This section of MormonStories.org focuses on the theories of LDS scholars who have repudiated the teachings of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery about the translation.
I approach this from the perspective of a faithful believer in Joseph's explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon, not just because he said it, but because the internal and external evidence supports what he said. For that reason, I reject the teachings of both LDS scholars and critics who claim Joseph did not translate the plates.
In my view, Joseph's explanation is the simplest and most credible. Yet I also think David Whitmer, Emma Smith and others who spoke of the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) translation related what they observed, albeit modified for what they considered justifiable purposes.
I've explained my position and the supporting evidence in a book titled A Man that Can Translate, but I'll cover the basics in the analysis below.
_____
Original site: https://www.mormonstories.org/truth-claims/the-books/the-book-of-mormon/book-of-mormon-authorship-translation-timeline/
TRANSLATION PROCESS
For generations, the LDS Church has promoted the inspiring story of Joseph Smith translating ancient text while diligently scrutinizing a stack of golden plates before him. Many faithful members are surprised to learn that nearly every eyewitness and direct participant refutes that narrative so often depicted in Church-sponsored art.
This is not true; the principal participants were Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who always taught that Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by using the Nephite interpreters that came with the plates, aka the Urim and Thummim. The revelations in the D&C also declare this. As we'll see, the other accounts came later and were based on a demonstration conducted in the Whitmer home.
In fact, the Book of Mormon translation process was performed entirely without looking at the plates, which were either out of the room or said to have been covered with a cloth.
This is not a fact. Non-lawyers often don't make a distinction between facts and testimony. It is a fact that some witnesses made the claim that the plates were not present during the translation, but others said they were (particularly Joseph and Oliver). Some witnesses observed what may have looked like a translation, but the detailed evidence shows it was merely a demonstration. It's easy to confuse the two if we don't assess the evidence carefully.
While a select few did hear Joseph refer to magical items, nobody ever saw a breastplate, spectacles, or ancient interpreter stones.
"Magical items" is persuasion language, not a description. At least Joseph, Oliver and David Whitmer saw all three items. Joseph's mother felt the breastplate through a cloth. Others, including Martin Harris, described the spectacles, but it's not clear if they observed them or reported others' descriptions.
First-hand participants consistently reported seeing Joseph bury his face in his hat while telling the story. Though he claimed that the words would appear to him, revealed directly by the power of God, a closer review of contemporary accounts raises many questions.
The closer review also raises questions about the stone-in-the-hat narrative, which I call SITH.
The LDS Church has begun to change its narrative, as the historical facts have become well known and impossible to ignore. The Church has been forced to catch up to the Internet and attempt to soften the blow to members who were taught the simplistic and faith-promoting story about the translation of the gold plates in their childhoods.
Another way to look at this is the Church has been persuaded by a handful of historians and LDS scholars who have repudiated what Joseph and Oliver always taught. The "simplistic and faith-promoting story" is actually the direct, unvarnished description provided by Joseph and Oliver, Joseph's family, and their contemporaries in Church leadership.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
The recent LDS Gospel Topics Essay on the translation process declares that revelation comes “in a variety of ways,” including dreams or visions. The essay suggests that Joseph grew into his translator role, enabling the use of his treasure seeking stones for the translation of holy scripture for convenience sake while carefully avoiding the fact that he never relied upon the plates themselves.
"Avoiding the fact" is persuasion language. It's thinking past the sale, meaning taking as a given the proposition being advocated.
The Church now confirms that Joseph Smith relied upon multiple peep stones – primarily his favorite brown rock which he located at the age of 14 and regularly used to seek buried treasure – to bring forth both scripture and revelation.
The essays are anonymous productions of LDS scholars, subject to revision at any time. They do not replace the teachings of the prophets. The translation essay never even quotes Joseph or Oliver regarding the Urim and Thummum.
Joseph the Seer, published on LDS.org in 2015, contains the Church’s first officially published image of Smith’s rock. Joseph used that very same rock to seek buried treasure for a fee immediately prior to bringing forth the Book of Mormon. Contrary to earlier narratives that seer stones were found with the gold plates in the Hill Cumorah, as directed by the angel Moroni, the Church now acknowledges that years after the fact, “Joseph Smith and his associates began using the biblical term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to any stones used to receive divine revelations, including…the single seer stone.” Thus, Joseph’s treasure seeking rock, the very same one used for the entire Book of Mormon translation, becomes officially interchangeable with Urim and Thummim.
This is a theory promoted by a handful of LDS scholars who overlooked a key historical context. In 1834, the book Mormonism Unvailed presented two alternative explanations for the translation of the Book of Mormon. One was that Joseph used a "peep stone," presumably the one presented in Joseph the Seer. The alternative explanation was that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and spectacles that came with the plates.
The book had been in production for several months and the claims were widely known. The same month the book was published, Oliver Cowdery published Letter I in the Messenger and Advocate. There, in the excerpt canonized in Joseph Smith-History, he declared that “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’" (Joseph Smith—History, Note, 1)
This is a direct refutation of the seer stone narrative. Joseph and Oliver repeated this declaration multiple times and never once said Joseph translated with a seer stone.
When Oliver rejoined the Church in 1848, he repeated his testimony about the Urim and Thummim. At the time, he had the seer stone on his person, probably in his pants pocket, yet he did not show it as evidence of how Joseph translated the plates.
Some could argue that Oliver was engaged in deception until the day he died. Others (like me) think Oliver told the exact truth; i.e., Joseph translated the plates with the Nephite interpreters. Joseph did use the seer stone to demonstrate the process, but never actually translated anything with it.
UNKNOWN LANGUAGE
PHOTO OF PURPORTED ANTHON SCRIPT
Archaeology was a new and exciting field in the early-1800s. All things Egyptian intrigued the distant public with tales of discovery. Hugh Nibley ironically quipped, “The air of mystery and romance that has always surrounded things Egyptian has never failed to attract swarms of crackpots, cultists, half-baked scholars, self-certified experts, and out-and-out charlatans.” [1]
It seems fitting in this context, that Joseph Smith claimed that the golden plates were inscribed with a heretofore unknown Reformed Egyptian language. No artifact or document containing such a language has ever been located in the Old World or New. Since no documents are extant to confirm what the supposed characters look like, scholars have no way of knowing whether or not the language was indeed related to Egyptian or if the phrase was simply something that Smith created whole cloth out of his imagination.
The Book of Mormon explains that the educated Nephites knew multiple languages. They wrote in the "classic" languages, similar to the way educated Americans in the 1800s could read and write Latin and Greek even though they spoke English.
32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof. (Mormon 9:32–34)
We should expect their language to be unique, given the 1,000 years of separation from Israel. We also would expect no artifact or document to be discovered because the Lamanites were intent on destroying their records from beginning to end (Enos 1:14 and Mormon 6:6).
The Book of Mormon’s central narrative begins with the story of Lehi’s family fleeing Jerusalem in 600 BC and emphasizes the important records they carried with them. The work is immediately declared to be written “in the language of my father.” The various sets of plates mentioned contained the history of their people, and would have been written in their native language. The suggestion that these earliest American settlers would have relied upon some variant of the Egyptian language rather than their extremely well documented Hebrew tradition (which would have been easier to engrave upon metal plates) stretches the limits of credibility. Smith’s passion for the mysteries of Egypt, later allowed full reign in his translation of the papyrus he convinced others to buy for him, is a likely source of this claim.
Moroni claimed the "reformed Egyptian" took up less space, which makes sense given the difficulty of making metal plates and writing on them. Nephi and his successors chose not to use Hebrew for that reason. It's true we don't know what "reformed Egyptian" was, but presumably it was a more concise writing that would require inspiration or revelation to "decode" the true meaning. None of this is unreasonable.
PRACTICALITY CHALLENGE
A serious review of the notion of gold plates requires at least some consideration of the material details. Smith claimed in his 1842 Wentworth Letter that the bundle of gold plates was six inches wide by eight inches long and “something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed,” leaving only a portion of the metal plates available for viewing. Even if the handmade leaves were pounded extremely thin, this begs the question of how 531 double-sided pages of modern typeface could possibly fit onto a couple inches of small metal plates, less than half the size of a sheet of modern copy paper.
We just saw that the Nephites used "reformed Egyptian" because it was concise. We don't know how much of the plates were "sealed," although some speculated it was a large portion. Joseph's father said the abridged plates included a compartment for the Urim and Thummim, which may have led David Whitmer to assume that was the sealed portion. Plus, the Wentworth letter was referring only to the abridged plates, the "original" Book of Mormon. Joseph translated the plates of Nephi separately (D&C 9 and 10).
John Whitmer claimed that each plate was engraved on both sides, calling into question just how thin each could possibly get before becoming a jumbled mess of overlapping impressions.
MormonStories forgot to quote the rest of the sentence from the Wentworth letter: "not quite so thick as common tin." That's thick enough for an engraving on both sides. Orson Pratt explained that the engravings were filled with black, such as pitch, to make the engravings easier to read. That is second-hand information, because he never saw the plates, but it's the type of detail that he could have learned only from someone who did see the plates.
Being an extremely soft metal, gold would facilitate easy inscription, but that same pliability would likewise deform the plates under their own weight, and certainly while being jostled over many centuries of rough travel.
The only plates that were "pure gold" were the Jaredite records, and that's according to King Limhi, who was not a metallurgist. Josiah Stowell admitted under oath that he saw a corner of the plates and they had a greenish color, which suggests an alloy containing copper. Joseph's brother William also said the plates were an alloy.
Many have questioned how heavy the gold plates were. Given the known density and weight of gold, a solid gold block of the dimensions Smith described would have weighed approximately two hundred pounds.
MormonStories forgot to quote another part of the Wentworth letter: "These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold."
Even if they were alloyed gold, which challenges known Pre-Columbian metallurgy techniques and contradicts some of the claims that Smith made, and if we allow for a significant weight reduction due to the likely uneven plates, the bundle would remain extremely heavy and difficult to carry around.
Witnesses said the plates were heavy, but they were movable (nowhere near 200 pounds). If, as Joseph's father said, the plates included a compartment for the Urim and Thummim, that would reduce the weight considerably from an estimate based on solid metal.
PLATES NEVER USED
LDS ART DEPICTING A STUDIOUS JOSEPH SMITH
An inspiring image of Joseph Smith openly studying the golden plates openly upon a table represents the story most members of the LDS Church grew up with.
This artwork makes sense because Joseph said he studied the characters.
62 By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following. (Joseph Smith—History 1:62)
Modern LDS scholars dispute what Joseph and Oliver taught, but the historical record is intact.
Upon further examination, it becomes apparent that the traditional narrative involving spectacles, interpreters, bows, a breastplate, Urim & Thummim deserves greater scrutiny to obtain a full understanding of who said what, when. In fact, nearly every first-hand witness (the Whitmers, the Cowderys, Emma Hale Smith and her father Isaac Hale, Martin Harris and William McLellin) described the process as Joseph burying his face in his hat and peeping into his peep stone.
An in-depth analysis of all of these statements is beyond the scope of my comments here. Interested readers can read my book, A Man that Can Translate. Basically, Joseph and Oliver said Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim. Joseph was under commandment never to show the plates or translators.
42 Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. (Joseph Smith—History 1:42)
Yet Joseph's family and supporters were intensely curious about the translation. A woman working in the Whitmer home threatened to quit if people didn't explain what was going on.
We can tell from a detailed analysis of the Original Manuscript, combined with David Whitmer's description of the event, that Joseph conducted a demonstration of the translation process in the main room of the Whitmer home. People gathered around the table. Three scribes were present to take turns writing as they became tired. Joseph put the stone in a hat and began dictating. He dictated some of the Isaiah chapters in Second Nephi. The evidence indicates he dictated these from memory as part of the demonstration. Thus, Joseph and Oliver accurately said Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim, while others said he dictated from the stone in the hat (SITH). Later, people had what they thought was a good reason to focus on the demonstration; they sought to refute the Solomon Spalding theory.
While the statements of the earliest first-hand participants remain largely consistent, the narrative gets confusing as new terminology, such as Urim & Thummim, was introduced and became intertwined years after the fact.
Other than the Book of Mormon itself and a few of the early revelations, there are no verbatim records of what Joseph and Oliver taught in the early years of the Church. It is unknown when the term Urim and Thummim was first used, although Joseph implied that Moroni used the term (JSH 1:35). The first known published reference to the Urim and Thummim was in a Boston newspaper in 1832, reporting what missionaries were teaching. Presumably the missionaries learned the terminology before they left on their mission. The first LDS publication was an article by WW Phelps in 1833.
Most evidence supporting the inspiring traditional translation narrative comes from second-hand sources or third-party quotes from an interviewing publication, rather than contemporary statements from the small group of original participants. This suggests that only retroactively did the Church conclude that a less supernatural narrative involving fewer magical items would be more palatable to its audience.
This suggestion is not supported by the evidence. John Gilbert, who typeset the first edition of the Book of Mormon, recalled that "they claimed that he was translating it by means of some instruments he got at the same time he did the plates, and the Lord helped him."
Mormonism Unvailed presented both explanations as alternatives. This means that both SITH and U&T were known by 1835. Joseph and Oliver always taught the Urim and Thummim. During their lifetime, none of their associates contradicted them. After they died, only those who were disaffected from the Church taught SITH.
Until some modern LDS historians revived SITH.
The historical evidence suggests that only retroactively did some witnesses promote SITH.
Martin Harris, who served as Joseph’s scribe for a time, and became one of the Three Witnesses before financing the entire printing cost of the Book of Mormon, said “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.” Martin Harris reported that Joseph regularly sat behind a curtain or sheet, and would sometimes sit in different room or upstairs. Other times there was nothing between anyone as Joseph stared into his hat. [2]
Martin Harris and others gave inconsistent explanations, but the different accounts make sense once we realize that after Joseph and Oliver died, Martin, David and Emma began talking about SITH. Published illustrations showed Joseph reading the Spalding manuscript from behind the curtain. To refute the Spalding theory, it was essential to distance the translation from Joseph sitting behind a curtain or sheet. Joseph's demonstration with the seer stone in the Whitmer home evolved into the main explanation of the translation by those who no longer affiliated with the Church, while Church leaders who knew Joseph well continued to teach that Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim. Brigham Young recorded in his journal that Joseph explained the Urim and Thummim to the Twelve while also showing them a seer stone (but not the one he used during the demonstration, which he had given to Oliver).
Looking back at the history of the Book of Mormon, it becomes clear that the translation process changed after Martin Harris lost the original manuscript pages in June 1829. An angel reportedly took the breastplate and interpreters at that time. Upon restarting his dictation, Smith relied exclusively on the rock in his hat method for the entirety of the Book of Mormon we know today.
This narrative is contradicted by what Lucy Mack Smith observed and reported, what Joseph and Oliver claimed, and what John Whitmer and others said. The narrative served to refute the Spalding theory, however.
This same translation narrative is attested to by Emma Smith, a direct participant and onetime scribe as well as wife. She confirmed that Smith’s seer stone was used for the entire book we know today. “Now the first my <husband> [Joseph Smith] translated, [the Book] was translated by the use of the Urim, and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color.” [3] Again, the method of translation after the loss of the original manuscript was different than it had previously been.
Emma's sought to refute the Spalding theory, as I discuss in depth in A Man that Can Translate.
Isaac Hale [Emma’s father] provided first-hand, contemporary testimony of his witness to Joseph’s method. “The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time in the woods!” [4] It is clear that Hale’s account lacks a faithful tone, which is perhaps why the Church tends to ignore it. But he is not wrong in saying that Smith used his treasure-digging stone to translate gold plates that were nowhere in the vicinity.
Isaac Hale did not claim to be an eye witness. He was relating second-hand accounts, or his own suspicions.
David Whitmer confirmed the supernatural methodology through which a perfect translation should be expected. “…and if by any means a mistake was made in the copy, the luminous writing would remain until it was corrected. It sometimes took Oliver several trials to get the right letters to spell correctly some of the more difficult words, but when he had written them correctly, the characters and the interpretation would disappear, and be replaced by other characters and their interpretation.” [5]
David, who reported the demonstration in detail, never translated anything himself so this is second-hand information, if not speculation. The Original Manuscript does not support the claim that Oliver corrected spelling several times for difficult words.
Such explanations lead believers to ask why it was so important that Smith have the plates at all.
Yes, this is an important point. Mormonism Unvailed pointed out that if Joseph didn't really use the plates, how would anyone know that what he dictated was a translation of the record, or even had anything to do with the record? This is why opponents of Joseph focused on the SITH demonstration. Later, after Joseph and Oliver had died, David, Emma and others decided the Spalding theory was a greater threat than SITH. Besides, they had never seen the U&T because Joseph was commanded never to show it.
David Whitmer would later affirm that “the revelations in the Book of Commandments up to June 1829, were given via the stone through which the Book of Mormon was translated.”
David had never met Joseph before June 1829. This is second-hand information that appears to be a combination of what Joseph and Oliver told him, plus David's observations at the SITH demonstration.
The D&C explains that Joseph and Oliver received commandments and revelations through the U&T, which Oliver said was the Nephite interpreters. Lucy Mack Smith reported that one day, as Joseph applied the U&T to his eyes to look on the plates, he instead received a commandment to contact David to come pick up Joseph and Oliver from Harmony.
It's easy to see how David could misunderstand that when Joseph and Oliver referred to the U&T, he inferred they meant the stone used during the SITH demonstration.
Elizabeth, Oliver Cowdery’s widow and David Whitmer’s sister, provided her direct witness of the process Joseph relied upon as he translated in her father’s small cabin. “He would place the director (stone) in his hat, and then place his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light, and then read to his scribes the words (he said) as they appeared before him.” [6]
The only existing record of this statement is a copy made by William McLellin of an alleged affidavit by Elizabeth. Elizabeth's statement, if accurate, is consistent with her brother David's description of the SITH demonstration. McLellin taught that Joseph never had the Urim and Thummim.
These eyewitness accounts remained so consistent regarding Smith’s reliance upon his hat and seer stone, dictating word for word, that they cannot be discounted. Clearly, this was the process that Smith related to others.
These accounts are all consistent with the SITH demonstration, plus the need to refute the Spalding theory. They all contradict what Joseph and Oliver always taught about the translation.
Faithful LDS scholars similarly confirm the method by which Joseph brought forth the text. “Thus, everything we have in the Book of Mormon was translated by placing the chocolate-colored stone in a hat, into which Joseph would bury his face so as to exclude 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.” [7]
This is a key point. Faithful LDS scholars have accepted, on their face, the SITH statements that contradict the teachings of the prophets, including Joseph and Oliver. But when we examine the physical and testimonial evidence in detail, it's possible to reconcile all the evidence if we recognize the SITH demonstration and the problem of the Spalding theory.
William McLellin concluded his extensive research (conducted years later when the term Urim & Thummim term had eclipsed the seer stone) into the translation process with the following statement. “Now all LDS-isms claim that Joseph translated the book with Urim and Thummim, where he did not even have or retain the Nephite…interpreters, but translated the entire Book by means of a small stone. I have certificates to that effect from Elizabeth Cowdery (Oliver’s widow), Martin Harris and Emma Bidamon (Joseph’s wife). And I have the testimony of John and David Whitmer.” [8]
McLellin was not an objective pursuer of truth; he was admittedly intent on proving that Joseph never had the Urim and Thummim. Consequently, he ignored statements and physical evidence that contradicted SITH. To be sure, he wouldn't have had access to the Original Manuscript, but we do today.
It is important to recognize that nobody ever viewed a breastplate, spectacles or interpreters; they only heard Joseph speak of them.
As discussed above, Joseph's mother and David and Oliver testified about the physical reality of these items.
The spectacles were not part of Smith’s story to his family in 1823 and entered the narrative only after a treasure digging associate, Samuel Lawrence, suggested Smith should vision the items in 1825.
We have only a scanty record of what Joseph told his family in 1823, but Joseph said Moroni told him about the Urim and Thummim during the first visit and that he saw them when he first looked into the stone box.
Further, none who attempted, including Oliver Cowdery, could replicate what Smith said was occurring with his stone. The only answer that Smith gave to Cowdery, after his failure, was that he had to do more work on his own, that God would not simply give it to him.
Actually, what the revelation said describes a normal process of translating languages, with the spiritual confirmation added.
7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.
(Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–10)
Oliver apparently thought the Lord would give him the translation (which is what David Whitmer suggested and what some modern LDS scholars claim). Instead, the revelation explains that, as any translator must do, Oliver had to study it out in his mind. Any translator knows there are multiple ways of rendering one language into another. The search for the best rendition is often time consuming and difficult. Joseph and Oliver worked from sunrise to sunset. It was slow going. In this case, translating the plates involved a final step of spiritual confirmation.
Lucy Smith (Joseph’s mother) claimed decades later to have felt the interpreters through a cloth, and that a sheet often separated Martin Harris from Joseph during their early work. This brief, early effort with Harris appears to be the only time the spectacles were suggested to have been used. Lucy would later describe the spectacles in a detail she could not possibly have observed while feeling an object under a cloth, suggesting that she was retelling her son’s story.
This is flatly false. Lucy explained that Joseph used the spectacles to look on the plates when he was translating with Oliver Cowdery, and during that process, in late May 1829, he received the commandment to write to David Whitmer.
Challenged by the Internet and the abundance of credible information untouched by the LDS Church, members today are far more likely to hear leaders refer to inspiration or a dictation process rather than translation. A prime example includes, Why Joseph Smith’s Dictation of the Book of Mormon is Simply Jaw Dropping, featured in the November 2018 issue of LDS Living. It seems the LDS Church is subtly attempting to shift the narrative for future generations, perhaps to “inoculate” them from the very real threat of disaffection.
This speculation about why the narrative has been changing is an example of the mind-reading fallacy, but it does reflect the reality that some prominent LDS historians have persuaded Church leaders to "inoculate" Church members against SITH. But endorsing SITH isn't really an inoculation; it's an infection. A historically accurate approach would include all the evidence, not merely the evidence behind SITH. And it would include an explanation that reconciles what Joseph and Oliver taught instead of simply rejecting what they taught.
URIM & THUMMIM = PEEP STONE
Turning to the question of why the narrative changed from one about a peep stone in a hat to a breastplate and stones called a “Urim and Thummim,” it is instructive to look at the case of Lucy Smith, Joseph Smith’s mother. After her son’s assassination, Lucy seemed motivated to sanitize the story of the origins of the church he founded and the scripture that he purported to translate.
Actually, she said she was motivated to dictate a written history to avoid having to continually repeat that same history orally.
As stated above, Lucy Smith professed to have felt an item under a cloth, but no other contemporary sources stated the same.
There were no other contemporary sources; most people, including Lucy, weren't in the habit of keeping journals. That's why so much of the evidence from the early days consists of interviews conducted years later. Naturally, Joseph would let his own mother observe the breastplate as much as he could, but since he couldn't show it to her, he let her feel it through the cloth.
Historian Dan Vogel observed that Lucy’s description in her preliminary manuscript, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, “3 cornered diamonds set in glass and the glass was set in silver bows” was recorded in a different ink, and was likely a later addition to the text. He posits that “the added information seems inconsistent with Lucy’s original description of smooth stones.” [9] It is possible that Lucy was either attempting to bolster a less magical narrative or that she was retelling what her son had told her.
The "different ink" is the same ink used throughout the manuscript to make corrections. You can see it here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/61. This was a dictated history that Lucy naturally went through to make corrections and clarifications. In her original statement she took the object in her hands. The correction only provided a better description of what it was like.
Regarding the breastplate of “extraordinary size”, found in the Hill Cumorah with the plates, supposedly handed down by the Nephite prophets themselves, and which frequently worked its way into LDS art, Vogel reminds us that, “As with the spectacles, her experience with the breastplate was unique, unconfirmed, and uncorroborated by others. Why would Joseph allow others to lift the plates through a cloth but permit only his mother to examine the breastplate and spectacles?” He relays the observation of one of the most respected historians of the American West, Dale Morgan: “She is the only one who ever claims to have handled this breastplate, and I am inclined to doubt that her memory is substantive.” [10]
This is a recurring problem with evidence. Lucy was the only one for whom we have a record that she reported handling the breastplate, but that does not mean others did not handle them or see them covered with a cloth. By the time she finally dictated her history to be written, her husband and several of her sons were dead. Only William remained, and he was only around 12 years old when Joseph brought back the breastplate. He and others did describe the spectacles, though.
The main focus was always the plates. It's anyone's guess why others from Joseph's family may or may not have seen the breastplate and spectacles, or why they may or may not have talked about it, or why any statements they made were or were not recorded.
Many notions inherent in the LDS translation narrative rely upon Lucy Smith’s account, prepared decades after the martyrdom of her beloved son, and long after significant embellishments had evolved to mask folk magic origins.
Actually, she dictated it in 1844, the year Joseph was killed. She made some revisions during the next year.
Her descriptions in no way help resolve the logistical challenges of constantly relocating the objects to and from their various secret locations, which included a small (10″ x 12″) Ontario glass box, a barrel of beans, Eldred Smith’s too shallow box, under the hearth, even in the shed and ensconced in the woods.
These are descriptions of hiding the plates, not the other items. There are no accounts of people searching for the breastplate, which isn't surprising because people found copper breastplates and related items in burial mounds anyway.
As for the cumbersome term “Urim and Thummim” (U&T), it is anachronistic no matter what it’s referring to in Book of Mormon translation context, perhaps purposely so in order to make it sound more spiritual and Biblical rather than folk-magicky. It is clear that the early Church knew but two terms: “interpreters” for the Nephite spectacles purportedly used for the first translation effort, and “seer stone” for the brown rock Joseph Smith found as a youth.
This isn't "clear" because there are few records from early Church years.
In his 1832 history, Smith merely stated “The Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book, therefore I commenced translating.” [11]
There were several references to the spectacles, which differed from a seer stone.
The term Urim and Thummim was not known within the church until 1833, when W.W. Phelps speculated that the interpreters may have been the biblical Urim and Thummim.
This was a common belief among historians until a prior reference was discovered in an east coast newspaper describing the visits of Mormon missionaries. Phelps referred to the Urim and Thummim in such as way that people familiar with the Bible would understand it, but he didn't coin the term.
People then began using the term to refer to the seer stone, which is odd since U&T refers to two things, while a stone is just one.
This is a good point. U&T makes sense as a reference to the Nephite interpreters, or spectacles, but it doesn't make sense as a reference to a single stone.
There was no reference to the U&T in the headings of the Book of Commandments (1833) or in the headings of the D&C editions prepared during Smith’s lifetime (1835 and 1844). Again, it appears that this term was introduced later and then backdated to create the perception of having been present all along.
The newspaper reference predates the headings. There's no reason why the headings needed to use the term.
It is instructive to compare present day D&C 10:1, which mentions the Urim and Thummim, to the original Book of Commandments, which contains no such reference. This revelation was altered years after the fact, as the words “Urim and Thummim” were inserted into the D&C only after that embellished narrative gained favor.
At least two alternative explanations are possible. First, the original version of the relevant part of D&C 10 is missing from Revelation Book 1, so it's possible there was a reference to the U&T originally. D&C 10 is difficult to reconstruct, as explained in the Historical Introduction.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-spring-1829-dc-10/1#historical-intro
Second, the revelations were edited for publication and edited again for subsequent publications. In the Book of Commandments, it reads:
that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man,
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-commandments-1833/26
Currently, the passage reads:
that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man (Doctrine and Covenants 10:1)
The addition of "by the means of the Urim and Thummim" is not the only edit in this passage. The reference to the U&T could be Joseph's effort to clarify that, unlike the earlier version, he did not have the "power to translate" but had the power to translate given to him, only by the means of the U&T.
This is an important clarification. The earlier version was spoken directly to Joseph, who understood that he did not have the power to translate himself, but this power was given to him in connection with the U&T. Joseph understood the limitation, so it didn't need to be mentioned in the revelation to him, but if published that way, readers could wrongly infer that Joseph had an inherent power to translate instead of the limited one he actually had. Hence the need for clarification.
A white seer stone, which Smith relied upon to help translate the Egyptian papyri into the Book of Abraham, was also later referred to as the Urim and Thummim.
If the reference here is to D&C 130, it says the white stone "will become a Urim and Thummim," not the Urim and Thummim. If there reference here is to Wilford Woodruff's statement, historians infer Woodruff was referring to the white seer stone, although that's not what he said.
This alteration of scripture, one of many such examples, and the commingling of otherwise anachronistic terms and magical items, are illustrative of the difficulty surrounding the translation topic.
An alternative view is that Joseph, as the translator, was free to make corrections for clarity and accuracy. D&C 9 explained that the translator had to work it out in his mind (using his own mental language bank). Later, if the translator learned better grammar or better terminology, he could reasonably improve the original translation. The same principle would work with revelations. In fact, Joseph made changes in the early revelations similar to the changes he and Oliver made to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, such as changing "which" to "who."
Not until many years later did Smith introduce the notion of the spectacles attached to a breastplate. Why he did so is something upon which historians today can only speculate, but it seems to have been a part of later concerted efforts to make Smith’s power in translation seem more unique, such that others could not duplicate as he dealt with threats to his power in Nauvoo.
This speculation is a possibility, but Joseph mentioned the spectacles in his first written history in 1832.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letterbook-1/11
He apparently told his mother how he used the breastplate in June 1829, when he first saw her after having translated with it in Harmony the month prior. She mentioned the breastplate, in passing, with the spectacles being attached, in her 1844 history, in such a way that she apparently assumed everyone already knew this.
Years after Smith’s death, his successor Brigham Young demonstrated the varied and interchangeable terms early Mormons often used to describe the seer stone and Urim and Thummim: “I met with the Twelve at Brother Joseph’s. He conversed with us in a familiar manner on a variety of subjects, and explained to us the Urim and Thummim which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters. He said that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness, and most of those who do find one make an evil use of it; he showed us his seer stone.” [12] This seems to bolster the idea that early on, Smith talked openly of how the translation process happened, but later recognized that it was too easy for others to duplicate with their own stones.
Here, Brigham Young noted how Joseph clearly distinguished between the Nephite interpreters, aka the Urim and Thummim, and the seer stone or stones. Brigham's observation contradicts the claims of those who said Joseph never had the Urim and Thummim or never used it to translate the plates.
It's unclear why Brigham's statement would constitute Joseph's recognition that others could also translate with their own stones.
LEARN MORE:
- Most, if not all, of the stories involving spectacles, interpreters or a breastplate originated from the same source – Joseph Smith. Dan Vogel provides a thorough examination of the confusing translation period in Joseph Smith’s Magic Spectacles.
SEER STONES
THE BROWN ROCK
JOSEPH SMITH’S FAVORED BROWN PEEP STONE
Mormon leaders and non-Mormon sources agree that Smith used his brown treasure-seeking stone to discover the gold plates. “He looked in his stone and saw them in the place of deposit.” Without the stone “he would not have obtained the book.” “It was by looking at this stone in a hat, the light excluded, that Joseph discovered the plates.” In 1877 the printer who typeset the Book of Mormon stated that Smith told him that “by the aid of his wonderful stone he found gold plates on which were inscribed the writings in hieroglyphics.” [13]
The last quotation is from a Detroit newspaper article that does not quote Gilbert saying this and does not claim Gilbert said it. The first part of the article does quote Gilbert, but after observing that Gilbert was not much interested in the book, the article relates history that was "well known." The article does note that Joseph "translated them by means of a pair of magic spectacles which the Lord delivered to him at the same time that the golden tablets were turned up," a statement that contradicts the SITH translation.
Here is a link to the Detroit article.
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/bom_early_problems/gilbertinterviewamericanbookseller.htm
The 1878 Deseret News published a rebuttal to this article.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/LDS/ldsnews2.htm#011578
Joseph never claimed he looked into a stone to find the plates. Instead, he explained that Moroni described the place and he saw it in a vision so that he recognized it when he arrived.
Although the brown seer stone was carried on his person for years, around the time Smith organized the Church in 1830, he ceased using the stone which had served him so well in bringing forth the Book of Mormon.
Another example of thinking past the sale. The alternative view is that Joseph used the stone merely to conduct a demonstration at the Whitmer farm.
According to David Whitmer, Smith gave it to Oliver Cowdery. Until his death in 1850, Cowdery kept this stone as a sacred relic. Oliver’s brother-in-law obtained the stone from Cowdery’s widow and gifted it to Brigham Young in Salt Lake. One of Young’s counselors informed a congregation that Young had “the Urim and Thummim.” By this point, the term Urim and Thummim had become fully ingrained into mainstream doctrine, with few members understanding the term’s pedigree.
Three points here. First, Joseph did not seem to care enough about the seer stone to retain it. When he gave it to Oliver, he reportedly said he didn't need it any longer, which would make sense both if he used it as part of a demonstration (as I think) or if he used it to produce the Book of Mormon.
Second, Oliver had the seer stone in his possession when he rejoined the Church and testified that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim. He did not refer to or display the seer stone.
Third, when Heber C. Kimball said Brigham Young had the "Urim and Thummim" he did not provide any details or any link to this stone. That leaves open the possibility that Joseph had, actually, given the Nephite interpreters to Brigham Young or that Heber meant Brigham was a prophet so he had the ability to receive revelation.
Brigham Young told the apostles in 1855 that Smith had five seer stones. At the dedication of the Manti, UT temple in 1888, Wilford Woodruff consecrated the brown rock upon the altar in the temple. [14] The stone remains in the LDS Church’s vault, along with at least two additional seer stones. [15]
Any possession of Joseph's is revered, apparently, but retaining these stones doesn't mean Joseph translated anything with them.
THE WHITE ROCK
Joseph Smith relied upon multiple seer stones, including a whitish, opaque stone that Joseph obtained first as a youth. Lorenzo Snow exhibited it for a time after Smith’s death. Despite various assertions by the LDS Church that Smith ceased using seer stones in later years, he had merely shifted his reliance to the white one. On Nov 4, 1830, Smith used the white stone to dictate a revelation for Orson Pratt (D&C 34). On Oct 7, 1835, he again used the white seer stone – by this point referred to as Urim & Thummim – for blessing Newel Whitney.
The blessing for Newel K. Whitney was recorded with this preface: "The following blessing was given by president Joseph Smith, Jr. through the Urim and Thummim, according to the spirit of prophecy and revelation, on Wednesday, the 7th of October, 1835."
No source mentions the white stone in connection with this blessing. The claim that the white stone was the Urim and Thummim is merely an inference. Michael Quinn, in the cited reference to Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, noted that "a report from Ohio stated that Smith was 'examining the papyrus through his spectacles.'" This was reported in the Sunday Morning News (New York City) in August, 1835. It is possible that Joseph retained the Nephite interpreters, as there is no account of him returning them with the plates.
Joseph also used the white stone to translate the Egyptian papyri into the Book of Abraham – now proven to not be what it claims. “Church historian Joseph Fielding Smith commented that these Book of Abraham references could not mean the biblical Urim and Thummim, nor the instrument found with the gold plates. He said these statements had to refer to the seer stone.” [16]
The cited reference by Joseph Fielding Smith is titled "Seer Stone Not Used in Book of Mormon Translation." He asserted that Joseph returned the Urim and Thummim with the plates, but cited no authority for that proposition. JS-H 1:60 just says Joseph delivered the plates to the messenger (referring to the abridged plates). Brigham Young said Joseph returned the plates to the repository in Cumorah (referring to the original plates of Nephi). Neither reference says Joseph returned the U&T, although we infer he did. Lucy said "Joseph kept the urim and thumim constantly about his person." We infer she meant in the early days, but it's also possible he kept them.
DENIAL BY LDS AUTHORITIES
While today, the LDS Church has become more open about Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones, this has not always been the case. Some prominent LDS authorities had long denied Smith’s use of the stones, even instructing that they were counterfeit, inferior, or evil stories concocted by “anti-Mormons.”
An article in The Improvement Era, a former publication of the LDS Church, denied Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones, while simultaneously disparaging the reliability of the witnesses: “In the opinion of the writer, the Prophet used no seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, neither did he translate in the manner described by David Whitmer and Martin Harris. The statements of both of these men are to be explained by the eagerness of old age to call upon a fading and uncertain memory for the details of events which still remained real and objective to them.” [17]
This article expressed an opinion. An alternative interpretation (which I favor) is that Joseph did not translate with the seer stones but conducted a demonstration.
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie mocked the idea of seer stones, writing “In imitation of the true order of heaven whereby seers receive revelations from God through a Urim and Thummim, the devil gives his own revelations to some of his followers through peep stones or crystal balls.” [19] Indeed, it must have been nearly impossible for a man of modern times to countenance the use of such a clearly magical object to “translate” anything. One wonders how the ultra-orthodox McConkie would deal with the numerous recent concessions contained in the LDS Gospel Topics essays.
Look at the rhetorical techniques here. "Ultra-orthodox" connotes fanaticism, but McConkie was a lawyer who considered evidence carefully. He also readily admitted when he was wrong, as shown by better evidence or a change in direction by Church leaders.
"Concessions" connotes an admission of guilt, but the Gospel Topics essays were written by LDS intellectuals who had been promoting their theories for a long time. In a sense, we could say the Church has conceded the ground to the scholars, but in another sense, we could say the Church simply made people aware that there are multiple possible interpretations of the facts.
Like his son-in-law, Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith could not accept magic as an integral part of his religion. He had a personal incentive to maintain the credibility of his family heritage as the key to the restoration of the original church of Christ, free from anything close to a charlatan or conman. He declared: “While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.”
“These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites…It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes.” [18]
This reads to me like a thoughtful assessment of the evidence. Lawyers and historians realize that a statement is evidence, but evidence is not the same as reality or truth. No two witnesses of a car collision will relate the identical facts because our minds are pattern-recognition machines and we each are sensitized to different patterns. Some people can remember faces and names, while others remember colors and sequences. Memories vary over time as they get mixed with other memories, conflated with accounts from other people, modified by different agendas and biases, etc.
Of course, the prominence of the stones touched by the very finger of God is an important story in the Book of Mormon, as it led to a literal illumination during a long journey in tight, closed ships by the Jaredites to the Promised Land of America. But there appears to be a reversal of cause and effect here. Rather than the stones in this story being passed to Smith, it seems more likely that Smith’s use of magical stones was the catalyst for the story’s infusion into the Book of Mormon.
This is an attempt at clever rhetoric, but is mere speculation.
SMITH’S FAVORED BROWN PEEP STONE, WITH POUCH WORN AROUND HIS NECK.
PEEP STONES CRITICIZED
Further proof of Smith’s need to hide the true provenance of the Book of Mormon and his own use of stones when his power and unique access to divine authority were questioned can be seen with Hiram Page.
This is not proof. It's pure speculation.
Hiram Page had a stone similar to Smith’s and was professing to have revelations for the up-building of Zion and the governing of the Church. Oliver Cowdery and others were strongly influenced thereby in consequence of which Oliver was commanded by revelation: “Thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that Satan deceiveth him” (D&C 28:11).
A basic premise of the "magical world view" approach to Mormonism is the commonality of people using seer stones. If multiple people claimed conflicting revelations from such seer stones, presumably they could not all be true. Consequently, this revelation makes sense, once you assume Joseph was actually inspired by God.
Peep stones have long been an inconvenient topic in LDS history. So it is that Bruce R. McConkie wrote Mormon Doctrine’s entry for peep stones as follows: See Devil, Revelation, Urim and Thummim. In imitation of the true order of heaven whereby seers receive revelations from God through a Urim and Thummim, the devil gives his own revelations to some of his followers through peep stones, or crystal balls.
Whether or not one agrees, this is a logical approach.
LDS SCHOLARS DENY STONES
The discomfort with which the true story of the peep stone translation process has been met by modern LDS scholars is perhaps best demonstrated by Joseph Fielding McConkie, BYU Professor of Ancient Scripture and son of Bruce R. McConkie.
Another thinking past the sale fallacy: the "true story." MormonStories has simply chosen to believe one set of witnesses instead of another, relying on bias confirmation instead of analysis of all the relevant facts.
It's not "discomfort" to explain an analysis that makes sense. McConkie's analysis here is rational, given the facts he cites and his assumptions. It leaves us with the option of believing either David Whitmer or Joseph and Oliver (and the D&C), unless we can reconcile the various statements.
He wrote: “The testimony of David Whitmer…clearly contradicts the principles established by the Lord in this revelation [D&C 9]. It is also at odds with the testimonies of both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
In our judgment, Mr. Whitmer is not a reliable source on this matter. We are entirely respectful of and grateful for the testimony to which he appended his name as one of the three witnesses of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and its divine origin. That, however, does not make him a competent witness to the process of translation. We too, like countless others, are competent witnesses of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Our knowledge of how it was translated, however, is limited to that which has come through the channels ordained by the Lord for that purpose.
As to David Whitmer’s explanation, it should be remembered that he never looked into the Urim and Thummim nor translated anything. His testimony of how the Book of Mormon was translated is hearsay… 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…
Finally, the testimony of David Whitmer simply does not accord with the divine pattern. If Joseph Smith translated everything that is now in the Book of Mormon without using the gold plates, we are left to wonder why the plates were necessary in the first place.” [19]
McConkie's argument is sound regarding what Joseph allegedly saw in the hat, but he did not deal effectively with David's claim to be an eyewitness of the process. (I think he observed a demonstration that he inferred was the translation.) McConkie's argument about the gold plates is the same that the critics make; i.e., that SITH eliminates the utility of the plates.
Mirroring the dissonance many faithful LDS members have experienced upon learning of Smith’s involvement with treasure digging and subsequent translation methods, Joseph Fielding McConkie struggled with accepting the historical record. “We have some accounts that are obviously not so, that that’s how Joseph translated. We have accounts by David Whitmer written some 50 years after the event which say Joseph buried his head in a hat and read the translation from a seer stone. It just could not have been! It does not accord with any revelation that we have or the testimony of the prophet.” [20]
It's true that many LDS members experience dissonance when reading the accounts of David Whitmer and other SITH witnesses, but that's because the evidence is framed as either/or. When the evidence is reconciled (as I've proposed), the LDS dissonance dissolves and the dissonance of the critics rises.
It seems that when Whitmer testifies of something that is in accord with the current narrative of the LDS Church and the reworked image of Joseph Smith, he is to be believed. But when his narrative causes members to see the origins of the church as they were, he is to be thrown under the bus.
This is a legitimate point, given the either/or framing, but it's the mirror image of the critical approach that throws Joseph and Oliver under the bus when their narrative causes critics to see the origins of the church as they taught it to be authentic. Notice the example of thinking past the sale here again: "the origins of the church as they were."
Similarly, prominent LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, in writing his response to Fawn Brodie’s No Man Knows My History, derided her for believing the accounts of Joseph Smith using seer stones: “Thus she flatly rejects the sworn affidavit of fifty-one of Joseph’s neighbors because their testimony does not suit her idea of the prophet’s character. We would applaud such strong-mindedness were it not that on the very next page she accepts the stories of the same witnesses regarding ‘seer stones, ghosts, magic incantations, and nocturnal excavations.’ Now scandal stories thrive notoriously well in rural settings, while the judgment of one’s neighbors regarding one’s general character over a number of years is far less likely to run into the fantastic. Yet Brodie can reject the character witnesses as prejudiced while accepting the weirdest extravagances of their local gossip.” [21] Is it Brodie who is rejecting reliable first-hand, historical testimony or is it perhaps Nibley and so many others?
There is no objective evidence that "proves" or "disproves" the statements of historical figures. The statements themselves are short, mostly vague hearsay, and not subject to cross-examination. We are left with spotty evidence to assess means, motive and opportunity. Consequently, we can confirm our biases by choosing which witnesses we want to believe.
Unless we can find an explanation that reconciles the various witnesses.
EXPANSION THEORY
Moving on from the creation of the Book of Mormon using a seer stone, the book should be examined on its own merits. Is the text that is read today a likely record of an ancient people who traveled from Jerusalem to the Americas, or is it more likely that the record was produced by a gifted and imaginative man of the nineteenth century? Is it a translation or something else?
Likelihood is a euphemism for bias confirmation.
The traditional view of the Book of Mormon is as a word-for-word (or “tight”) translation, meaning that Joseph Smith intended every word to be exactly as it was written.
This is one view, but Joseph himself changed the text as he learned better grammar, so he apparently did not hold the "tight" translation view.
Emma Smith confirmed this in her first-hand experience in the translation process: “When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. . . . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation…” Surely, if Smith was so insistent on each and every word, it must have been a very close and accurate translation.
Emma's statement is not supported by the original manuscript, in which proper names have variant spellings (not to mention numerous spelling errors of ordinary words). Maybe Joseph knew words (from his mental language bank) that he could speak but did not know how to spell so he spelled them out the best he could. It's unlikely that the well educated Emma made spelling mistakes that Joseph recognized and corrected. Emma gave no specific examples to test. Did this happen once or twice? More? Did she discuss it with him? Was she talking about the 116 pages, which might have had perfect spelling? The lack of specifics in this statement makes it difficult to assess, assuming it was accurately reported.
The claim that he commenced where he left off, however, is consistent with a translation.
In modern times, looking at the historical context, scholars point out that there is much in the text that resembles the abundant works and theologies of the early 1800s, as opposed to any known ancient Indians.
This was a translation into English, but also into 1800s American culture. Moroni wrote, "Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing." (Mormon 8:35)
Certainly the ancient Americans did not speak KJV English or anything close to it, but any language can be translated into KJV English, even today.
Apologists today often resort to introducing various definitions for “translation.”
That's a good point. Joseph surely knew what the word "translation" meant; it is in the title of every copy of the King James Bible. Modern LDS scholars balk at the idea that Joseph actually translated the plates, but he said he studied the characters, copied them, and translated them.
One such popular theory is that Smith saw the story unfold before him in some mystical way or was prompted by God to understand it internally, but was free to choose words and whole phrases to express these ideas or visuals on his own terms, perhaps even significantly expanding the text beyond its original state. This theory is called the “loose translation” or “expansion” theory.
Joseph never said he narrated a vision, although he was shown aspects of Nephite culture as he explained in the Wentworth letter.
Anyone who translates knows there are multiple ways to articulate things in the target language. Sometimes it takes more words to explain something in another language. The only thing Joseph said was a literal translation was the Title Page, which differs significantly from the rest of the text.
But once more, this looks like an unsupported attempt to deal with what is clearly not the hand of God in the work.
Another example of thinking past the sale: "clearly."
It is also not what Smith said about the work himself. It is worth identifying how the loss of the first translation attempt, and related revelation (D&C 3), strongly reinforces the narrative that Smith wanted his followers to believe: that the translation was directly supervised by God, every word.
This is mind-reading and does not follow from D&C 3.
Further, Smith was apparently instructed not to re-translate the ancient text because of his enemies’ evil designs to alter the manuscript and catch Joseph in a contradiction. Had there been any room for “expansion,” Joseph would not have concerned himself with potentially differing wording between versions.
Here, MormonStories assumes what an "alteration" would consist of. It could have been different wording, but it could have been completely different meaning and events as well. All the thieves would have had to do was publish an alternative account, claiming it was based on the 116 pages, and people would have been happy to accept it. The public largely accepted the Spalding theory even without a published manuscript.
LEARN MORE:
ORAL STORYTELLER
Turning back to the text once more, it contains much evidence of an oral storyteller who was struggling with the constraints of the written word, including lack of punctuation, repetitive phrases, awkward wording, even places where the creator appears to have forgotten names.
Ancient languages did not use punctuation, but they often used repetitive phrases (chiasmus, parallelisms, etc.). Awkward wording would be expected in a translation from an ancient text, especially when the translator was using his own mental language bank that consisted largely of biblical passages and the writings of well-known Christian authors.
The modern Book of Mormon has been so thoroughly edited and changed (in substantive ways and in ways that are meant to make it more accessible to modern readers) that it can be difficult for members of the current LDS Church to notice the behind the scenes work that makes the book seem more miraculous. The following sections will help to reveal that.
NO PUNCTUATION
Not a single punctuation mark existed in the entire original Book of Mormon manuscript, which supports the multiple accounts of Joseph orally dictating the contents. “The sentences were all run in without capitals or other marks to designate where one left off and another began.” The typesetter, John Gilbert, dedicated days to correcting and punctuating the run-on manuscript. “I have frequently to stop and read half a page to find how to punctuate it.” [22]
This is evidence it was a translation from an ancient text that lacked punctuation. An oral presentation has natural sentences that begin and end. It is more difficult to speak long run-on sentences than to speak with ordinary sentences.
Apologists often argue that punctuation does not change anything important in the book, but why wouldn’t God have dictated that, as well as the exact spelling of names? If God didn’t care about punctuation, then why was it added? If the book was perfect exactly as Joseph Smith wrote it, then why is the current text not as he intended it to be? The answer seems obvious: a manuscript lacking punctuation highlights Smith’s lack of education and encourages readers to question other dubious aspects of the text.
I agree that that if any apologists make these arguments, they are unpersuasive, but the MormonStories answer is not obvious. Joseph was familiar with the Bible, which is well punctuated, as were Emma and Oliver. The lack of punctuation would be unexpected if Joseph was copying the text or even narrating a story he imagined. Translating an ancient text that lacked punctuation, however, would require the translator to impose punctuation.
WORDINESS PROBLEM
The Book of Mormon presents countless examples of extreme wordiness, which contradict multiple Nephite authors’ comments about economizing their narrative to save space. “I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates.” (Jacob 4:1) Despite expressed difficulties, the Book of Mormon contains almost as many verses as the New Testament (which LDS members believe to be more imperfect than the Book of Mormon), twice the words per verse, and a greater word count. Surprisingly, there were more than 1,200 “and it came to pass” references in the original 1830 version.
This point seems to forget it's a translation. A single character could have represented "and it came to pass." One persuasive explanation I've seen shows that a highly compressed written language is susceptible to many interpretations, which is consistent with D&C 9 and Joseph working from sunrise to sunset on the translation, needing a spiritual confirmation of his chosen rendition before moving on.
Mark Twain, the famed American writer who was a contemporary of Smith’s, observed that “whenever he found his speech growing too modern – which was about every sentence or two – he ladled in a few such phrases as ‘exceedingly sore’ and ‘it came to pass’…and made things satisfactory again” (see Jarom 1:2; Mormon 9:33). Mormons often joke about these phrases reflexively, not realizing that they are seeing the problems in the scripture without the help of an anti-Mormon critic.
These reflect Joseph's mental language bank, as I discuss in more detail in my book Infinite Goodness.
As we explore the Book of Mormon narrative with a greater understanding of how Joseph verbally narrated the story, we began to view such passages as, “And thus we see that…they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace” in a very different light (Alma 24:19). If an editor like Mormon was dedicating his final days to condensing the records, would he write like this?
This is a good example of variant translations, not Mormon's errors. Any translator proposes variant translations, at least in his/her mind. I suspect Joseph spoke many more such variant translations that he discussed with Oliver before committing to one or the other. In these cases, Oliver wrote as Joseph dictated without revising.
And again, would a careful prophet scribe not have condensed this grammatical disaster: “And it came to pass that the brother of Amalickiah was appointed king over the people; and his name was Ammoron; thus King Ammoron, the brother of King Amalickiah was appointed to reign in his stead”…into this: “Ammoron, the brother of Amalickiah, was appointed as king, to reign in his stead.”
This looks exactly like working out a translation.
Other examples among many include: “And four of them were the sons of Mosiah; and their names were Ammon, and Aaron, and Omner, and Himni; these were the names of the sons of Mosiah.” (Mosiah 27:34) Also, “And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea, almost the entire destruction of the people of Nephi. Behold I do not mean the end of the book of Helaman, but I mean the end of the book of Nephi, from which I have taken all the account which I have written” (Helaman 2:13-14).
Do these excerpts read like the careful inscriptions of ancient Indians, or like Joseph Smith orating a story that he is creating?
They look like a translation of an ancient text written on metal plates. It's easy to see Mormon writing the first sentence, then realizing it could be misunderstood, but because he could not erase what he'd written, he added the clarification.
LOSING TRACK
In multiple places, the narrator appears to forget what he had previously dictated and is forced to resort to verbal circumlocution. This makes no sense if there were days, months and years of labor put into etching symbols onto gold plates, which were then carefully abridged by Mormon. However, such lapses are easily explained by a break in dictation for the night or simply a lapse in concentration.
Alma 19:16 introduces a Lamanite woman named Abish, and informs that she “ran forth from house to house, making it known unto the people” that the power of God had come upon the king and queen. A mere twelve verses later, the narrator forgets her name and clumsily refers instead to “…the woman servant who had caused the multitude to be gathered together.”
This doesn't demonstrate forgetting the woman's name because the second verse adds information about her; causing the multitude to be gathered together is not the same as just making it known to the people.
Similarly, Alma 1 introduces an Antichrist named Nehor, who teaches false doctrine, kills a war hero named Gideon, and finally recants his unbelief before his execution for murder. In the very next chapter, the author appears to momentarily forget Nehor’s name, and introduces a new character, Amlici, as “he being after the order of the man that slew Gideon by the sword, who was executed according to the law.” Later, in Alma 24, the author uses the much simpler description, “after the order of Nehor.”
The text mentions Nehor 10 times, hardly a forgotten name. Other passages use similar wording in describing an individual instead of repeating his name: "which was called the city of Gideon, which was in the valley that was called Gideon, being called after the man who was slain by the hand of Nehor with the sword." (Alma 6:7)
On the other hand, we occasionally encounter more information just a few verses after it would have flowed most easily. In Alma 17:36, narrating how Ammon defended King Lamoni’s sheep from would-be thieves, Joseph dictates that, “with mighty power he did sling stones amongst them; and thus he slew a certain number of them.” Two verses later, we are informed that “six of them had fallen by the sling..but he slew none save it were their leader with his sword.” Faithful members of the LDS Church know their scriptures well, but have likely never considered why these errors are present in the most perfect book ever written.
This is the type of gratuitous rhetoric that undermines an argument. Joseph is represented as having said the Book of Mormon is the "most correct" book, not the "most perfect" book. Correct comes from a conjugation of the Latin word for to guide, meaning to straighten. Joseph went on to say the Book of Mormon would bring readers closer to God.
In Alma 17:36, the "certain number" was not necessarily six. Ammon could have slain a few, then continued the fight and killed more, until he killed six with the sling and one with the sword. It is not difficult to reconcile these passages if one looks at them carefully.
THE LOST PAGES
Finally, let’s turn to the lost pages and how they illuminate problems with The Book of Mormon’s translation. Martin Harris became one of Joseph Smith’s earliest and most infatuated followers.
"Infatuated" is more pejorative rhetoric.
He resolved a number of Smith’s financial obligations, assisted with translation efforts throughout the winter of 1827, even serving directly as Smith’s scribe from April through June of 1828. He would soon thereafter bear the entire cost of printing the Book of Mormon. Thus, when his friends and associates whose confidence he would soon lose derided Harris for abandoning “the cultivation of one of the best farms in the neighborhood,” they were speaking literally rather than figuratively. Like so many others who were involved in the beginnings of Smith’s church, he lost a great deal financially.
"Like so many others" is pejorative framing, and no specifics are given.
Lucy Harris, Martin’s wife, was familiar with Joseph Smith’s reputation as a treasure digger and remained intensely distrustful, fearing he was swindling her husband. Within days of Martin’s failure to appear at their daughter’s May wedding, Lucy moved to obtain a deed for her dowry land, arguably to secure her own future independent from her distracted husband. This seemed her only option when faced with the likelihood that the charismatic Joseph Smith would keep taking and taking until her family was destitute, which ironically is exactly where Martin would soon find himself.
More pejorative framing. Joseph took nothing; the money was an investment in the books, not a transfer to enrich Joseph or his family.
Martin desperately needed to do something to mollify his wife. Ultimately, after much pleading, Smith lent the early manuscript pages, which had taken months to produce, to Martin for the purpose of convincing Lucy and others of the translation’s veracity and her husband’s prudence. The work, which likely represented the “Book of Lehi,” was never seen again. Lucy most likely destroyed the pages, a sentiment Martin himself later echoed. [23]
"Most likely" is an assumption, not a fact, and contradicts D&C 10.
Lucy remained acutely aware that Martin had never seen any plates with his own eyes, and became so troubled by her husband’s credulity and fiscal disregard that she filed suit against Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith would later number the lost pages at 116, though Don Bradley’s The Lost 116 Pages elaborates on why Smith may have been estimating and how the actual page count was likely far higher. Smith was so perplexed over the loss that he declared his first recorded revelation, found in D&C 3 and well-known by members, which revoked his translation privileges for a time. Conveniently, Smith promptly delivered a second revelation, D&C 10, restoring his privileges, enabling him to continue right where he left off in Mosiah.
That paragraph is full of pejorative rhetoric.
D&C Section 10 sheds additional light, instructing that Smith was not to re-translate the same material because of his enemies’ evil designs to alter the manuscript and catch him in a contradiction. But is this really why Smith moved onto a different part of the story? Many have questioned the likelihood of this scenario, in light of the fact that the manuscript was hand written in ink on a rather rough and porous foolscap paper. Potential alterations would be impractical and readily apparent to the naked eye, while convincingly mimicking Martin’s handwriting over such a volume of work is unthinkable. It seems far more likely that Smith learned a great deal from this early misstep and concluded that he would be better off starting all over again than trying to salvage his original work.
D&C 10 explains that the thieves altered the words to "read contrary" from what Joseph translated. It does not say, and it is not reasonable to infer, that they would merely modify a few words, write over the manuscript or imitate Martin's handwriting; all they'd have to do is publish their version and claim it came from the manuscript. As I pointed out above, the Spalding manuscript theory was embraced even in the absence of a manuscript. An alternate translation of the Book of Lehi would be readily accepted by people who wanted to reject the Book of Mormon, no matter how Joseph retranslated it.
It is interesting to note that the Book of Mosiah was actually the first book dictated in our present day Book of Mormon. (see Mosiah Priority) Upon restarting the project, Smith resumed dictating from Mosiah and continued to Moroni, then returned to dictate 1st Nephi through Omni. The last book written was the Words of Mormon; a small 2 page; 18-verse book where Mormon conveniently explains how God foresaw the loss of the original manuscript instructed and instructed latter prophets to maintain a duplicate set of plates covering the same period represented in the first 6 books of the present day Book of Mormon.
I agree that the traditional interpretation of these events is implausible and has ramifications for free agency, etc. (i.e., was Martin "destined" to lose the 116 pages). In my view, the first 11 verses of Words of Mormon were an appendix Mormon attached to the end of the original plates of Nephi. Verses 12-18 were the part Joseph retained when he gave the 116 pages to Martin Harris. Verse 12 may be Joseph's own transition. I don't think these plates of Nephi were included with the abridged plates Moroni put in the stone box. Instead, they were in the repository of records, as were all the originals from which Mormon created the abridgment. Had Martin Harris or anyone else lost any part of the translation, the original sources were available to replace them.
If Joseph wasn't translating the plates, then the whole narrative of the abridged book of Lehi and the original plates of Nephi (D&C 9 and 10) makes no sense.
All this evidence suggests that Joseph Smith was not “translating” in the manner in which he said he did, word by word, nor that he was receiving inspiration beyond that which any other fiction writer of the day might have merited. There are simply too many issues which are be far more easily explained by seeing Smith as the creator of the Book of Mormon.
In my view, the saga of the lost 116 pages and the replacement with the original plates of Nephi which Joseph did not get from the stone box but got later in Fayette is solid evidence that he was actually translating the plates. This is the most parsimonious explanation.
Joseph as composer of the Book of Mormon is difficult to explain or justify due to the complexity of the text and content such as ancient artifacts and identification of two distinct groups who inhabited ancient North America, which was unknown until years after the Book of Mormon was published.
The idea of Joseph reading words that appeared on a stone in a hat not only contradicts what Joseph said, but disavows the entire narrative. Such a scenario not only eliminates the need for the plates, but the need for an abridgment or even the original Nephite records.
Translation, however, is a well-known human activity. In this case, Joseph had 4 years of instruction to familiarize himself with the content and months of time to copy the character and study and translate them through the inspiration provided by God and by means of the Urim and Thummim. The text itself consists of words, phrases and concepts familiar to Joseph Smith, as we would expect to be the case with any translator.
LEARN MORE:
[1] Collected Works Of Hugh Nibley, vol 18: An Approach To The Book Of Abraham.
[2] Journal of History, 1910, vol 8, 299-300.
[3] Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma S. Pilgrim, 27 March 1870; see also Early Mormon Documents 1:532.
[4] Isaac Hale Affidavit, March 20, 1834.
[5] Deseret Evening News, James Hart to Editor, March 18, 1844.
[6] Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery Affidavit, 15 Feb. 1870.
[7] Revelations of the Restoration, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Craig Ostler, 89-98. The authors are referring to Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 115, 157-58.
[8] William McClellin to Joseph Smith III, July 1872.
[9] L. Smith, Preliminary Manuscript, 61-62.
[10] Joseph Smith, The Making of a Prophet, Vogel, 100.
[11] Joseph Smith History, 1832, Letterbook 1:5, LDS Church History Library.
[12] Brigham Young, Millenial Star 26:118, Dec. 27, 1841.
[13] Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Quinn, 145, 173.
[14] Wilford Woodruff journal 8, May 18, 1888
[15] Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Quinn, 243-6.
[16] Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Quinn, 243-5.
[17] The Improvement Era, 1939.
[18] Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith 3:225-226.
[19] Revelations of the Restoration, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Craig Ostler, 89-98.
[20] Great Doctrines of the Book of Mormon, 1991.
[21] No Ma’am, That’s Not History, Hugh Nibley
[22] Natural Born Seer, 367 / John H. Gilbert, in Joe Smith: Early Life of the Mormon Prophet.
[23] William Pilkington, A Dying Testimony Given by Martin Harris.
No comments:
Post a Comment