. I’m not saying it’s not tragic that people lost their faith, that is really tragic. Sometimes I feel God wants us to exercise faith and this is a good example. When I first heard of the seer stone I was like “oh that’s cool but a little odd” but when I moved on the answer came and it doesn’t bother me. When I read the ces letter it felt different and it’s because it is trying to manipulate me into thinking the church is covering things up. It’s intentionally trying to get me to lose trust in the church. Hasn’t happened to me.
I don't think most critics are bothered that JS was using an object to aid in his translation (as you point out, if you believe in the God of the Bible and accept those stories as veridical, then that's totally within scope). The issues with the seer stone are these:
1. Use of the seer stone frames the Book of Mormon as a treasure digging extension.
2. The stone’s dubious utility in helping find treasure undermines expectations that it would be efficacious in producing genuine translations.
3. Why was the seer stone unhelpful in recovering the lost 116 pages?
4. The stated functional purpose of the interpreters and the plates becomes questionable.
In addition, there are issues with the coherence and propagation of the narrative about the seer stone:
A. Inconsistencies in translation narratives cast suspicion on one or more of those involved.
B. Poor promulgation by the LDS Church suggests a failure in transparency or handling.
If you search "faenrandir The significance of the seer stone for LDS truth-claims" then you'll find my essay that elaborates and documents each of the points I made above.
@@johnprince5356 I fail to see why any of those concerns warrant any doubt in the truth claims of the Lord’s church. The Lord specifically said not to retranslate the manuscript for good reason which can be found in d+c 10. The purpose of the plates was beyond translation (never mind that Joseph used many methods besides the seer stone like the urim and thummim ) as it was for the witnesses and perhaps for Joseph who if he didn’t have the plates, would have thought he was crazy as for everyone else around him. And again you are bringing up a point I just spoke about, which is if the seer stone was used as a superstitious tool to find treasure just as moses’ magic stick was used to turn into a snake then it does not bother me. The angel told Joseph to stop hanging with the treasure digging crowd and for good reason as well. I think one point that critics don’t seem to pay attention to is the power of God. With that in mind we would do well to read what Joseph translated by the gift and power of God which is a testimony of Jesus Christ from an ancient people in the Americas. I’ve read it and followed its teachings and I’m not a dark cult member, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ who has found great joy and love following Him. Joseph Smith really was a Prophet and how grateful I am for the Book of Mormon!