The editors of the Joseph Smith Papers and the historians in the Church History Department have gone to great lengths to promote the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) narrative. In this post we'll discuss how they have edited a sentence from Lucy Mack Smith's 1845 history to convert it into support for SITH.
_____
All too often, our historians have been creating factual narratives instead of reporting the actual facts and setting out their assumptions, inferences and theories clearly so everyone can see.
A better approach would be the pursuit of clarity to eliminate sources of confusion and contention.
A display in the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City that opened in 2024 includes this photo and explanatory placard:
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
Transcript of the placard:
Joseph Smith used a seer stone, as well as the interpreters he received from Moroni, as aids in the process of translating the Book of Mormon. According to Joseph's mother, Lucy, this stone gave Joseph the ability to "discern things that could not be seen by the natural eye." The pouch was made by Emma Smith for the protection of the stone.
All three sentences are problematic.
1. First Sentence. The first sentence of this placard makes a factual claim that directly contradicts what Joseph and Oliver always said. There are zero accounts of Joseph Smith (or Oliver Cowdery) ever saying, writing, or even implying that Joseph Smith used a "seer stone" as an "aid" in the "process of translating the Book of Mormon."
At best, this sentence should be reframed as an opinion or interpretation instead of a fact. Perhaps something such as "Some historians believe that Joseph Smith used a seer stone, possibly the one depicted here, as well as the interpreters he received from Moroni, as aids in the process of translating the Book of Mormon."
The provenance of this striated seer stone is uncertain.
Church historians claim this is the stone that Joseph gave Oliver Cowdery in the spring of 1830, that Oliver kept the stone until his death, that Oliver's widow gave the stone to Phineas Young, that Phineas gave it to his brother Brigham, that Brigham's widow Zina kept it for a few years, and that eventually John Taylor took possession. At every step of the way, there could have been confusion about which stone was transferred.
None of these parties left a known description of the stone they passed along. Yet stone depicted in the exhibit does not match the description given by Emma Smith and David Whitmer. Emma said Joseph used a stone that was "not exactly black, but rather a dark color." David reportedly said Joseph had a "dark-colored, opaque stone." On another occasion, he said Joseph had a "chocolate color" stone.
The only known account of Joseph possessing a layered stone came from William D. Purple, who published an article in May 1877 claiming that in the 1820s, Joseph Smith exhibited a stone in a court hearing. "It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it." He didn't elaborate on what those colors were or explain why he said they were diagonal instead of linear.
Another thing we know for sure. If Oliver possessed this (or another) seer stone when he rejoined the Church in 1846, he omitted any reference to it when he reaffirmed that Joseph "translated it by the gift and power of God by means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, holy interpreters."
2. Second Sentence. The second sentence is misleading because it takes Lucy's statement out of context.
Anyone can read what Lucy Mack Smith actually said (as recorded in the 1845 version of her history) and see that she
(i) did not refer to the "stone" in this picture (or any other stone),
(ii) she did not claim that Joseph used the stone to discern things not visible by the natural eye, and
(iii) attributed the "very prevalent story" of Joseph "having been a money digger" to the ill-fated digging for a silver mine, which Joseph had tried to dissuade Josiah Stowell from doing in the first place.
Here is Lucy's original statement with the relevant passage in bold and the portion excerpted in the placard underlined.
A short time before the house was completed, a man by the name of Josiah Stoal came from Chenango County, New York, to get Joseph to assist him in digging for a silver mine. He came for Joseph from having heard, that he was in possession of certain means, by which he could discern things, that could not be seen by the natural eye. Joseph endeavered [sic] to divert him from his vain project; but he was inflexible, and offered high wages to such as would dig for him; in search of the mine; and was still very anxious to have Joseph work for him; consequently, he returned with the old gentleman; besides several others who were picked up in the neighborhood, and commenced digging.
After laboring about a month without success, Joseph prevailed on his employer to cease his operations. It was from this circumstance, namely, working by the month at digging for a silver mine, that the very prevalent story arose, of his having been a money digger.
In words as plain as they can be, Lucy explained that Stowell was responding to a rumor Josiah had heard about Joseph's abilities. She did not say or even imply that the rumor was factual, nor did she say what the "means" were.
Now, compare what Lucy actually said to the second sentence of this placard and see how misleading the statement of fact in that sentence is.
The Joseph Smith Papers also used this passage from Lucy's history to promote SITH.
Here are the JSP notes to the Elders' Journal, Questions and Answers, which included this reference to the money digging rumor.
Question 10. Was not Jo Smith a money digger.
Answer. Yes,11 but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.12
The notes refer to sources that focused on the money-digging claims but omit the dismissal of these same claims in Joseph's own journal.
11. Several of JS’s contemporaries recounted his participation in treasure-seeking activities in the 1820s in locations ranging from the area of Manchester, New York, to the area of Harmony, Pennsylvania. (Trial Proceedings, Bainbridge, NY, 20 Mar. 1826, State of New York v. JS [J.P. Ct. 1826], in “The Original Prophet,” Fraser’s Magazine, Feb. 1873, 229–230; “A Document Discovered,” Utah Christian Advocate, Jan. 1886, 1; see also JS History, vol. A-1, 7–8; Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 48–52; and Vogel, “Locations of Joseph Smith’s Early Treasure Quests,” 197–231.)
Comprehensive Works Cited
“The Original Prophet. By a Visitor to Salt Lake City.” Fraser’s Magazine 7, no. 28 (Feb. 1873): 225–235.Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. With the assistance of Jed Woodworth. New York: Knopf, 2005.Vogel, Dan. “The Locations of Joseph Smith’s Early Treasure Quests.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27, no. 3 (Fall 1994): 197–231.
In this note, the JSP edit Lucy's statement that Josiah came "having heard that he was in possession..." by replacing it with the more declarative reframing that Josiah came because "he was in possession..."
12. JS was probably referring to his employment with Josiah Stowell in 1825, which involved searching for a rumored Spanish silver mine in Harmony, Pennsylvania. JS’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recalled that Stowell sought out JS because “he was in possession of certain means, by which he could discern things, that could not be seen by the natural eye.” These “means” included seer stones. JS’s monthly wage of fourteen dollars was comparable to that of contemporary unskilled adult male laborers in the Harmony area, who earned about fifty cents a day. (JS History, vol. A-1, 7–8; Agreement of Josiah Stowell and Others, 1 Nov. 1825, 1 Nov. 1825; Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, 95; Staker and Jensen, “David Hale’s Store Ledger,” 104.)
Comprehensive Works Cited
Staker, Mark L., and Robin Scott Jensen. “David Hale’s Store Ledger: New Details about Joseph and Emma Smith, the Hale Family, and the Book of Mormon.” BYU Studies 53, no. 3 (2014): 77–112.
3. Third Sentence. The third sentence is in the placard to lend credence to the first two sentences on the rationale that if Emma made this pouch for the seer stone, then the stone belonged to Joseph Smith and was important to him.
The claim is based on a journal entry by Franklin D. Richards, dated 9 March 1882. Richards wrote:
"Saw the seer stone that Oliver Cowdery gave Phineas Young and Phineas gave to Prest. Taylor, The pouch containing made by Emma."
You can see this journal entry here:
Richards was born in 1821. He lived in Nauvoo and joined the exodus to Utah in 1846. He was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1849. However, his only recorded experience with this stone was in 1882.
His account includes an error. Although he was visiting with President John Taylor when he saw the seer stone, he apparently misunderstood the provenance of the stone when he said Phineas gave the stone to President Taylor. Zina Young, one of Brigham's widows, possessed the stone for three years after Brigham's death in 1877. John Taylor took possession at an unknown time after that.
We infer that Taylor told Richards that Emma had made the pouch. Taylor could have known this only through a series of hearsay statements.
It's entirely possible that Emma made the pouch for this striated stone. Maybe by 1870 she forgot what it looked like and described it as "not exactly black, but rather a dark color" to distinguish it from a white or light stone (although she didn't mention such a stone). Maybe Joseph (or Oliver, or anyone else in the chain of custody) put a different stone in the pouch for whatever reason. Maybe Emma didn't make the pouch but someone else did and a subsequent possessor assumed Emma had made it.
The point here is that the placard is creating a factual narrative instead of reporting the actual facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment