September marks the 30th anniversary of the September Six. Before we get to them, we'll talk to Moroni Jessop, who was excommunicated as a teenager from the LDS Church, the first of his 4 excommunications! I think that's a record! He'll describe growing up in the LDS Church and what got him in hot water. Check out our conversation...

https://youtu.be/j___kmv-LdE

transcript to follow

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

transcript to follow

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

The Act in Relation to Service legalized slavery in Utah in 1852. Dr. Sally Gordon tells more about how the statute affected both Black & Indian slavery in Utah. Check out our conversation….

https://youtu.be/puDhwkA7BUg

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

Black & Indian Slavery in Utah

GT  1:36:37 One last comment, and then I promise I'll let you go.

Sally  1:36:40  Okay.

GT  1:36:40  Because I know it is getting late. We had a conversation yesterday a little bit about--I know Paul Reeve is coming out with a book on the 1852 legislature.

Sally  1:36:50  Yes.

GT  1:36:50  Was it Chris Rich?

Sally  1:36:51  Rich.

GT  1:36:52  Chris Rich had given a presentation a few years ago at Mormon History Association where he was trying to make a distinction between Indian slavery and Black slavery in Utah.

Sally  1:37:04  Yes.

GT  1:37:05  Can you talk a little bit about that controversy and where you stand?

Sally  1:37:07  Sure. Oh, boy, you're getting me in trouble. There are many different kinds of slavery. Native slavery was widely practiced here in Utah, across the West, and had been practiced back east. I mean, really. It had been true slavery. The idea that slavery was just African, it was a much later idea. It really is true that slavery became a much more profitable enterprise than indentured servitude, for example. But the idea that it would be perpetual and inherited slavery was controversial in the colonies. So, I want us to understand that bound labor exists across a spectrum. When a native child was sold, and forcibly removed from their family, and held to labor, until age 18, or whatever it was--even when they were directed to be given shoes, and I don't know, education of some rudimentary sort. When most of them died before they reached the age of 18, that's a form of bound labor. That's not freedom. Is it the same thing as chattel slavery, protected by King George III? No. It fits much more closely into the practice of native slavery.

Sally  1:38:59  There's a very well-known book called, The Other Slavery by Andres Resendez,[1] who teaches at UC Davis, I think. He argues that about 5 million natives, if I have it right, were enslaved by Europeans, during the period of colonization, which is a long period. So, saying that there's two kinds of slavery just says what we all know already. There's lots of different slaveries. Many natives were held with African slaves for long periods. So, it's not clear to me that people who bought native children didn't also have black slaves. It seems like they may well have. I was talking to a scholar of slavery and said, "Well, imagine. Just imagine that someone calls this adoption and says that this is someone brought into the family and taught a faith, and that, yes, they're required to work, but so is the whole family, and life isn't easy for them. These are people who've been made orphans and are not allowed to even speak their own language." I mean, it's a rough, rough position for a kid. But the people who are doing the adopting, say, "Well, they were going to get killed otherwise." If you study how the slave trade worked in Utah, and across the Southwest, the slave trade went up, when the Mormons arrived. When Europeans arrived, it went up.

Sally  1:41:01  So, it's hard to say that this was just helping kids. Paiutes were really easy to kill. They were very peaceful people. The slave traders were vicious. It's true that some Latter-day Saints sold kids, too. So, I want to be fair. I really do. I want to say, even with African slaves, the Latter-day Saints cared about family. That's what they do. They cared about family. Yes, there's some idea of adoption here. But I promise you back east, they were doing the same thing. It's not like the Mormons made it up. Andrew Jackson adopted a little native boy,

A former Baptist pastor tells how he changed his mind on Joseph Smith from fraud to prophet. How did he deal with polygamy? And what are his ideas on the differences between priesthood for Baptists and Mormons. Check out our conversation....

https://youtu.be/Aw6SlmtZdhE

transcript to follow

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

transcript to follow

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

What does a former Baptist Pastor think of LDS temples? Bryan Ready will tell us! We'll also find out why he set 4 baptismal dates before he joined the LDS Church. I was surprised to find out he joined despite having been dropped by the missionaries! Check out our conversation....

https://youtu.be/HqmgubIIqls

transcript to follow

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

transcript to follow

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

This is my 3rd interview with a Baptist Pastor this year, but this time I'm excited to introduce a convert. Bryan Ready is the author of "Crossing the Divide," a book about his conversion to the LDS Church. I was surprised to find out the Osmonds were the first to introduce him to the Church. Check out our conversation...

https://youtu.be/9n8gjxBKMKM

transcript to follow

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

transcript to follow

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Have you ever wanted to do internet temple worship? It turns out David & Kristine Ferriman of the Church of Jesus Christ in Christian Fellowship have their own internet temple worship.

https://youtu.be/HhBarhmjKmA

Internet Temple Worship

GT  45:44  All right. So, you live in Ohio. Is that right?

David:  Correct.

GT:  So, all this occurred while you were living in Ohio. Have you ever lived in Utah?

David  45:55  No.

GT  45:56  No. So, you were born and raised in Ohio. Is that right?

David  45:59  Yes. I've been in Utah couple of times, but I was born and raised in Ohio.

GT  46:03  Okay, so that's interesting.

David  46:06  The original gathering place of the saints.

GT  46:09  How far are you from Kirtland? I'm curious.

David  46:12  We're down...

Kristine  46:13  Right now, about three and a half hours.

David  46:14  Yeah.

GT  46:15  Okay.

Kristine  46:16  We were on the other side. Yeah.

GT  46:18  Are you closer to Columbus?

David  46:20  Yes.

GT  46:21  Okay.

David  46:22  We're closer to--we're like between Dayton and Cincinnati.

GT  46:28  Okay, Well, cool. So, what other revelations have you had? I'm curious, if you still follow the Word of Wisdom. Is that a big deal in your Fellowship?

David  46:41  We follow it very strictly based on what it says that it is not by commandment nor restraint. I actually have an article about this on the blog, which is Word of Wisdom, and it basically says the Word of Wisdom isn't given to us to tell us what to eat and drink, because it's too confusing. It doesn't make sense if you read it that way. It's given to us as an opportunity to gain personal revelation from the Lord, as to what you personally should be eating or drinking. So, we are not like the Brighamites, where it's no coffee or tea. We're going to take something away from you, if you drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. It's just look, smoking isn't healthy. So, we don't recommend it. But we're not going to kick you out if you do.

GT  47:35  So, it reminds me of the sacrament, then. It seems like you do online sacrament meeting, or communion.  Do you use wine or water?

David  47:44  Whichever is preferred. Yeah.

GT  47:47  It's just a personal choice?

David  47:49  Yeah.

GT  47:50  And I don't know, congregants, what do you call people in your movement?

David  47:56  Well, if they are there participating, they are a part of the congregation.

GT  47:59  Okay.

David  48:01  I call them fellows, because I think it's kind of--it amuses me to do that, I guess, they're part of the fellowship. Really, we call each other saints.

GT  48:12  So, Kristine, did you leave the LDS Church at the same time as your husband, or were you kicked out at the same time? (Chuckling)

Kristine  48:19  I was not kicked out at the same time, I did make the choice to leave around that time, for reasons tied to my husband's experience, as well as my own. Until recently, I was still on their records, and I'm no longer on their records.

GT  48:43  Okay.

David  48:45  She was excommunicated after they found out about her revelation.

GT  48:51  So, you were a dual citizen for a while?

David  48:53  Yeah.

GT  48:55  I'm beginning to learn that there's a lot more dual citizens out there than I realized.

David  49:04  I love that, because I love the idea of taking what you learn in one sect and bringing it back to the other, and that goes both ways.

GT  49:18  Interesting. So tell us more about your revelations that you've received.

David  49:23  I mean, some of them are just how to run the organization. Some of them, there's one particular one for Levites, specifically.  Then, I have a revelation that I received for people that were either in leadership positions in the Fellowship at the time or some way connected to us. Basically, the revelations came because there was a need or because the Lord is going to tell us something.

Does Book of Mormon translation method matter? Many people don't care whether Joseph used a seer stone or a Urim & Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon. Why does it matter so much to Jim Lucas & Jonathan Neville? They answer in our next conversation!

https://youtu.be/4V_1428u8lk

 

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

Why Book of Mormon Translation Matters

Jonathan  00:44  I guess the final thing I wanted to mention, (maybe you are too) [pointing to Jim] is what difference does it make? Right?

GT  00:49  Well, that was exactly where I was going.

Jonathan  00:51  I know.

GT  00:52  Because I know we had this conversation. I think it was on the Monday night Book of Mormon meetings.

Jim  00:55  Yeah. It was the Book of Mormon Perspectives Forum.

GT  00:56  Because there's a lot of people, who are like, “I don't care if it was a stone in a hat. I don't care if it was the Urim and Thummim. It was a miracle. Who cares how it was done? I don't know if it was loose or tight or whatever. I just have a testimony of the Book of Mormon.” And so, it seems like to me, and I know you have your multiple working hypothesis, and hey, let’s kumbaya. Everybody get along. But it seems like to me, you guys are really putting a lot of emphasis into, "No, it was the Urim and Thummim." It seems to me that there's a big stake in this.

Jonathan  01:35  There is.

GT  01:36  And I don't feel like it needs to be that way.

Jonathan  01:38  Let me address that. Let me answer that and then Jim can. For me, it's an issue of the credibility of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Because the whole restoration depends on those two only. It's only those two.

GT  01:48  My first thing before we go on there is because Joseph lied a lot about polygamy. So, when it's about his credibility. It’s like hmmm…

Jonathan  02:02  Well, okay, polygamy's a different topic.

GT  02:06  And I don’t want to get off into polygamy, but clearly, at minimum, if you don't want to say he lied, at minimum, he hid the Fanny Alger incident. He hid a lot of the other polygamous wives. So, whether lying is too strong of a word for you, clearly, he was deceptive to Emma for sure, with regards to polygamy.

Jonathan  02:25  Well, first off, there's so many gaps in history that when everybody decides what did and didn't happen, and what was said, what wasn't said, to me is a cloud of mystery. Because people don't write down every single thing that happened. And people later on, they remember things the way they want. So, we all assumed that he misled Emma about Fanny Alger. Right? We don't really know what went on between them. And the "Saints" book is pretty good about that, by saying that there's a lot of vague areas in here. And people reach conclusions like this Emma Pilgrim. One phrase and one sentence becomes the gospel truth, when it was never intended for that in the first place. I've handled a lot of divorce situations as a lawyer, and everybody has two sides. And if you listen to one, they are the gospel truth. You listen to the other, they are. So. all this stuff about polygamy to me is a little bit vague. A lot of people have asked me to dig into it. And I, I haven't, I just don't have time.

GT  03:23  You're smart.

Jonathan  03:24  But that's entirely separate situation.

GT  03:26  It's a can of worms, I'll say that.

Jonathan  03:27  It's a can of worms, but partly because of our society, or anti-polygamy bias as well. And I've worked in a lot of Muslim countries. I've worked with polygamists, and to them, it's no big deal. It's like why do you guys’ care about Joseph being polygamous to us? To us, that's a positive. So that's a cultural thing, I think more than a religious thing. But anyway, that's a separate topic.

Jonathan  03:51  Here, we're not talking about any vague statements or miscommunication.

Oliver Cowdery is famous for trying to translate the Book of Mormon in D&C 8 and 9. Did he try to use a dowsing rod to do so, or is there another explanation? Jonathan Neville & Jim Lucas are co-authors of "By Means of the Urim & Thummim" and say Oliver is the best witness for translation without a seer stone. Check out our conversation....

https://youtu.be/RLwyQxX8KI8

 

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

Why Oliver is Best Witness Against Seer Stones

Jonathan  00:36  But let me just make a comment on that. We're not trying to convince anybody of anything. We look at this and we say, okay. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were explicit. They said he used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. Other people had other versions of it.

GT  00:52  So since you mentioned Oliver, because D&C 9, “study it out in your mind.” Everybody is familiar with that. But supposedly, the original versions of D&C 9 were like, Joseph said to Oliver, well, you can use your rod because apparently Oliver had a dowsing rod.

Jim  01:09  That's D&C 8.

GT  01:10  D&C 8.

Jonathan  01:11  That's not what it says, that was referring to something else, not the translation.

GT  01:15  It was?

Jonathan  01:16  Yeah, using the rod. The Lord had told them I've taught you other things. In fact, we could pull it up and see. But you're talking about the gift of Aaron. Now it says now says the gift of Aaron. Before it said to use of the rod.

GT  01:30  And it wasn't the translation of the Book of Mormon?

Jonathan  01:32  He wasn't using the gift of Aaron for the translation.

GT  01:34  What was it for?

Jonathan  01:35  He used that for other spiritual guidance and information that he was getting. It wasn't the translation per se. It didn't say you could use the gift of Aaron for the translation. We can look it up.

GT  01:46  I was just talking about that, and I said how was Oliver going to use a dowsing rod? Are the words going to appear on the road, or how does that work?

Jim  01:58  D&C 8, that was a different conversation.

GT  01:59  You don't think he was trying to translate the Book of Mormon?

Jim  02:02  He was trying to.

GT  02:05  With the rod.

Jim  02:06  No, with the Urim and Thummim.

GT  02:08  You think he was trying to translate with the Urim and Thummim.

Jonathan  02:08  Zenas Gurley addressed this too. He said no one other than Oliver Cowdery ever saw the Urim and Thummim until the Three Witnesses.

GT  02:18  Until the Three Witnesses?

Jonathan  02:19  Until witnesses saw the Urim and Thummim.

Jim  02:20  In the angelic manifestation that made them the Three Witnesses.

GT  02:24  Well, if there was no curtain between Oliver and Joseph, wouldn't he have seen the Urim & Thummim?

Jonathan  02:29  Yeah, that's what I said. No one other than Oliver saw it.

GT  02:32  Oh, other than Oliver. I misheard you.

Jonathan  02:35  But go ahead and talk. I want to pull this up, because I want to show you it’s a different thing that he is talking about.

Jim  02:39  Okay, so that's one thing from Emma, where she's clear that she needs to go back and look at her Times and Seasons. It's 50 years later, and she did see Joseph used the seer stone to do his demonstration. And David Whitmer said that she was there when that happened. So that would explain it, and for a short explanation to rebut the Spaulding theory it's pretty direct and to the point, saying, Oh, no, no. There was no manuscript because he had his face in his hat, so he couldn’t be looking at a manuscript. So that's a good rebuttal for the Spaulding theory which was the main thing that everybody was concerned about in the 1870s. Because it was universal by then. So, there are questions. We're not saying that that letter is a phony letter. We're not saying that she didn't write that letter.

Emma Smith served as Joseph Smith's scribe for most of the Lost 116 pages and likely knew how Joseph translated better than almost anyone. Yet Jim Lucas and Jonathan Neville discount Emma Smith's testimony that Joseph used the seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon? Why? Check out our conversation...

https://youtu.be/NMSHsNs0IeQ

 

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

Emma was Book of Mormon Scribe

GT  00:40  I want to segue a little bit into Emma, because my understanding of both Richard Bushman’s analysis of the translation as well as, I would say most [historians.] Can I call them “mainstream historians,” like Gerrit Dirkmaat. I just read his book, which I thought was fantastic. I’m trying to remember, "Let's talk about the Translation of the Book of Mormon." Did you guys read that? I think you did.

Jim & Jonathan 01:10  Yes.

GT  01:11  Because I really think especially after reading Don Bradley's book on the Lost 116 Pages, he makes it sound like what was lost was about four times bigger than 116 pages. So, it would make the Book of Mormon twice as big as it is, if we had it. And so, Emma probably translated, (it seems like if I remember right) two-thirds of the lost 116 pages. And so Richard Bushman and most historians—because Emma split the difference between seer stone and Urim and Thummim and said, "Joseph used the Urim and Thummim on the lost 116 pages," and she was the scribe for that. And then he used the seer stone for what we have now. So, what's wrong with that opinion? Because to me, that's the so-called mainstream opinion.

Jonathan  02:20  Well, there's a couple of things wrong with it. Jim will address it probably in more detail. But two things: one is, Emma was clear that there was a distinction between the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone, which Gerrit Dirkmaat and those guys say, well, the Urim and Thummim meant both.

GT  02:36  Yes, he does say that quite a bit.

Jonathan  02:37  She said, no, it's two different things. And David Whitmer was the same.

GT  02:39  He also said that Joseph put the Urim and Thummim in the hat. And I was like, oh, I hadn't heard that one before.

Jonathan  02:46  Yeah, well, those early newspaper accounts said that he put the spectacles in the hat. Don Bradley's theory is interesting, but it's just a theory. I mean, other people look at that same evidence and say, No, there was 116 pages, Joseph Smith said.

GT  03:02  Well, let me say this. Because I know you guys really privilege Oliver Cowdery and who's the other one?

Jonathan  03:10  Joseph Smith.

GT  03:11  Joseph Smith. You really privilege those two over everybody else. But I would say Emma should be right there, shouldn't she? Because she did a lot. She did all the translation that we lost.

Jonathan  03:24  Here's a couple of problems with Emma. First, she never said what she wrote. So as far as what she actually wrote, it's all speculation. She never said, "I wrote about Nephi." Or I wrote up at the Whitmer farm. She never said. So, what Don Bradley and others say is just speculation, as far as what she actually wrote. I’ve speculated also that she wrote the Book of Mosiah, and I have reasons for that, before Oliver Cowdery came, as well as I think she wrote the whole Book of Mosiah.

GT  03:55  The first couple chapters of Mosiah that were lost.

Jonathan  03:59  The whole book of Mosiah.

GT  04:00  The whole book of Mosiah. Oh?

Jonathan  04:01  And that's because when Oliver Cowdery was recopying it for the printer's manuscript, where it says Helam in the Book of Mosiah, he always wrote Helaman. Because he had written the book of Helaman. And he thought Emma had written it wrong. And then later he had to cross out the last two letters because he was corrected, either Joseph or Emma had said, "No, it was Helam. It wasn't Helaman." So,

Have you ever tried picturing translation of the Book of Mormon? Did Joseph Smith read the words off the stone or Urim & Thummim directly (tight translation), or was he shown scenes in the Book of Mormon and used his own words to describe the scene (loose translation)? Mormon scholars are split on this topic, but Jim Lucas and Jonathan Neville will do their best to explain how Joseph used a Urim & Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon. Check out our conversation...

https://youtu.be/ydZuGNueqPM

Copyright © 2023

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

Picturing Translation (Tight vs Loose)

GT  00:47  Are you guys? Sorry—let’s stick here and then we'll come back to you about David [Whitmer.] I know, Jonathan, I've talked to you before, and you're a loose translation guy. But there are—

Jonathan  00:54  Yeah, but I don't frame it in that loose/rigid. I think it's just a translation. So, I don't know. It's a loaded term is what I'm trying to say.

GT  01:07  Because I know Royal Skousen has said the words appeared on the stone.

Jonathan  01:12  Yeah.

GT  01:13  So even if you're going with Urim and Thummim, would the words have appeared on those crystals?

Jonathan  01:21  Well, this is the second part of this book.

GT  01:23  That's a tight translation. Royal Skousen's the only main guy who still believes in tight, although I do have Jay Mackley, who believes in tight.

Jonathan  01:33  Right. So let me just address a little bit. And Jim can address some more of it. The second part of this book talks about the theory of translation. And so, in our view, Joseph Smith himself said that he translated the characters with the Urim and Thummim before he ever did any dictating of a manuscript, and he copied the character so that he could study the actual characters. So, we think he learned the characters. But when you translate an ancient language, a character can have a variety of meetings. Right? Different connotations. And so, we think that the Urim and Thummim was giving him essentially a literal translation of what each character meant. But to put it into English, he had to change the grammar. He had to decide which meaning was most appropriate. That's why he had to study it out in his mind.

GT  02:20  So your combination, tight-loose?

Jim  02:23  Yes.

Jonathan  02:24  It's tight in the sense that he was actually translating the engravings on the plates. But it's not tight in the sense that the Urim and Thummim was telling him what to say.

GT  02:34  So can you imagine? It seems like some of the artists depictions show Joseph— the older stuff, show Joseph wore spectacles. But the problem was the Urim and Thummim, it's bigger, it's wider than your head. I don't know how it would even be used because it's too big for a normal human.

Jim  02:58  I don't want I don't know if you can get tight [with your camera] on the cover illustration. But we worked really hard on the cover illustration.

GT  03:04  Let me zoom in here.

GT  03:09  And if you look at our cover illustration, you see the Urim and Thummim are large. They're larger. And so this is, as best [as we can illustrate],because there's not an absolute perfect, this is rock solid description of them. But this is the best we could come up with. And we really worked hard with our artist to come up with this. So, it appears that they were larger than regular spectacles. But they were something that was held in front of the face, either by the rod that was attached to the breastplate; or maybe they were detachable. But they were used more, maybe like a scanner than eyeglasses, because they were by a number of accounts too large to be worn on the face, like a pair of eyeglasses.

GT  04:08  You're wearing glasses, and you've got those side pieces that go to your ears. And there were no side pieces. That's right,