In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, and with the hope that errors can be corrected and commentary in the Joseph Smith Papers improved, let's look at a specific example.
I recognize that an editorial decision has been made to equate the Urim and Thummim that Joseph and Oliver wrote about with the seer (peep) stone that their critics wrote about. That editorial decision is reflected throughout the JSP commentary and footnotes. Editorial decisions are one thing--people can interpret the historical record however they want--but an editorial decision not a legitimate excuse for actually misrepresenting the original sources.
One of the core ethical standards for historians is this: "Historians should not misrepresent their sources. They should report their findings as accurately as possible and not omit evidence that runs counter to their own interpretation."
Yet in the JSP commentary to "Revelation, circa Early 1830," the anonymous author(s) directly and specifically misrepresented the source by citing David Whitmer and then writing "Joseph reportedly enquired of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim."
But we can all see that what David actually wrote was "behold the following revelation came through the stone."
As I've written elsewhere, "Unsuspecting readers of the JSP have no idea of this misrepresentation because the JSP not only doesn't quote David, but they don't even put a link to the original source so readers can see for themselves."
There is nothing in the Historical Introduction or footnote that, on its face, raises suspicion to any reader who is not already familiar with what David actually wrote. I'm familiar with all the sources on this topic so it was easy for me to spot the misrepresentation, but there are few people even in the Church History Department who know these sources well enough to detect the problem.
When supervisors review the JSP, assuming they actually read all of the hundreds of footnotes including the relatively obscure one we're discussing here, it is unlikely that they take the time to research and examine the cited sources (for which JSP doesn't even provide links) to see if the JSP authors accurately represented the original sources. I had the link to David's document readily available so it was easy for me to check it. But busy supervisors aren't going to take the time to look up these sources. They necessarily defer to the judgment, expertise, and ethics of the anonymous authors of the commentary (and the footnotes).
Another way to look at this is, if these footnotes and the cited sources were carefully reviewed, how could such an obvious misrepresentation of the historical record get approved?
I'd be happy to know of a legitimate reason for this note if anyone knows of one or can direct me to someone who knows.
The JSP commentary assumes David Whitmer accurately recorded the revelation 57 years after the fact when David was making the argument that Joseph was a fallen prophet. Yet here David claims Oliver went to Toronto, while we can all see that he was directed to go to Kingston. And the revelation instructed them to "secure" a copyright, not "sell" the copyright, which is exactly the opposite of securing it.
But let's say David accurately remembered at least what the stone said. It makes sense that Joseph would have made that comment about revelations received through "the stone" as David put it. We have Hiram Page's experience right in the D&C:
11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him; (Doctrine and Covenants 28:11)
That parallels what David Whitmer said. This is yet another reason why Mormonism Unvailed promoted SITH. What is more difficult to understand is why certain LDS scholars promote SITH.
