Mormonism Live: Thrive 2026

This is the big. Ah, we're live. Hi everybody. This is fantastic. Hello. This is so wonderful. This is like that button I have with the applause on it. But actually, the reason it sounded [clears throat] so realistic is that we are in front of a live, of a live studio audience. There's like, um, 25 people out here, and I'm so excited to be here in St. George. We are here at Thrive, and today's date is, don't tell me. >> What is it? >> February. >> Yeah. I don't have. >> 21st. I'm nearsighted. It's February 21st, 2026. >> Very good. So, we're here. We're going to be presenting for about an hour. Is that right? >> I'm doing 15 minutes. Bill's doing 15 minutes. I'm doing 15 minutes. Bill's doing 15 minutes. And we'll see how that works. Okay. So, hang on a second here. Okay. I got to, I'm sorry. I got to time myself. Where, how far are we so far? >> About four minutes in. Okay. Very good. [laughter] He's got 11 minutes. >> That's because it's always five minutes ahead, you know.

All right, so let's go ahead and start doing these, uh, these. By the way, by the way, where's Wayne? Wayne Heworth. Wayne, I want to give special kudos to you, your wonderful wife, and that's, is that Linda with you? And Linda, and all the hard work they do to make Thrive happen. And now my 15 minutes is up. So, your turn, Bill. >> All right. >> But seriously, folks, this is great to be here. And I flew down from Washington the other day, and I've been having a wonderful time. But I've been very, very upset by the speakers today because they were uniformly fabulous. And every time they get up, and there's another one knocking it out of the park, and I'm going, "Oh crap, I got to follow this." So, at least we had a couple hours for dinner, and hopefully you could forget how great they were so it won't be so hard on me. Dale, how are you doing? >> Dale Nhard in the house, everybody. Oh my gosh. Okay, let's go through these slides real quick. I just want to introduce myself a little bit to you. How many people don't know who I am? There's quite a few. Those are the lucky ones. Hey, looks like, um, generally unquoteable is in the house right there. Everybody, generally unquoteable. And I'm sorry, I can't really see anybody else very well. That's me. I'm the one in the middle. No, I'm the one on the other side. That's me at my mission farewell. And I've got the, I got the Mormon beam going. Thank you so much, honey. Wendy. Wendy Cop, everybody. And, uh, that's my dance teacher, Mr. Smith. And he came to my farewell, which is very nice of him. I don't think my parents could make it for whatever reason, but he was there. So, I really appreciated that. >> How do I click that? Are you just here? >> Thank you. Some. That's [clears throat] And I'm right-handed. Here, I'll do this. All right. This is a very, very, it's like well-oiled machinery here. Okay. And there I am on my mission. How many have seen this picture before? A few of you. Can I tell you that I used this picture, um, on the latest RFM podcast about Mormon mission letters home? How many saw that, just by hands? I'm not trying to get cheap applause from you, but I'll accept it if you want to give it. So, there's a few. You know, that was not the most watched video, but I've got to tell you that when I went back and looked at the comments a couple days later, I was overwhelmed by how positive those comments were and how this really seemed to strike a chord with people, especially with those who had been on a mission some time ago, and how it brought back their own memories as I'm talking about mine. So, that's me. I don't know if anybody can tell that I'm actually sort of in a John Travolta pose. You got the, you know what, remember from Welcome Back Potter, Benny Barbarino? Do that. What? Where? Yeah. I loved John Travolta, and I still do. He just picked the wrong religion. And the guy next to me, I can't remember his name, but I, we called him Opto Choro. I'm sorry, is elder in Japanese. This is Obi Churro. And I'll let you figure out why I called him that. Japan. Osaka? I'll bet. No, Coobe. By this time, this is spring of 1980, and the mission had not separated. I went, I was called to Coobe, and I came home from a different mission, Osaka. But that's when we were splitting missions because the church was actually growing them. It was, we made a new mission. Apologetics. Oh my gosh. Okay, so this is just me, really quick. Hang on a second. I got six minutes. Really quick. I got back from my mission, and I was so deep into apologetics. Now, there's a bunch of books up here. I took a long time making the slide. Can you imagine all the effort that went into this? I took a long time making the slide, but now it's gone. Does anybody recognize any of these books? These are actually books that I read. This is a representative sample. And Tim is raising his hand and he's laughing uncontrollably. Tim Rafunk, whenever I'm talking, there's something that happens and he just starts laughing like this. If you can't see his face, you just see his head bobbing up and down. But you remember they lie in wait to deceive, don't you, Bill? >> All four. Copy of all four books. There's volume one through four. >> Yeah, I just put one up there. Representative. But, uh, this is the kind of thing I was doing in the 1980s. I was filling my head with useful ammunition to show why the church was true and show all those anti-Mormons why it was not wrong. And they were, why I gave up apologetics. Okay, simple as possible. Because I recognized. Oh, excuse me. Because I recognized, I recognized it was fundamentally a dishonest endeavor. And, uh, I realized that my ability to win an argument, which I did quite frequently, by the way, was dependent upon my knowing stuff that the other side didn't know, and me being kind enough not to tell them. So eventually, I realized that I'm cheating. This is not a quest to find the truth. This is the quest to defend a position. All right? So, I gave it up for Lent. You know, we didn't celebrate Lent back then. Back then, you're a great audience. I love all of you. I want you. Thank you so much. >> Yeah. The great apostasy. >> But back when I was on my mission, that it was the apostates who did that. The apostates celebrated Lent. The apostates celebrated Palm Sunday. And by the way, I just want to tell you this because this, this idea came to me the other day, courtesy of Rebecca. Rebecca, are you here? I'm gonna get her. [laughter] I cannot even. Yeah, she's a karaoke. Oh, is she? Okay, let her in, everybody. Here comes Rebecca Bibliotecha. Hey Rebecca, she loves it when we do this. And Landon Broie. No, no, no. This is our show, honey. [laughter] I love Rebecca like the sister I never had. And what I was going to say, because I was saying that I was going to tell them something that came to me, but it was courtesy of you. Here's the deal. I can prove to you. What would you say? Oh, should I say this? I guess I'm going to. I'm not sure I'm supposed to. But what would you say if I said that I could prove to you that the Mormon church actually thinks the church is more important than Jesus? How could I prove that? I'll just ask you a question. All right. What happens when Easter Sunday falls on General Conference? Screw Easter. We're going forward with church. And you know, there's never ever a thought apparently of, well, you know, we could move General Conference up a week or we could have it a week later. No, screw that. We're going to have it on Easter, and Jesus is going to like it. Oh my gosh. And now here are some of the apologists. This is what I used to be. God help me. But what I learned through being an apologist is all the tricks that these guys use. And so I don't know that they're really fooling too many people with IQs in the triple digits, but when I look at them, I see exactly what I used to do. So I point it out, and they appreciate it. >> Okay, I think I've got one minute. All right. Zip, zip, zip. I love the "stop listening to intellectuals" one. That's my favorite. That's an actual thumbnail. That's not AI. They actually put this up as a thumbnail. So then I went on, uh, after apologetics, when I discovered it was really a corrupt and dishonest, uh, thing and got rid of it. Then I went on to do scripture studies, and I was published twice in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies in '93 and '94, I think. And, uh, twice in BYU Studies, and I think that was 2006 and 2014. Ironically, the 2014 article was a tour de force of apologetics, really demonstrating the Book of Mormon is true, and that was published just as I was making my exit. Even I thought that was ironic. Then I, I posted or published or posted or wrote, it's a blog for Rational Faith for a couple of years. I, I found my voice. I'm sorry, everybody. I've got too many microphones up here. And, uh, after that, this guy got a hold of me. Bill Real got a hold of me. He reached out to me and said, "I want you to do a podcast with me." And I did. And the rest is history. There you go. >> Thank you. And now I'm going to turn it over to Bill Real. >> So tonight we thought we'd talk a little bit about the Book of Mormon translation. So there's the stuff we're doing. Anything you want to say about the Wizard of Oz? >> No. My 15 minutes is up. >> Okay. >> This is why I was never a high councilman.

So folks, tonight we want to talk about the Book of Mormon translation and give you, uh, for those of you who are really new in the process of deconstruction, uh, for those of you who are here maybe supporting somebody who's in the process of deconstruction, to help you understand how we see some of these issues. And we picked this one, uh, to talk about tonight. So, one of the tools, and I don't mean this as any offense. This wasn't something I came to naturally. Um, but logic and rational thinking, and the way rational thinking works is that whatever conclusion requires the least amount of conjecture or allowances. You don't need extra steps. The, the least, the, the easiest explanation to get to the conclusion is how you decide what is the most rational answer. So, if I say that there's a noise on my roof, and my options are, uh, a pine cone fell off a tree, a cat jumped up the tree and onto the roof, or it was aliens, we would immediately go, like, it has to be the pine cone is the most rational. The cat going up the tree is second, and aliens is the least rational answer. So, when it comes to the 116 pages, and I'm going to read a little bit here, and I want to try to explain this. Yeah, that's the picture the church used in the Book of Mormon History Reader thing it used to have. I'm seeing the look on his face. He definitely expected the pages to be there. So, in 1828, Martin Harris took the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript, often called the Book of Lehi, and they were subsequently lost. Joseph Smith reported that his ability to translate was temporarily taken from him as a result. Later, Doctrine and Covenants 10 explained that wicked men had obtained the manuscript and intended it to, to alter it in order to discredit him. If Joseph were to re-translate the same material, discrepancies between the two versions would be used against him. And the revelation therefore stated that God had prepared an alternate record centuries earlier, aka the small plates of Nephi, which were intended to replace the lost portion. Whether you're a believer or not, we all agree that that's the narrative. Correct? >> Great. Within the LDS framework, the loss of the manuscript was not a dereliction, but part of a larger divine design. God, foreseeing the theft long in advance, had already provided a backup record that covered much of the same historical period from a different perspective. Joseph was instructed not to re-translate the original material because enemies would alter the lost pages and compare them with the new version to undermine his credibility. This explanation presents the episode in Mormon history as evidence of divine foresight. That's how the church teaches it. God saw what was going to happen, and he executed his plan with some preparation beforehand to account for that occurring so that the problem could be solved. This explanation presents the episode as divine foresight, protection, and a conspiracy that was anticipated and neutralized by God. Now, here's the logical problem. Let's just slow this down and think this through. The explanation in Doctrine and Covenants Section 10 says that the lost pages were taken by bad actors who planned to alter them so that they could trap Joseph when he tried to re-translate the same material. But for that plan to actually work, those people would have had to have pulled off something almost impossible. Imagine these bad actors figuring out what to change and what to leave the same, trying to locate the same paper that they had written the first 116 pages on, the same ink, trying to imitate Martin Harris's handwriting convincingly. Does it make sense that a group of people who already believe he is a fraud would start with the assumption that he would in fact be able to duplicate the record and base their plan on his performing that act perfectly? Why would a skeptic take the 116 pages and rewrite them trying to catch Smith legitimately reproducing a replica of the original? Isn't it much more rational that a skeptic would hold on to the original 116 pages, expecting Smith to fail to reproduce them perfectly? Wouldn't skeptics trying to catch him believe the reproduction would be so different that it would be obvious to everyone that he wasn't translating with God's help? >> Yeah. If Joseph really was translating by the gift and power of God, and especially if the words appeared in the hat as witnesses claimed, then re-translating the same material shouldn't have been risky. If God wanted it to come out the same, wouldn't it have come out the same? A true revelation shouldn't be threatened by comparison. Doesn't it make sense that a re-translation would only become risky to Joseph if Joseph recognized that he wouldn't be able to reproduce similar wording twice? Because even minor differences in a verb choice or an extra "and it came to pass" wouldn't be a serious obstacle. Nobody would have criticized that. Differences are a problem only if the original pages resurfaced and there were substantial differences between the two. What Doctrine and Covenants 10 does is remove that risk by creating suspicion of those who might be holding on to those 116 pages. It shifts our predisposition to be skeptical of Joseph's translation ability instead of encouraging the reader's natural desire to want to see Smith demonstrate his supernatural powers in a testable fashion. Joseph's framing of DNC 10 gives a spiritual reason why the test must never be permitted, and why even if it was, we should already understand upfront that Smith's reproduction will fail. When skeptics look at the Doctrine of Covenants Section 10, what stands out isn't just the lost pages. It's how the explanation works and who it ultimately serves. The revelation anticipates a test that could have verified Joseph's ability to translate. It explains in advance why that test would fail, and then it explains why the test must never be allowed to happen or must be distrusted if it does. In other words, it closes the loop. If Joseph re-translates and there are differences, then we must believe that enemies have altered the manuscript, in spite of the much more rational answer that skeptics would naturally hold on to the original to see if Joseph actually had the abilities he claimed, and he was afraid because he didn't have those abilities. And if he doesn't re-translate, that proves that God foresaw the conspiracy. And that way, when the test is taken off the table, all of us never expected it to be there in the first place. Either way, Joseph's claims are insulated from being tested. And here's something else that's worth noticing. God supposedly anticipates a major conspiracy that never actually materializes. The pages actually never do resurface. The feared trap never springs. But even as Joseph translates the small plates of Nephi, doesn't it benefit the conspirators to bring the original 116 pages forward to allow the comparison of Lehi's account with Nephi's? Isn't it most likely that Joseph may have been preparing for the worst-case scenario, assuming that critics were waiting for him to make his next move, but critics never actually had the 116 pages? Why? 'Cause the rumor is that Lucy Harris burned them. And that's probably what happened. But even if he was told that she burned them, burned them, he had to be prepared in case there was a trap that was being set. So, continuing on with the translation where he left off, what scholars call Mosiah priority for those who don't know, Joseph picks back up the translation at the Book of Mosiah, works his way into Moroni, and then comes back to the small plates of Nephi. But that can be seen another way. It buys Joseph time. It allows him to move forward with new material while waiting to see if the lost pages would reappear. And if they did, especially for an innocent reason, he'd know it was safe to simply insert them back in. And he would never need those small plates of Nephi. As a skeptic, this moment in Mormon history looks like managing risk and his fears and anxiety while trying to avoid future duplication of efforts. The real issue isn't whether the pages were lost. Everyone agrees they were. The issue is how Joseph, or God, how their explanation functions. The conspiracy described altering the manuscript is extremely hard to pull off in the real world. The danger only makes sense if Joseph couldn't safely reproduce a text. And the solution conveniently removes the possibility of that test even taking place. For skeptics like myself, the explanation feels crafted to avoid doing something that has him getting caught. DNC 10 depends on a highly unlikely plot that also never comes about. That's irrational. And it resolves the crisis in one way that protects Joseph from ever having to demonstrate that his translation ability was repeatable and his abilities testable. The question at hand is, does DNC 10 solve a divine problem or a human one? Joseph, God seems most worried about those 116 pages resurfacing and there being, and those 116 pages being unexplainable in terms of the differences between the original and the reproduction. And Joseph, or God, has figured out a workaround that would explain why Joseph, or God, are going to take, are not going to take that chance at reproducing it, no matter what. That's how the rational mind works. And in the church, we grow up in a lens, and we're taught to see things a certain way, and we're given their answers before we ever have time to think through what is the right way to think about that problem. And so my two cents on this section is just step back sometimes, take off the lens of Mormonism, and look at the stories they tell you as an outsider, and see if the story makes more sense with a critical lens. If you want to know more about the Book of Lehi and those 116 pages, we did an episode of Mormonism Live covering that topic. Radio Free Mormon. Which now that I think about it, really does mean that Joseph Smith, or at least Mormon, created a second, or he found, he included a second set of plates covering the same time period for Joseph Smith to not look at when he was dictating the Book of Mormon. So he had two sets of plates that he didn't need to dictate the Book of Mormon. Okay.

Hey, Gospel Doctrine class 2008. Who was there? [laughter] I was there. And I was teaching Gospel Doctrine class. Those are the heady days when I'm starting to understand more and I'm starting to allow myself to think about things. I mean, you can see why it is, you can't think about this 116 pages. We all know the story, but if you're like me, you're also very careful not to think about the implications of that story because, JFC, it is dangerous. It is devastating to the LDS church, the lost 116 pages. I didn't realize that until a few years ago when I was doing something with Bill, a podcast. Thank you. Three, two, one. And I'm looking at the text and I'm going, my gosh, this is devastating. This whole story depends and requires Joseph Smith to be making the claim that he could redictate those 116 pages word for freaking word. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense at all. Otherwise, why would the other side have to change things in order for it to not match? That's the claim he's making. Loose translation? My ass. That is as tight a translation. Whatever BH Roberts came up with, the loose translation, and whatever other people have, uh, mimicked, which is loose and tight. Well, it'll be loose when we need loose, and tight when we need tight. I.e., chiasmus, right? We, it can't be loose, or chiasmus, and any of those wonderful Hebrewisms in the Book of Mormon that prove it's ancient and written by Hebrews, but it's loose when we need it to be loose as well. Okay? But it was tight, completely from Joseph Smith's point of view. That's what he portrayed. That's what he presented. And my gosh, it's a translation. Obviously, it's going to be the same. All right. Gospel Doctrine class 2008. The, uh, essays started coming out in 2013, I think it was. So this is five years before that. I'm teaching, I taught all four years from the middle of 2006 to the middle of 2010. So I had my go at all the standard works. Right here in 2008, the beginning of the year, we're talking about the, um, the translation of the Book of Mormon. And I happen to know that Joseph Smith didn't translate the Book of Mormon by looking at the freaking plates. And I've known it for a while, but that's because, you know, I studied. But my class, I don't think they're going to know it. And I know that I'm really treading on thin ice if I'm going to present this to my class. It's a small ward. It's in the boonies, but they can hurt you. And so, I got to be careful. And I'll tell you exactly how I did this. So, um, if I stand up, this thing's not going to record, is it? Uh, it will probably pick up the sound good enough. >> Will you let me know? >> Yeah. >> Because I want to walk around. >> You do you. >> Thank you. I frequently do. >> And yes, I am a puppy. [laughter] [snorts] [laughter] >> I bring a watch with me. If we get the next slide, please. Maestro. Yeah. So I had it all here. I still have the name and I brought my watch here. So what I did with the entire, I start by talking about how when I was a kid, a long time ago, by things in the dark and luminous were, and I think it was 1968, you're traveling for a birthday, and, um, I loved it. And I would take that with me in my room, put it under the lamp so it would turn off the lamp, and then the sun would come and it wouldn't glow. So I turn my watch, and if I can do this, um, would you possibly hold this for me? >> I'm sorry, I know I'm being a pain. >> Hold it. >> Oh, thank you. Jump in, everybody. >> I can't hear it. Okay. [laughter] I'm just going to stand here and enjoy this. So, what I did, so what I do is I took my watch and I put it in my hands like this, right? And if you do that, if you can see the glove, am I right? Am I done with this? Okay. But then I said, but you know, if you do this like this, it's too close. It's too close for my eyeball for me to read the time, right? It's a blur. So what I figured was, and this is kind of where I started everything up. You look really good. It's very hot. So, am I on time? >> You've got the watch. >> I think I got [laughter] you. I'm so get, you know, like some oxygen for Tim because I think he's going to, he's going to thank you and slap people. So, anyway, so what I said was, what I can do is I can take it and put it in my hat. Here's where the hat, the bottom of my hat. And I said, if I put it in my hat and put my face up to the hat, now I can see the glow, but it's far enough away from my eyes, both I can breathe the dye, and everybody's watching me. But I, but I want to make sure what. Huh? You can't hear. >> You can't hear me. What? The guy. You can't hear me. >> So, some of. So, some of them said the sound was great. Is it just 'cause he's a far away? >> Are they clapping for you or me? How many people wish they could be me right now? [laughter] >> Swing. Thank you. And actually, I could [laughter] I'm not doing anything that I'm thinking about right now. I'm not doing a thing. Don't even do that to me again. Okay. Uh, okay. The, the hat. And I stop because I'm pacing back and forth. It's in the chapel, right? It's the adult class, but it's in the chapel. Pacing back and forth, doing my thing. And, uh, then I stop and I say, 'cause everybody's looking at me. I look around. Everybody's going, and I say, "I've taken at least 10 minutes now out of Gospel Doctrine class. Probably the best 10 minutes spent in Gospel Doctrine class ever." And I stop and I say, "Hey everybody, wake up." I say, "Hey everybody, does anybody here know why it is I'm doing all this stuff in a lesson about the translation of the Book of Mormon? Does anybody know why I'm doing this?" And nobody raised their hand. By the way, of the people here, by a show of hands, how many people know why I was doing that? That's a lot more. That's a lot more. But honestly, I thought, come on. I figured there wouldn't be many, but zero. And I thought, it's just because they're a little scared. So I said, "No, really. How many people know why I'm doing this?" Nothing. Nothing. I've got like 25 deer in the headlights in front of me. And I said, "Because, drum roll please, that's how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon." And those expressions started changing. They weren't deer anymore. No, they were carnivores. But I remembered because I knew this was dangerous. I knew that what I needed was something special in my back pocket. Would you check my back pocket to see what it is, Sean? No. It's an expression. It's not literal. It's in my front pocket. No, seriously. Tim Rafone is really enjoying this. Oh, here. Let me do this. Can I? Okay, so he won't let me. >> Maybe he can hold one of them. >> That was my. That was my foot. I think. Okay. Is that working? Okay. >> Yeah. >> And that's probably easier for you now. >> He's not even doing the exercise anymore. >> Okay. [laughter] I think John's enjoying this. All right. You know, I'm not doing this for you tomorrow morning. Okay. [laughter] Just so we're clear on that. Later tonight, who knows? [laughter] I got to get this. Oh, to hell with a hat. [laughter] No, that's what I told him. But I knew because they start, you know, approaching and they look menacing. So I whip out what I got in my pocket. Pardon me while I whip this out. And what do I whip out? 199. It's an Ensign from 1993, July. President Russell, Elder Russell and Nelson, excuse me. He was only an elder at that time. How many people get the joke? All the old people raised their hands. Only an elder. Only the power by which the worlds came rolling into existence. Bruce McConkie. Boy, what a guy. So, what I had though was an Ensign article because I had an apostle who was going to back me, and they weren't expecting that. So, they're getting their, you know, their wooden beams and their, their nails and their hammer out. And I said, "Wait a second." And if we get to the next one, hopefully this is right. How many people know about this? Yeah. And hopefully it's 1993 and hopefully it's July because that's my memory. But here, uh, Russell M. Nelson is giving an address at the MPC to a bunch of newly called mission presidents in 1992, by the way, the year before. They were obviously running short of material to publish. But I'm glad they published this because in it, he cites approvingly to some guy named Martin Harris. Anybody heard of Martin Harris? The guy who talked to a deer because it was Jesus. You know, it only sounds crazy because if you know the truth, you understand that's the way Jesus rolls. He can appear to you as a deer. He can appear to you as a large dog, a bat, a mist, >> anything. >> Salamander. >> Salamander. Absolutely. Absolutely. So, I've got. Wow. Five. Do I really have five minutes left? >> Uh, >> Can you check that? >> Yeah. Be what? 8:15. >> Is that true? Oh, no. Wait a second. Oh, >> You did this to me, didn't you? I'm sorry. I've encroached on Bill's time. So, I'm gonna finish it. No, what happened is. Yeah, that was it. So, that's just. >> Thank you, John De. Everybody for John Deed. >> I'm so sorry. I thought that was. >> You're good. You got eight minutes left. >> Oh, I do. I have eight minutes left. I'm sorry. I was wrong. John, >> here. [laughter] >> I got eight minutes left. >> Just. >> Okay. >> I can probably sit. >> Can you hold that one? >> Yeah. >> All right. All right. So then I do this quote right from Martin Harris because Martin Harris said exactly what I just said. He's one of the three witnesses, and it's being quoted by an apostle in the church magazine. So what are they going to do? Right? They're going to crucify me. They're going to have to crucify the whole Ensign. So then, then, but you see, here's the thing is that if you don't know, if you don't, if you don't, what am I trying to say? I'm not, I don't want to say if you don't study, if you're not aware of these things, then you might not know at this point in time that there was a time when this wasn't talked about, and this was really unusual. In fact, it was a very controversial issue. In fact, it was such a controversial issue that seven years after this was published in the Ensign, there were two BYU professors, one of them, Joseph Fielding McConkie, and another guy, and his name is on here in the next, who wrote a paper, is published in this book, that says Martin Harris is full of it. That there was no seer stone used. He's out to lunch. He's up a tree. Whatever you want to call it. He's not right because Joseph Smith never used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. And so what do they say? Oh, here's the other guy. If I look down here, so that's the book. And there's Joseph. He actually has some good attributes. I like him. >> Craig Osler. >> That's who says. >> "Geez, how many Osler's are there in this church?" >> Is Blake, is Blake Osler here tonight? No, he didn't make it. Okay, I think he's mad at me. Go ahead. Oh, can we go to the next one? Thank you. Because in that book, here's what they write. >> Can you read that? >> Uh, sure. >> All right. So here's I'll just read those. Translated everything. Is arguing why it is, and Joseph said the seer stone, and he's making a lot of sense. So why were the plates necessary in the first place? A good question. What David is asking us to believe is that the means by which they were to be translated. Remember those interpret the European. So the means, they're all sealed up, right? And the means translated hundreds of years before they come into Joseph. [clears throat] Uh, I didn't have the prophet use a seer stone to heal well. So that nothing to me necessary. In this, we would ask really explanation of the way that heaven's out. [laughter] >> Logical thinking. >> Yeah. >> Yes. It's very logic. And there's, there's the reference there for anybody who wants to have the reference. Few years ago, and I'm justified. So I think that's the last line. I think I go to you. >> All right. I'll let you put that there. >> I'll do that. >> Okay. So in the, in the first section, uh, we talked about that you got to use logical thinking, and it doesn't come natural. Doesn't come natural to any of us in the church. And there's probably a few of you who, what's, oh yeah, yeah, yeah. There's probably a few of you who deconstructed, uh, when you guys were in your 20s, and you were thinking, like, I don't know why everybody's believing this thing, and you figured it out early. But for the, you know, majority of us, we figured out later in life because we were given a certain way to see things. So, the first trick is to use logical thinking. RFM just spoke to the idea that you've got to read a wide array of church sources. You can't just see what one person said in one place. You've got to go find all of it. And now I want to talk to you about, you have to read all kinds of sources. The church doesn't want you to trust the critic at all. I want you to read both sides. And if there's more than two sides, read those, too. So, I want to talk to you about a discomfort with treasure digging. To understand the translation story, we have to step back into Joseph Smith's world, not ours. Early 19th century America was steeped in treasure seeking. Folk magic wasn't exactly fringe. It was woven into parts of everyday life for some people. People believed that buried treasures were guarded by spirits, that peep stones could reveal hidden things, that hazel sticks held in the hand could locate water. Actually, there's still some of those people today. >> And that gifted individuals could perceive what others could not. Joseph did not invent that environment, but rather he grew up inside of it. When we examine how the Book of Mormon was translated using a seer or peep stone, we inevitably brush up against Joseph's earlier use of such stones in his treasure digging ventures. That is likely where some, if not much of the institutional discomfort originates. And I hope to explain to you tonight why that is. The issue is not just the strange visual of Smith burying his head in a hat or the use of a rock instead of the Nephite spectacles, although that is certainly a problem. And you could see Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig Osler feel that cognitive dissonance as they put that answer down in that book. It is what the stone connects to a cultural practice the church has long preferred to minimize, simplify, or reframe. So, one of the things, if you don't read what the critic writes, you're not going to have the alternative point of view. You're not going to be able to have things that inform you how to think logically or to see things from a critical perspective. I will note one side wants you to only read what they put out, and the other side wishes you would read everything available to you, and that should tell you something. One of the things I learned a ton from was Dan Vogel, and not just Dan Vogel, but in particular, this document, which was an article that he wrote. I think this was in Dialogue, and this was the location of Joseph Smith's early treasure quest. The church, LDS church website, the image on the right. Joseph occasionally used. You're good. Occasionally used stones he located in the ground to help neighbors find missing objects or search for buried treasure. What does the church mean by occasionally? As a believer, do you think like, yeah, like I don't know, twice he went out and did some treasure digs? Dan Vogel ends up documenting like 14 to 17 different treasure digs. It was a large number of them across various state lines, by the way, which is why he ends up working with Josiah Stole and ends up going to trial in the 1826 glass looking trial. I, I'll just note here, it's not only the amount of digs, it's how big these digs were. This is one of them. This is Mormon Hill. This is not the Hill Cumorah. This is called Mormon Hill, but it's very close to the Hill Cumorah in Palmyra, New York. Look at those two guys standing next to, next to the hole of the hill there. In my head, when I heard the church talk about Joseph Smith as a treasure digger, remember the quote that he only made $14 a month and he gave it up quickly? Well, first off, $14 a month wasn't horrible back then. Number two, it was tons and tons of treasure digs, as we just talked about. And number three, it wasn't just digging like a hole into the ground like, "Oh, let's just dig six feet and see if we find something." No, they were digging caverns into the sides of hills that you could walk into. And some of these hills, including this Mormon Hill, the, uh, writings of the day report that this was the hill that the Smiths dug at, and that there were tons of things inside, articles of clothing, sheep bones, all kinds of stuff inside the hill. Um, this was a place where the Smiths could go hide out. I don't know what they were doing in there, but there are reports that they went into this and spent time inside this hill. Similarities exist between gold plates, the Mormon gold plates, and the buried treasure of treasure digging. Joseph Smith, when treasure digging, is constantly telling his audience, the people who are paying him to find the treasure, that there is Native American buried gold or Spanish silver mines in the ground. When we get to the Book of Mormon moment, it's gold plates, and they also have value to the point where Joseph says, "I'm not allowed to take them right away because the, the angel felt like I might misuse them and try to get gain financially from them." So, both stories have a buried treasure, both made of precious metals. Similarities exist between treasure guardians and Moroni. The treasure guardian was always a Native American or a Spaniard, and often they were killed by someone else in their group so that their spirit would protect the buried treasure. When it comes to Moroni, he is serving the same function. And it's not just that sort of similarity where you go like, "Oh, like Moroni is guarding the plates and the guardian spirits are guarding the treasures that Joseph was doing during the treasure digging." It's much worse than that. Accounts from neighbors and early critics describe Joseph Smith's treasure seeking stories in terms that closely resemble elements later attached to Moroni in the gold plates. In 19th century folk magic, buried treasure was often believed to be guarded by a supernatural being who required, who required, sorry, who required strict obedience to ritual instructions. If the digger failed to follow directions precisely, the treasure would slip away with the treasure guardian, keeping the treasure from being obtained. Court testimony from Joseph's 1826 glass looking trial describes treasure chests that moved or sank deeper into the earth when proper procedures were not followed. Similarly, in early recollections of the plates narrative, Joseph reported that he was forbidden to take the plates until the appointed time. 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825. Right. Time goes on. Actually, it starts in 1823. He gets his second seer stone in 1822 digging the Willard Chase well. Um, Joseph reported that he was forbidden to take the plates until the appointed time and was physically thrown back or struck when he attempted to remove them prematurely. He had to wear black. He had to ride on a black horse. He had to take specified people with him. First, it was, it was his brother Alvin, and then somehow the angel Moroni didn't understand that Alvin was about to die. So, when Alvin died, then the angel told Joseph he needed to take, uh, Samuel Lawrence. And that didn't last long. And eventually he was told that he should bring Emma Smith, Emma Hale at the time. I think, um, he, the pattern of conditional access, ritual obedience, and supernatural enforcement around Moroni and the gold plates closely mirrors treasure guardian stories that Smith used around treasure digging. Some early accounts describing Moroni go even further, claiming that Joseph, or members of his family, describe the guardian of the plates, who later is identified and defined as Moroni in Mormon, in the Mormon narrative, in a dramatic, even violent imagery. For example, sources such as Eber Howe's Mormonism Unveiled, but not just that. We just recently did an episode on an interview that was done with Joseph Smith Sr. It's a secondhand account, but this guy's completely unconnected to the witnesses who are reporting back in Eber Howe's book, and he is also sharing the same details. By the way, that's another way to think critically. When you find evidence coming from multiple places that are disconnected from each other, this side couldn't have had influence on that side, and they're saying similar things. There might be something of truth to that. They reported that numerous folks who associated with Smith and his treasure digging spoke of spirits associated with treasure who could strike, threaten, or appear in alarming forms. There are multiple secondhand reports, including the testimony of Joseph Smith's brother-in-law and his father-in-law, Isaac Hale, as well as his own father, Joseph Smith, Sr., that Moroni is described as appearing with either a slit throat from ear to ear and blood on his clothing. And in other accounts, it doesn't mention the throat being slit, but it says that his clothes were covered in blood. Again, accounts that are disconnected from each other. Imagery that resembles folk traditions in which slain guardians protect buried riches. Again, what Joseph also taught and what was the tradition of the day is that there were Native Americans or Spaniards, and that the one of the group was murdered and buried there in the ground, and that spirit then protected those plates until someday when not the plate, but the treasures, until someday when someone would have the right rituals, the right seance, the right words said, wears the right clothing, and is able to procure the treasure. Believers often discount these accounts because they come from critics, but their recurring similarities across multiple independent sources make them difficult to dismiss and point to a common narrative thread in the early story that Smith told about Moroni. They illustrate continuity across both Mormonism's foundational story and his treasure digging. A slain guardian spirit, strict ritual requirements, physical rebuke for disobedience, and eventual permission granted only when the proper conditions were met. So on the left-hand side, Mark Ashworth McGee, he works for the Church History Department. He's a faithful Latter-day Saint. He wrote this article to say, "Bill, you're right. There's a ton of similarities." The faithful point of view is that, uh, the treasure digging was used as a way to prepare Joseph Smith so that when he encountered the exact same kind of story, he would jump into it believing just like he did his treasure digging. That's the less rational answer. On the right-hand side is Eber Howe's Mormonism Unveiled, where a man by the name of Philastus Hurlbut. Cool name. My two favorite names in Mormonism, by the way, are Philastus Hurlbutt and Obadiah Dogberry. I love those. In Mormonism Unveiled, it's written by a critic, but this guy sends out somebody. Philastus, what did you think of the Smiths? Are some of those stories going to be embellished? Sure. Can we believe every account? Absolutely not. We can't do that. But what we can do is see if there's common threads and try to recognize, is the critic or the critics pointing to something that is more trustworthy, more rational, more reliable than the narrative that the church shares? Similarities between peep stones and seer stones. As RFM just pointed out, we all were told that the spectacles were saved by Nephites over a thousand years so that Joseph Smith could one day use the use those only to have him turned to the very stone that he used in treasure digging. It says here, this is from Mormon Sunday School, a great website. Um, if we accept that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon using a dark, occultic seer stone he presumably found from an alleged career in treasure digging, scrying, and magic. This means the Book of Mormon was revealed.

through an occultic instrument and not by revelation and instruments provided by God. Why didn't he just use the spectacles?

The apologists will tell you that there are accounts that report that when Joseph used the spectacles, they hurt his eyes. And so, he went to the seer stone. That was what I ended up using that story then to try to tell people to smooth over their questions until one day I'm reading the account about Joseph using the sear stone in the 1826 glass looking trial or the 1830 one that took place four years later and Joseph says that using his rock hurt his eyes. That was just a story he used whenever he needed to distance himself for some reason or another from the use of the rock or the spectacles.

In early 19th century New York, peep stones or seer stones were commonly used in folk practices to locate buried objects. How do we know that? Because Sally Chase is using one. Uh Oliver Cowry is using a divining rod, but he's involved in folk magic. Lumen Walters is doing uh uh this folk magic practice. You've got Hyram Page, early member of the church, who's like, I'll just start using a seer stone. No big deal. It's all around him. And they use it to locate buried objects, lost items, and hidden treasure. Except, can anybody raise their hand of one treasure that was ever found? Isn't that strange?

>> By the way, for those watching on the on the stream, not one single hand went up. He did he did find a needle in the hay stack that Martin Harris had dropped.

>> Yeah, but that feather could have been buried the night before, too.

>> Yeah. By the way, if each and every one of you are faithful and do everything you're supposed to do, you will be exalted and you will each get your own sear stone. That's how ingrained it is in Mormonism. It's not just in Joseph Smith's past. It's in all of our future. Doctrine of Covenant, section 130 or 31.

Joseph Smith's own participation in treasure digging included the use of a stone placed in a hat to block out light. And this is acknowledged by church sources. RFN put one up on the screen later. That same method appears in descriptions of how he translated the Book of Mormon, placing a sear stone in a hat and dictating the text that appeared to him. RFM talked about that as well. The church acknowledges both of these. The trans the transition from Smith's use of stones and treasure digging to their use in Mormonism looks continuous rather than radically new. And why have Nephites preserved spectacles at all if Smith was going to use the stone anyway? How should we interpret that continuity?

Defenders of the faith suggest it is God working through familiar cultural tools, meeting Joseph where he was. The skeptic sees it as Joseph repurposing a familiar folk practice into a religious claim. Both perspectives agree that Smith is using the same physical object, the same technique, the same claim of accessing hidden knowledge through supernatural means. Might we seriously question whether what was later framed as a revelation might instead reflect the religious reshaping of existing folk practices and cultural expectations.

Here's a great book. This is a written by uh uh faithful members of the church. Uh, if you want to know a history of the Seer Stones, again, read their books, too. Um, I want you to read both sides. I want you to figure out where the truth is. I don't want you to start off feeling like you can only read certain sources from certain places. Think about anywhere else in life where someone tells you you can only read one side.

Similarities between Joseph Smith's time as a treasure digger and his time as the Mormon prophet. In 1826, he goes to trial. He's accused of using his peep stone. The charge that's on the books is glass looking. We don't know the full details of it, but we know that he was uh written written here in this uh document that he had to pay $2.68 uh to the court. Uh, the people versus Joseph Smith, the glass looker. March 20th, 1826.

There's a deception in treasure digging. You're getting paid to tell people where treasures are when you never, ever, ever find a treasure. Joseph Smith tells people that the book of Abraham is on the Egyptian papyrie. Joseph Smith says, "We can start a bank, and if you'll all put your money in, I promise you it'll work." Joseph Smith is handed some fabricated plates, the Kinderhook plates, and he starts to translate them. There's something common in Joseph Smith's life.

>> Yes.

>> Yeah. If you multiply that by a whole month, that would probably come to about $14 a month, right? Well, a little little less than that, but a little more than that. Yeah. Yeah, it wasn't it in today's terms that's nothing but in those terms it was a a little decent fee.

Okay, so book on the left is Brandt Gardner's translating the Book of Mormon. I think it's a great informative book from the believing perspective. On the right is Gerald and Sandra Tanner's Joseph Smith and Money Digging. I think it's a great critical work on the same kind of data. I'd read both of them. I'd try to figure out where the truth is. On the left here is D. Michael Quinn. I think one of the greatest scholars in all of Mormon history and maybe the greatest scholar in all of Mormon history. Early Mormonism in the magic world view. What a great opportunity to learn about Joseph Smith treasure digging. On the right, Interpreter magazine headed by Dan Peterson, one of the most well-known apologists in the church. Read both of them. Don't just listen to one side. John Delin here front row his episode Joseph Smith folk magic and treasure digging LDS discussions Book of Mormon Joseph Smith and treasure digging.

Three lenses by which one can view this issue and pretty much every other issue. Either Joseph Smith is a sincere visionary. He's a prophet living in a folk culture. Maybe he's a pious fraud, meaning that it is a fraud, but his intentions are good. He really wants to bring people closer to God in deceiving them. Or it's a conscious con. And I'm less interested in which one you land on than in whether you're allowed to consider all of those. You should be allowed to consider them.

To the believing person here who is supporting someone with doubt, if you're here supporting someone you love, thank you. Your willingness to listen to them in order to understand their experience matters and curiosity. Studying both sides and using critical thinking should not equal betrayal to the person here deconstructing and exploring faith and doubt. You should be allowed to ask questions. You should be allowed to read broadly. You should be allowed to hold complexity. You should be allowed to move slowly. You should be allowed to stay if you choose. You should be allowed to leave if you choose. And you should be allowed to research both sides. And I would take every issue in the church and I would use my logical mind trying to be a rational thinker. I would read as much of the church material on that issue as possible. whether it's written by folks like Joseph Fielding Makoni or prophet seers and revelators and I would read everything the critic writes and then try to figure out what makes the most sense and with that we'll do a Q&A.

So, nobody's here to man the microphone.

>> Oh, this is my microphone.

>> You going to need this?

>> Well, at least one of them isn't saying a lot. the two professors that were denying that

>> today. Yeah. So, you're asking if Joseph Fieldy Mcconi and Craig Osler have anything to say today.

>> And as RFN pointed out,

>> one of them does not. At least one

>> because he's dead. And I don't know who Craig Osler is. I imagine that he's had to change his mind if he's still alive. Isn't it amazing though the timing? You've got an apostle in 1992 talking about the stone in the hat. And that's a rare rare citation by the way. And seven years later, eight years later, you've got two BYU professors arguing the exact opposite position and actually using logic to show why Martin Harris makes no sense at all. just supporting his father.

>> Well, his dad, Joseph Fielding Smith, excuse me, his his granddad.

>> That would be his granddad, right? Yeah. So, his granddad, Josephing Smith, Bruce Manki's father-in-law. Um, he's on record not as saying that he does not believe that Joseph Smith used a seer stone. He actually tacitly acknowledges his possession of the seer stone, but he says he believes that Joseph Smith did not use a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. Because why would God prepare special interpreters for the very purpose of translating the Book of Mormon and then have Joseph Smith instead substitute an inferior method? That was his rationale. I think it makes sense.

>> Yes. That's just his making an argument that best he can kind of like his like those two professors are doing. All right.

>> Yes. That's like AAM's razor. I'll say it for the audience. How many people are watching on 349? Wow. We got the biggest audience of anybody, even opposite karaoke. strangers in the night.

>> When you put the rock in the hat, I've always thought that the reason that they had to have so no one else could see there was no light or no words. Also, when you put the rock in the hat, you put in your face so no one else can see there's no light. Doesn't that make it a lot harder to be able to hear what he's saying?

>> Yes, it magic episode and why you thought the hat was so important?

>> Well, yeah, it does make it a lot more more um difficult to hear what he's saying. I'm sure it does. And I don't know if it was a little bit away or if he turned his head or whatever, but they had to read it back to make sure it was exactly right. Why do you have to read something back? Everybody knows that was the the process, right? Joseph Smith would dictate like 20 to 30 words, stop, have the scribe read it back to him so that he can make sure it was correct. And once it was correct, then the words would vanish from the stone and a new set of words would take its place. Does that sound like loose translation to anybody? No. Loose translation covers a multitude of sins, but the history does not permit it.

>> Hi,

>> my name is Teresa. My question is for Bill. We're about 43 minutes in and you had said that old people probably maybe in their 20s started to have logic. I was 15 in 1992 and I left church internet no place to go. So, everyone's talking about logic. For me, I love the way how it made me feel. Isn't my question is is don't you think just the feeling of knowing that it's not true?

>> Yeah, I'll respond to that. So, I think there are a thousand valid reasons for stepping away or staying for that matter. in a system that tells you that emotional responses are the ultimate way to know the truth of that thing. I only want to caution people when it comes to feeling because certainly tons of emotions are valid. We're emotional human beings and often emotions give us the truth of something way before we could read something or know, right? Like you just you just intu you intuitively know that something isn't right. But I also want to always caution people because in that system emotions is how emotions trumps logic. Emotions trumps evidence. Emotions trump uh any other way that you might arrive at a different answer. And so I'm always just a little cautious of that if that makes sense. But you definitely Yeah.

>> Yeah. Thank you.

>> I'm glad it is

>> being here. And to the last question too, you should Oh, if you haven't gone and listened, RFM did an episode uh I know the word magic and Mormonism are in the title of the episode and he spends as an as a magician who spent a lot of time doing magic, RFM. He does an episode where he's like, "You guys are being distracted by the slight of hand. The stone [clears throat] is just a distraction. The hat the hat is where the magic is taking place." And uh I'll just leave it at that. I think you should live listen to the episode. RFM has a lot of evidence that suggests that we take a look at that story from the perspective of a magician. And I will only note that Joseph Smith is believed to have trained in his treasure digging folk magic practices under Lumen Walters who was an alchemist. And Lumen uh almost certainly taught Joseph if he did teach him and again a lot of evidence points to that uh that if he did teach him that uh that Joseph learned sort of the art of deception that's involved in alchemy.

>> Yeah. Well, what I suggest just based on magic is that Joseph Smith did a wonderful job because he has us all focusing on the stone even today now that the church is coughed up the truth. My suggestion is it was never about the stone. It was always about the hat.

>> Yeah. The hat was always required as well. What's going on in that hat that nobody else can see but Joseph is the question.

>> Yeah. With 20 to 30 words at a time.

>> And taking breaks on a regular basis because it hurts his eyes. My eyes. The stone hurts my eyes. The spectacles hurt my eyes. I got to take a break. I'll be back in an hour.

>> Treasure can be very hard physical labor. Is there any evidence that Joseph did it himself or did he super while he manipulated others into doing the actual lion share work?

>> Joseph Smith's first vision we say happened in 1820. in 1819 when he's 13 years old, he is borrowing Sally Chase's greenstone and looking at it and being told claiming his al his what he alleged is that he's being told by supernatural forces that he has the cedar stone 150 miles away buried under a tree. At 13 years old, he's already figuring out what people will believe and what they won't. when he is he's visited by Moroni in 1823. In 1822, he gets his second sear stone. He already understands how this works. So, my understanding of treasure digging is he's the guy getting paid. He's the foreman on the job. He looks in the hat. He tells you where to dig. He tells you where to draw the circle, where to slip the dog's throat, pour the blood, where to say the words. And by the way, I don't mean that as an embellishment of the story. Multiple accounts report dogs and sheep being killed so that their blood could be used in the ritual circles of Joseph Smith's treasure digging. But I'll just note that uh Smith the accounts make it sound like he's just standing there telling them where to dig. They do the digging and when they get to the point where it looks like they're going to give up, he comes up with some reason why the ritual failed. The treasure sunk further into the earth. They didn't say the words right. They didn't bring the right person. and then it fails. But I highly doubt that he is the guy on the majority of those digs doing the heavy lifting. And when Bill says that Joseph Smith as a treasure digger found out what people would believe and what they would not, I expect he was astonished to find out that people will believed an awful lot. Can you imagine going to this guy the 10th time, the 11th time, the 12th time to find treasure when he has never found any treasure in his life? But faith is a wonderful thing. Tim Wthbone is reminding me of the quote by Benjamin Franklin who talks about the money treasure diggers. Big thing then still goes on today in some uh circles but um and that there's all these holes that you can see in Pennsylvania from these poor diluted idiots who are out there. That's his point of view. He doesn't think they're very smart. But that's Ben Franklin. He doesn't think money diggers are very smart. he says, but you can see the evidence of them still there.

>> I don't think it's the norm, but I think it's a small segment of society in the in the the the backwoods of New York and other places across the country and in other countries altogether. Yeah, we are out of time.

>> One more.

>> Yes.

>> I wanted to know, did you mention how your Sunday school class responded once you showed up in the room from leader? And then also, was there any fallout from you?

>> I will tell you that I'm not aware of any fallout. I survived to tell the tale. obviously, but yeah, I think it set him back a bit and it gave him something to think about. Um, I do know through another source who was a member of the what of the ward council that I was a subject of frequent discussion, that not everybody was enamored with my gospel doctrine lessons and that some of them would beat a retreat to the bishop's office immediately at the close of the final prayer to complain about me. There was one sister who really hated me and her name was Sister Waters, and you know who you are. So, one of the things that delighted me the most is that as I'm up there with my face in the hat doing this whole stick, she was laughing so hard. She was turning beat red. And I actually commented, "Oh yeah, you're laughing. Why are you laughing?" because you look ridiculous. And oh, I relished what was coming folks. That's tonight's episode of Mormonism Live. Thank you. Breathing.

[music]

Breathing.