Years ago, a friend backed into the drivers side door of my Honda Accord. His insurance covered it, so I took it to the auto body shop associated with the local Honda dealership. They fixed the door, but when they returned it to me, they said the motor (called a regulator in automotive speak) that made the window go up and down was bad. They further told me that the problem was not associated with the accident, so was not covered by the insurance, and it would cost me $200 out of pocket to replace it.

I asked if the window was up, and if so I could live with it because I didn’t have the money to fix it. So I took the car home, and being somewhat mechanically inclined, took the inside door panel off, which was no easy task with all the wires connected to the panel.

To my surprise, when I looked at the regulator, it was simply unplugged. The connector was just flopping loose in the door. I plugged it in, and guess what? The window worked just fine, and continued to do so for another ten years!

I was hopping mad at the auto body shop, and drove down that very afternoon to confront the manager. When I spoke to him, after I explained what I had found, I said he had two choices. One, his employee that worked on my car was completely incompetent, being he could not figure out how to plug in the regulator. Or two, he was dishonest and so was the whole business, as he knew the regulator was not broken, and if I had brought it back in the shop would have simply plugged the regulator back in and charged me $200.

I again reiterated that was his only two choices, there was no other explanation. He didn’t have an answer. He didn’t even apologize. For the next 20 years I went to the next town over to their Honda dealer for my work, even buying a new car from them.

In 2000, Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler published a book entitled “Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations” In this book they said the following:

Thus, everything we have in the Book of Mormon, according to Mr. Whitmer, was translated by placing the chocolate-colored stone in a hat into which Joseph would bury his head so as to close out the light. While doing so he could see “an oblong piece of parchment, on which the hieroglyphics would appear,” and below the ancient writing, the translation would be given in English. Joseph would then read this to Oliver Cowdery, who in turn would write it. If he did so correctly, the characters and the interpretation would disappear and be replaced by other characters with their interpretation (Cook, David Whitmer Interviews,
115, 157-58).
Such an explanation is, in our judgment, simply fiction created for the purpose of demeaning Joseph Smith and to undermine the validity of the
revelations he received after translating the Book of Mormon.

Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2000), pp. 89-98]

Now Brother McConkie and Brother Ostler where no dummies. They were at the time of publication Professor of Ancient Scripture, BYU, and Assistant Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU, respectively.

We now know at this time, that the church had the seer stone, and fifteen years later in 2015 published an essay that admitted that Joseph used the seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. They even published an article in the Ensign Magazine

In fact, historical evidence shows that in addition to the two seer stones known as “interpreters,” Joseph Smith used at least one other seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, often placing it into a hat in order to block out light. According to Joseph’s contemporaries, he did this in order to better view the words on the stone.

Ensign, Oct 2015

How could two well educated professors not know about the seer stone in the Church’s possession? There are only two possible answers. One, that the Church purposely hid the fact of the seer stone from even a professor of Church History at BYU, and that Elder Ballard was dishonest when he said in a YSA Face to Face 2017 about church history: “We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth.” and we have “never tried to hide anything from anybody”.

Answer two is that both Brother McConkie and Ostler knew about the seer stone, and how it was used, and they were dishonest, and purposely lying about the stone.

Those are the only two possible explanations I can think of. Is there another I missed?