Omitting relevant information

The clarity element of the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding involves avoiding omission of relevant information.

An X post by Cynical Publius describes what he calls "lying by omission." The recent news about Pentagon reporters refusing to agree to guidelines involves a deliberate omission to change the meaning of the guidelines (see article below). [The original version of the guidelines was quoted accurately, but the Pentagon revised the language to clarify the intent. The news media continues to report the original version instead of the revised version. Hence the claim that they are currently lying by omission.]

This brought to mind the problem of omitting relevant information in the context of M2C and SITH. 

From time to time on this and other blogs, I've noted how critical omissions can change the meaning of a quotation. 

Unlike Cynical Publius, I do not consider omissions to be necessarily lying. I do not think the omissions below to constitute lying. I assume everyone involved was acting in good faith. But these omissions are obvious examples of efforts to promote a specific narratives by omitting important information and context.

_____

There are easy corrections to each of these. The responsible people can simply add back the content they omitted. Even if that's not practical in printed formats, it is easily done on electronic formats, which are the most often read anyway. 

Certainly we can all agree that the Gospel Library app should be accurate and complete, without omissions that promote particular ideological agendas (such as M2C and SITH).

Among the problematic content are these:

- editing the Wentworth letter in the lesson manual Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith to omit Joseph's identification of the remnant of Lehi as "the Indians that now inhabit this country." 

Ironically, in the first paragraph of the letter, Joseph made this statement: "all that I shall ask at his hands is that he publish the account entire, ungarnished, and without misrepresentation."

It turns out that Joseph did not need to worry about Mr. Wentworth. It was the modern curriculum department that failed to honor Joseph's request. 

This modified version of the Wentworth letter is the only version that is widely available in English and that has been translated into dozens of languages, so it is the only version most Latter-day Saints will ever see. 

Young and new Latter-day Saints will never learn what Joseph said about the identity of the Lamanites and the other omitted material. Because of the omission in the lesson manual, even many seasoned Latter-day Saints don't know, or have forgotten, what he wrote.

Reference:

https://www.lettervii.com/2018/07/editing-wentworth-letter.html

- omitting David Whitmer's accounts of the 1829 trip to Fayette in Opening the Heavens. 

Ironically, the introduction to the book claims that it includes "six major collections of key Restoration documents, in their full authenticity and veracity." 

But it does not do so.

The trip to Fayette commenced, according to Lucy Mack Smith (in another account omitted  from the book), when Joseph applied the Urim and Thummim to his eyes to look on the plates. He received a commandment to contact David Whitmer, whom he did not know at the time. Lucy's account corroborates what Joseph and Oliver always said about the translation, but apparently because it contradicts SITH, it was omitted from Opening the Heavens.

Joseph gave the abridged plates to the divine messenger before Joseph and Oliver left Harmony with David. Later, during the trip to Fayette, they encountered the messenger who had the plates. The messenger declined a ride to Fayette, explaining he was "going to Cumorah." This is obviously a problem for M2C, which teaches that the "real Cumorah" is in Mexico. Therefore, this account was omitted from Opening the Heavens.  

It is also significant that the messenger picked up the abridged plates from Joseph in Harmony and delivered the plates of Nephi to Joseph in Fayette, which explains D&C 9 and 10 and why Joseph translated the plates of Nephi last. None of that is apparent in Opening the Heavens because the messenger's visit to Cumorah has been omitted.

The other part of David's account that was omitted from Opening the Heavens is David's explanation that when he asked Joseph Smith about the messenger, Joseph replied that the messenger was one of the three Nephites who were promised they would remain on earth. That obviously contradicts the narrative that it was "Moroni" who showed the plates to David's mother Mary, a narrative that never made sense anyway because it contradicted what Mary herself said, as well as basic doctrine about the nature of resurrected bodies. Moroni was resurrected, the three Nephites were not, and now we're supposed to believe that the resurrected Moroni is a "shape-shifter" who can appear as a short old man?

This deliberate distortion of the historical record in a book claiming to provide Latter-day Saints with "full authenticity and veracity" is obviously inexcusable, but worse, it is another example of how M2C advocates zealously promote their agenda without regard to enabling Latter-day Saints to make informed decisions.

Furthermore, the same omission of the truth about the trip to Fayette is omitted from the Church's movies about Harmony and Fayette, and from the Saints book, volume 1. Whether that content relied on Opening the Heavens is unknown, but it promotes the same narrative. As a result, young and new Latter-day Saints will never learn about these things, particular those non-English speakers whose only source of Church history is the Saints book and related curriculum.

References:

https://www.mobom.org/trip-to-fayette-references

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2017/12/opening-heavens-but-censoring-history.html

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-mary-whitmer-problem.html

- omitting references to the Urim and Thummim in the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation, Rough Stone Rolling, and innumerable podcasts and article that promote SITH.

In both the Elders' Journal and the Times and Seasons, Joseph Smith explicitly declared that he used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates--not a "seer stone" he had found in a well--to translate the record. 

But young and new Latter-day Saints never learn this from current curriculum or their BYU professors and other SITH promoting influencers.

Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.

(Times and Seasons III.9:707 ¶6)

[Note: at least the Joseph Smith lesson manual retained this sentence before the omitted portion discussed above.]

I obtained them [the plates] and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates and thus came the Book of Mormon.

(Elders’ Journal I.3:43 ¶1)

References:

Rough Stone Rolling: https://www.mobom.org/rsr-review

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/gospel-topics-essay-on-translation.html

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html

_____

Here is the post by Cynical Publius. As I mentioned, he did not provide the full context by explaining that the Pentagon released a revised memo and that the media continues to report the original memo instead, which somewhat excuses the original reporting but not the current reporting.

In that sense, his own post ironically omits relevant information. But it is still a good example of how omissions can change the sense of a statement.

Cynical Publius

@CynicalPublius

·

14h

RE: Pentagon Access Kerfuffle & Media Lies Please take the time to read this lengthy post, it’s important. There is SO MUCH lying and distortion on this matter, we need to cut through the garbage. So I’m here for it. Go ahead and Google this phrase (you'll see it everywhere in sooooo many legacy media reports): “. . . information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified." Google it with quotes around it so you get that EXACT phrase. See how much it shows up, VERBATIM, with those EXACT WORDS in that EXACT ORDER in so, so, so many media reports? Go look for yourself. I’ll wait. ______________________ Welcome back. Now. This quote strongly suggests that what the Pentagon is saying is that the media cannot publish an article without Pentagon prior approval. If this were true, that would, in fact, be an egregious example of prior restraint and a grotesque First Amendment violation. But… See… That VERBATIM quote is NOT TRUE. Here is the actual quote: “. . . information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released by any military member, DoW civilian employee or contract employee, even if it is unclassified.” (I’ll link to the source document in my post immediately below, because the algorithm hates links.) Notice the words that are DIFFERENT in the actual quote. (I bolded and italicized them.) The lying media—the ones mewling about First Amendment violations—PURPOSELY LEFT OUT THOSE KEY WORDS. Liars, liars, pants on fire. Let me explain the difference: 1. In the media’s distorted, untrue quote, the language suggests that any news story requires pre-approval by the DoW. If this were true, it would be a clear First Amendment violation. But it’s not true. 2. The ACTUAL quote merely says that people who work in the Department of War are not allowed to provide important defense-related information to the media without the appropriate national security approval party in the DoW authorizing that DoW employee to share such information first. THIS IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION. THIS IS NOT PRIOR RESTRAINT. The press is still allowed to write whatever it wants. The limitation is on DoW employees, military and civilian, and NO ONE ELSE. THERE ARE NO LIMITS ON THE PRESS IN THIS MATTER, and the press is purposely and deliberately lying to you about this issue—lying by omission. Please spread the word. Otherwise well-meaning people are being snookered by this propagandistic sleight of hand these evil journotards are foisting on them.

Misleading BYU students Part 2: SITH artwork

This is part 2 of our discussion of the video from "Informed Saints" about SITH (the stone-in-the-hat narrative).

Here is the link to the SITH video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiAx1CVPlc0

As always, this post is in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding. Clarity is necessary for people to make informed decisions. We assume everyone is acting in good faith (charity) and we don't seek to persuade anyone, but instead we seek understanding.

People can believe whatever they want, and we're fine with that. 

BYU professors could (and should) simply teach the Facts. Then they can explain the various Assumptions, Inferences and Theories that lead to multiple working Hypotheses. This would enable BYU students (and others) to make informed decisions.

But as this video demonstrates, they steadfastly refuse to implement the FAITH model.

This video is a prime example of how easy it is to create a narrative by omitting relevant facts in the guise of being "historically grounded."

Original in blue, my comments in red, other quotations in green.

_____

2:45 the other thing it was big for was the artwork that showed up in it [the book From Darkness Unto Light]..

The Artwork

You guys [Dirkmaat and MacKay] had original art commissioned, original art of Joseph Smith translating with head and hat

2:56

uh with various different scribes. Uh really great book. Yeah. And then you know Anthony Sweat actually uh uh contacted multiple different artists. 

Technically true, because he interviewed 3 artists.

And so the appendix

3:06

of the book actually has an essay that he wrote 

It's a useful essay on the topic of history vs art. Another version of it is available online here:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/sweat/2016-04-14/anthony_sweat_the_role_of_art_in_teaching_latter-day_saint_history_and_doctrine_2015.pdf 

where he where he asked artists, you know, why did you portray the translation the way that you did in this popular image? 

That's simply false. The appendix refers to Sweat interviewing Del Parson, whose painting of the translation is the most often used, but the Appendix does not relate what Del had to say about it. Sweat also interviewed Walter Rane and J. Kirk Richards, neither of whom had painted the translation. Other than Del, Sweat did not interview any artists who portrayed the translation. Instead, he simply reviewed depictions of the translation found in the Ensign magazine. 

And what he found was twofold.

“artists not aware”

Some of them were not totally aware of the various different sources, which you know, right, you don't expect an artist to be a historian.

This might have been a joke because Anthony Sweat, an artist, teaches Church history at BYU. But based on his essay and other work, to the extent Sweat is a historian he engages in the odd practice of promoting a narrative at the expense of teaching students the known facts of history, just like the panelists in this interview. 

All Sweat and other BYU professors need to do is teach the facts, and then explain the various assumptions, inferences and theories that lead to multiple working hypotheses. 

That would enable students to make fully informed decisions.

But as this panel demonstrates, the BYU professors steadfastly refuse to teach facts. Instead, they promote  

3:29

You should see me draw. Um, some of them were unaware of the various sources of translation. 

None of the three artists Sweat interviewed claimed to be "unaware" of SITH. To the contrary, Rane and Richards pointed out the aesthetic problems with depicting SITH.

And so they they depicted it the way that they envisioned it in their own mind. 

Actually, they depicted it the way Joseph and Oliver described it, as corroborated and taught by LDS Church leaders for decades through at least the 1990s.

See the list of General Conference references here:

https://www.mobom.org/urim-and-thummim-in-lds-general-conference

In the Appendix, Anthony Sweat makes this claim: "Regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon, this becomes particularly problematic because none of the currently used Church images of the translation of the Book of Mormon are consistent with the historical record.... 

Let's say this is debatable regarding the Ensign art because it usually omits the Urim and Thummim and breastplate. But the art showing Joseph translating the plates is fully consistent with the historical record--just not with the Mormonism Unvailed version of history (i.e., SITH) that Sweat prefers.  

All of the Ensign images are inconsistent with aspects of documented Church history of the translation process. For example, in each of the seventeen Ensign images, Joseph Smith is shown looking into open plates (not closed or wrapped or absent plates). 

Having the plates open is consistent with what Joseph and Oliver (and Lucy Mack Smith and John Whitmer) said, as well as D&C 10. Not to mention common sense. Joseph explained that the Title Page was on the last leaf of the plates. The Lord told Joseph to translate the engravings on the plates of Nephi, which would not make sense if he was not even looking at the plates.

In eleven of the images, Joseph Smith has his finger on the open plates, usually in a studious pose, as though he is translating individual characters through intellectual interpretive effort, and not through revelatory means through the Urim and Thummim. 

In the Appendix, Sweat included this painting by Del Parson as an illustration. As he observed, there is no indication that Joseph is using either the Urim and Thummim or the breastplate. 

And certainly not the hat or a seer stone.

Del Parson's version

But the Lord instructed Joseph to translate the engravings on the plates. (D&C 10) Joseph himself said he was "translating the characters." (JS-1832 History) He explained that he started by copying the characters and translating them. (JS-History) That is all well-established history that anyone can read, and it is directly from Joseph Smith, not from someone else decades later.

Given that historical record, it is well within artistic license to infer that at some point, Joseph was familiar enough with the characters (engravings) that he would not need to use the Urim and Thummim at all times. What he would need at all times are the plates whose engravings he was translating.

He still translated by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates because that's how he learned the characters in the first place. But once he knew the characters, he would need the Urim and Thummim mainly for new characters he had not seen before.

To say that Del's painting is not "consistent with the historical record" reflects Sweat's own assumptions that contradict the historical record left by Joseph and Oliver.   

Only one painting in the past forty-three years depicts Joseph Smith using the Urim and Thummim [Nov 1988 and Feb 1989]. 

As just discussed, this is both reasonable inference from what Joseph told us, and a reasonable artistic reluctance to depict the Urim and Thummim itself, given the vague descriptions.

Most tellingly, none of the images ever printed in the history of the Ensign (or recent Church videos) depicts the translation process of the Book of Mormon as having taken place by placing a seer stone or the Nephite interpreters in a hat."

Naturally, Sweat thinks this is a problem because he promotes SITH instead of what Joseph and Oliver taught.

Instead, Sweat says "I felt impressed that it was time to try and provide a faithful, well-executed artistic image (as many of the existing images of translating using the hat are either deliberately pejorative or devoid of much artistic merit) of the translation of the Book of Mormon that better reflected historical reality."

While Sweat claims his own artwork "better reflected historical reality," the "reality" he depicts is the SITH narrative promoted by the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed, which Joseph and Oliver specifically and repeatedly refuted. 

3:35 And which is that's a pretty natural thing to say, well, how do how do I think translation looked? And so they did it.

“expectations of the audience”

He did talk to some who were well aware of the sources of

3:48

translation, but when push came to shove creating their image, they didn't know how they could portray that and still have the spiritual experience because it wasn't what the expectation of the audience was. 

Apparently this comment refers to Walter Rane's observation that SITH "is going to look really strange to people." Rane explained that he was approached twice to portray SITH, but the commission was changed. He decided not to do it because "some things just don't work visually." The "expectations of the audience" did not come up.

The panel in the video typically consider themselves more sophisticated than ordinary Latter-day Saints who still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught, so naturally they would frame the problem as the "expectations of the audience" as the problem.

In other words, if only ignorant Latter-day Saints would get with their SITH program, they face less resistance from BYU students and others who still believe Joseph and Oliver told the truth.

So, we've been talking about how there's this disconnect between what the historical sources support about a certain event

4:07

and then how artists often portray that being at odds with each other sometimes just by the nature of the craft of art.

Ironically, that last sentence is a good description of the problem caused by Sweat's SITH art. That art drives a wedge between what Joseph and Oliver taught (which many Latter-day Saints till believe) and the prevailing SITH narrative published long ago in Mormonism Unvailed.

It is continually amazing how these BYU professors and other LDS intellectuals keep hammering on that wedge.

_____

Gary Smith's version, inserted into President Monson's talk published in the Ensign.

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/26f066e5-0d4b-484c-b0c3-e114cf40490d/0/48

The artwork currently on the Church website.

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/joseph-smith-translates-the-gold-plates?lang=eng

Composites of translation artwork.

Hank Smith, SITH and BYU students

I had forgotten about this stunning post from Hank Smith, in which he tries to defend Gerrit Dirkmaat's SITH narrative:

Hank Smith

@hankrsmith

Help me understand, you’re okay with Joseph Smith seeing God and Jesus, talking with an angel every year for four years, translating the plates, but using a seerstone goes too far?

I’ve had a dozen emails over an episode which published yesterday.

youtube.com

Voices of the Restoration #2 • Translation of the Book of Mormon •...

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/seer-stonesTRANSCRIPTSEnglish: https://tinyurl.com/DCPodcastVOR2French: https://tinyurl.com/DCVOR2FR...

4:09 AM · Feb 5, 2025

·

161.6K

Views

https://x.com/hankrsmith/status/1886975384039907568

It is difficult to believe that Hank does not realize the logical fallacy he presents here. 

Believers are fine with what Joseph Smith claimed about the first vision, Moroni's visit, and the translation. But what he said about the translation--that he did it by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates--directly contradicts what Dirkmaat is teaching.

Like Dirkmaat, Royal Skousen teaches that Joseph used SITH instead of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. Except Royal is more direct and clear about the implications because he admits that SITH means Joseph (and Oliver) deliberately misled everyone about the translation.

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2024/11/thank-you-royal-skousen.html

Every Latter-day Saint--and every BYU professor--should understand the implications of SITH. Back in 1834, Mormonism Unvailed spelled it out. Which was why Joseph and Oliver clarified the point repeatedly.

But now our scholars, including Royal Skousen, Hank Smith, and Gerrit Dirkmaat, prefer Mormonism Unvailed over Joseph and Oliver.

Hank's post illustrates the logical fallacy of SITH. It's not translating with stones that is the problem--it is rejecting what Joseph and Oliver wrote that is the problem.

This repudiation of the prophets started among faithful Latter-day Saints with Cumorah, and then extended to SITH.

Hank should have received more than a dozen emails. He should have received tens of thousands.

But BYU students are (i) ignorant of the teachings of the prophets, (ii) agree with their professors that the prophets were wrong, or (iii) don't care because they just want to get an education and a good job and have to pass their religion classes so they accept whatever the professors say.

Misleading BYU students part 1: "Informed Saints" video with Dirkmaat and crew

Because of other commitments, I'll have to post my comments on the infamous video piecemeal. Here is part 1.

As always, this post is in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding. Clarity is necessary for people to make informed decisions. We assume everyone is acting in good faith (charity) and we don't seek to persuade anyone, but instead we seek understanding.

People can believe whatever they want, and we're fine with that. But most Latter-day Saints seek clarity about the Facts, as distinguished from assumptions, inferences, theories and hypotheses. This is the FAITH model that few LDS scholars seem to embrace.

This video is a prime example of how easy it is to create a narrative by omitting relevant facts in the guise of being "historically grounded."

Here is the link to the Dirkmaat panel's SITH video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiAx1CVPlc0

The panel did everything they could to promote SITH.

At the conclusion, they said, “If anyone wants to learn more about this topic, I'd recommend reading From Darkness Unto Light or let's talk.”

Both of those books contain deliberately misleading information, just like this entire video.

Bottom line: Joseph, Oliver, their contemporaries and successors in Church history had access to all of the information Dirkmaat et al have now. Yet Joseph, Oliver, John Whitmer, Martin Harris reaffirmed the Urim and Thummim, while Joseph’s successors in Church leadership reiterated Joseph’s testimony in spite of the SITH witnesses they were completely familiar with. 

Even JS III came to reject SITH. Yet these modern historians continue to manipulate and obfuscate the historical record to persuade people to accept SITH exactly the way E. D. Howe set it out in Mormonism Unvailed.

Original in blue, my comments in red.

_____

 

Introduction - Gerritt Dirkmaat and Book of Mormon translation

0:00

The reliability of the restoration rests on the Book of Mormon. Yet time and time again, critics claim that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. That its translation was more deceptive than it was divine. So, was Joseph Smith using a Seers stone? Was he looking into a hat with his head? Is this a real translation? Or is this just a figment of his imagination?

Welcome to Informed Saints, where we love to study the gospel, but we also bring receipts. I'm

0:25

Jasmine Rapley, and I'm joined in studio today by researchers Neal Rappleye and Steven Smoot. And we're also joined by a special guest, BYU professor Garrett Dirkmaat. So, welcome. Thanks for having me. Garrett is a professor of church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University, specializing in 19th century American expansionism. He is also the

0:42

editor of the academic journal Latter-day Saint Historical Studies, and he is a host of the podcast Standard of Truth.

0:48

So, we're really excited to talk about this. The other thing he's done is he's written a couple books on the Book of Mormon Translation. So, there's really no one better to talk about this than Garrett.

The books

This is a book you wrote quite a number of years ago. This

1:01

is From Darkness unto Light, Joseph Smith's translation and the publication of the Book of Mormon. And this was published with Desert Book and the Religious Study Center at BYU. Really, really great. But then recently, this one just came out, a much more palatable one for those of us who struggle with reading. So, this is Let's Talk About the Book of Mormon. 

This is just like a very short introduction to Book of Mormon Translation. And so I'm really excited to talk about the work you've done in both of these. So let's just dive in.

Clarity note: Both of these books seek to repudiate what Joseph and Oliver said, ignore historical sources that contradict Dirkmaat’s SITH theory, and create false historical narratives.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/10/update-on-jonathan-hadley-and-sith.html

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/07/from-darkness-unto-light-omitting.html

 

1:29

What is Oh, well I was just gonna say before we dive in, let's acknowledge he has a co-author on both of these. Mike McKay. Let's, you know, no Mike McKay eraser here. Mike McKay is the Ringo star of this duo. No, I'm just kidding. We all love Mike McKay. We Mike, we see you. We recognize we acknowledge you. You are valid

1:46

Can I say real quick, too? um your book from darkness unto light. It was like one of the first things I read like this was in the throws of the Joseph Smith papers, right? Coming out very early on. But like I remember reading this and in fact I remember I bought a copy for Neil. I got a copy for myself at Desert Book and I thought this is so cool. I ran and got a copy for Neil and we just nerded out about it for like a whole week. I was going to I was going to tell that story too. 

Clarity note: This degree of enthusiasm, combined with a complete lack of critical thinking about the contents of the book, explain the ongoing enthusiasm for SITH on this channel and Jasmine's other videos.

2:18

Like this is this book was like so monumental uh in like as a publication. it like it really was kind of the floodgates like the first time all the data that Joseph Smith papers

Clarity note: "all the data" includes plenty of material omitted in this video, as well as the book.

2:24

had been putting together on something had come together in like a Jasmine says this book's more palatable but this is actually a pretty palatable narrative it's a very readable book and it it like people who had been complaining about

2:34

like the sear stone in the hat uh stuff like this this integrated it in and it showed that like no you can actually still believe all of this and be historically grounded.

Clarity note: It is not “historically grounded” to use edits and omissions to promote a narrative, especially when that narrative directly contradicts what the principals explicitly, formally, and unambiguously published, in this case Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.