Review of Jeff Lindsay's review of By Means of the Urim and Thummim

 

Review of Jeff Lindsay’s Interpreter review

16 Dec 2024

I appreciate Jeff’s attention to our book and his extensive review. In the continual pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I made some interlinear comments in the form of a peer review that I would have offered had he made the paper available in sufficient time before publication.

Jeff’s a great guy, a faithful Latter-day Saint (LDS), etc. We met when we both lived in China in the Shanghai district. He’s a long-time author on LDS topics and I’ve always thought he was usually a careful scholar, fairly objective and open to new ideas (with some obvious exceptions).

I’m hopeful that Jeff’s review moves him and the rest of the Interpreters closer to the eventual adoption of the FAITH model (explained below) so everyone can see what they, and those who disagree with them, are actually saying and why.

[Note: Throughout my comments, whenever I refer to the “Interpreters” I mean the like-minded authors and editors at the Interpreter.]

Then Latter-day Saints, instead of being expected to defer to scholars such as the Interpreters, can make their own informed decisions, always seeking unity in diversity.

_____

Jeff’s affiliation with the Interpreter Foundation and the Interpreter journal gave me pause, of course, because of the dogmatism and rhetorical style that prevails there. But I figured Jeff was an exception.

Based on this review, I now think I was experiencing Gel-Mann amnesia[1] when I assumed Jeff was a careful scholar based on his other work on topics I was less familiar with. In this review he displays the rhetorical style typical of (if not mandated by) the Interpreter.

None of this means I think any less of Jeff or his fellow Interpreters, who surely are doing what they think is right. But the Interpreters would be more effective if they were less insular, less impressed with their credentials, less emotionally attached to their consensus theories, and less convinced of their own self-appointed role as the “interpreters” for the rest of us.

Most of all, I wish Jeff had accurately stated our positions and content.

This leads into my suggestion that scholars in all fields implement what I call the FAITH model of analysis, whereby we isolate facts from the various assumptions, inferences and theories that people employ to reach their overall hypotheses and conclusions.

Everyone on all sides of an issue can and should agree on the facts; e.g., the existence of a document. Once all the facts are set out for everyone to see, we next proceed to assessment of the facts, which is where people differ based on their assumptions, inferences, and theories.

In the case of historical documents, this involves opinions about whether the document is what it claims (authentic), whether contents of the document are accurate, credible and reliable, whether our assumptions and inferences are reasonable and how they fit within our various theories, etc.

Ideally, the FAITH model creates an analytical comparison of multiple working hypotheses that we can all observe and understand so we can make informed decisions.

_____

Original in black, my comments in red.

_____

“Through a Glass Darkly: Restoring Translation to the Restoration?”

Jeff Lindsay

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 63 (2025): 169-202

Review of James W. Lucas and Jonathan E. Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration (Cottonwood Heights, UT: Digital Legend Press & Publishing, 2023). 288 pages. $19.95.

Abstract: In By Means of the Urim & Thummim, James Lucas and Jonathan Neville valiantly seek to defend Joseph Smith’s role as the divinely inspired translator, a role that they argue is incompatible with using any tool other than the Nephite “intepreters,” later called the Urim and Thummim.

Accurate but incomplete. We don’t argue that he couldn’t have used any other tool, just that he said he didn’t and the evidence supports what he said. Basically, unlike Jeff, we don’t think Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone about the translation.

They offer a unique theory to account for the statements of witnesses about Joseph using a seer stone in a hat, arguing that it was a fake demonstration using memorized passages to satisfy onlooker curiosity about the translation process.

That’s not what we argue, but it is how Jeff frames it.

They propose a translation model in which Joseph did more than just get impressions, but saw an incomplete or literal translation in the Urim and Thummim that left plenty of room for heavy mental effort to turn what he saw into acceptable English.

Jeff’s framing, not ours.

While the authors seek to defend Joseph from what they view as the questionable theories of modern Church scholars, their misunderstanding and misinterpretation of both the historical record and scripture result in some errant assumptions and logical gaps that undermine their well-intentioned work.

This condescending rhetoric is typical of the Interpreter and Jeff’s entire review. But I’m happy to engage with his points.

I appreciate what James Lucas and Jonathan Neville seek to do with their book,¹ which is to defend the character of Joseph Smith and [Page 170] the divinity of the Book of Mormon. Through their lengthy efforts to refute what they feel are new apostate theories on the translation of the Book of Mormon, they offer a deeply apologetic book that strives to be scholarly with extensive documentation and analysis.

I checked. We used the term “apostate” twice in the book, once to refer to Mark Hoffman and once to clarify that we did not point out David’s denunciation of Joseph Smith to attack David as an apostate. The term “new apostate theories” is Jeff’s pejorative framing, not ours.

Two other word choices betray Jeff’s belittling attitude that reflects his defensiveness: “deeply apologetic” and “strives to be scholarly.” Actually, now that I’ve read his entire piece, the phrases come across as projection; i.e., Jeff is describing his own approach.

At the same time, the authors somewhat ironically malign the work of Latter-day Saint “apologists” and scholars who disagree with them on the issues they tackle.

“Malign” is another example of Jeff’s defensiveness.

They are unwilling to let the work of such “academic scribblers” (p. 19n48) subvert what they see as core Latter-day Saint doctrines on the details of the translation of the Book of Mormon. The book, in spite of lofty intentions, often collides with reality.

Jeff’s reality, as we’ll see, is highly subjective.

The opening pages will resonate with readers who were taken aback when the Church publicly recognized that two kinds of tools were used in the translation of the Book of Mormon.

“Recognized” implies facts, but we’re dealing with historical sources that are inconsistent, contradictory and not subject to cross-examination or forensic testing. Absent revelation on the matter, which no one claims, at most, the Church can publicly recognize that historical sources describe two kinds of tools. Whether those sources are accurate is a question of the credibility and reliability.

Joseph Smith’s history makes it clear that he received an ancient tool with the gold plates known as the “interpreters,” two transparent stones set in a frame somewhat like spectacles that were had among the ancient Nephites, likely related to the two stones received by the brother of Jared (Ether 3:22–28). The interpreters would eventually be called the Urim and Thummim by Latter-day Saints, and that term was then often used to describe how the Book of Mormon was translated.

Here, Jeff shows he has converted his assumption into a fact by writing the “interpreters would eventually be called the Urim and Thummim.” Eventually?

So far as we know, Joseph did not record Moroni’s statement contemporaneously. If he did, we don’t have that record. Instead, we rely on what he related later about all the early events of the Restoration. Those later recollections have Moroni calling the interpreters Urim and Thummim. If Joseph reported that accurately, then the interpreters were not called Urim and Thummim “eventually” but at the outset.

Already we see that Jeff rejects what Joseph told us. And this is just the beginning.

We can’t lose sight of what Joseph wrote specifically about this issue when responding to ongoing confusion about the translation in the Elders Journal in 1838.

Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the Book of Mormon?

Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the Book of Mormon   was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me and told me where they were and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates and thus came the Book of Mormon.

(Elders’ Journal I.3:42 ¶20–43 ¶1)

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/11 

Jeff forgot to quote or even mention what Joseph published in the Elders’ Journal.

We can all see that Joseph’s statement here uses the exact phrase Moroni used when he first met Joseph and told him he had the privilege “to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/68

But the historical record adds a complex wrinkle that some Latter-day Saints did not know about. After the loss of the 116 manuscript pages,² the plates and presumably the Urim and Thummim were taken away from Joseph. After the items were returned to Joseph, multiple witness accounts indicated that he translated with the aid of a different revelatory tool, a seer stone he had previously found.

Here we have more assumptions portrayed as fact. First, Jeff assumes that what the witnesses said they saw was the actual translation. But none of them said what, exactly, Joseph dictated on the occasions they claimed to observe. None of them specified when and where. (Later we’ll discuss Emma’s “Last Testimony” which comes the closest to being specific, although it’s far from that.)

None of the sources Jeff mentions had personal knowledge of the origin of the seer stone they claimed Joseph used. The descriptions of that are compound hearsay.

However it functioned, the seer stone also could be called a Urim and Thummim.

It could be, theoretically, but it was never actually called that. The 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed specifically distinguished the “peep stone” from the Urim and Thummim, as did all the witnesses Jeff cites.

Modern LDS scholars conflate the terms based on a journal entry by Wilford Woodruff in Dec. 1841, but that entry did not involve the “seer stone” at issue because by then, Oliver Cowdery possessed it far from Nauvoo.

This raises troubling questions in the minds of some, though, because of the association of seer stones with folk magic and occult practices.

That may be, but it’s beside the point of our book. We used the term “occult” twice, once to refer to the Stoddard’s book and once in a quotation by Gordon B. Hinckley. That Jeff raises this issue here is a reflection on his own issues, not ours.

We should not be surprised that folk magic and other pagan practices imitate sacred things. Such parallels are found in crystal balls and peep stones posing as revelatory tools akin to variants of the Urim and Thummim. The world of the occult also employs imitations of ancient divine temple themes, including altars, priests, sacrifices, anointings, [Page 171] oaths and covenants, sacred robes, new names, prayer circles, and even temples themselves.

Obviously, this is all beside the point and has nothing to do with our book. It’s merely setup for the SITH (stone-in-the-hat) narrative that Jeff wants to advance.

But the allegations of Joseph’s use of folk magic in producing the Book of Mormon had been such a painful “P.R. issue” in the early days of the Church that there has long been a natural incentive to emphasize the use of the definitely-not-a-peepstone Nephite interpreters with their dual stones as the tool Joseph used, rather than even mention what so many witnesses of the translation of the Book of Mormon also observed—a different, single-stone tool, the seer stone.

This is “embarrassment” narrative, the modern spin some LDS scholars use to justify rejecting what Joseph and Oliver (and their faithful contemporaries) always taught. Far from responding to “a painful ‘P.R. issue,’ Joseph and Oliver were forthright in explaining that Joseph used the interpreters that came with the plates, excluding the possibility that Joseph used a separate seer stone that he found elsewhere. The clarification was essential because of the controversy generated by Mormonism Unvailed, Jonathan Hadley, and others.  

The ”embarrassment” narrative reflects a condescending approach to understanding Joseph and Oliver, as if they were unable to handle the truth and needed to deceive their followers. Royal Skousen famously articulated this narrative when he wrote

"Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading."

While promoters of the “embarrassment” narrative cite some sources to concoct their theories, it amounts to nothing more than projection; i.e., these scholars imagine what they would have done if they were in the shoes of Joseph and Oliver. But obviously they are not. Instead, they simply assume that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone and then try to justify their condescension by concocting what they think is a plausible explanation. Far better to just lay out the facts and then explain their assumptions, inferences and theories so everyone can make informed decisions.

Even for readers already familiar with the controversy, I believe the following passage from the Church’s statement, “Book of Mormon Translation,” provides good background for the main problem that Lucas and Neville are trying to resolve:

It has become standard practice for SITH scholars to cite this essay. Apparently they’ve all adopted Brant Gardner’s view: "The Church’s essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon is as close to canonical as the official Church gets."

Brant Gardner, like Jeff, is an “Interpreter,” so their deference to the essay makes sense. It was written by their friends and colleagues.

But these essays were never intended to supplant the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, and authentic historical records. They are subject to change (improvement) and have been changed from time to time, without notice or documentation. They are also subject to discussion and analysis. IOW, they are not sacrosanct, as we’ll see.

Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote of two instruments used in translating the Book of Mormon.

I’ve pointed out the factual and rhetorical fallacy of this statement in my critiques of this essay, so I won’t do that again here except for the most egregious examples, such as this sentence.

First, there are zero accounts of Joseph Smith writing “of two instruments used in translating the Book of Mormon.”

Second, we have accounts from four scribes: Oliver, John, Emma, and Martin. But contrary to the sentence, only two ever wrote anything about the translation: Oliver and Emma. Oliver’s writing has been canonized in JS-H. Emma’s writing was a sentence in a letter when she expressed vague memories about the topic.

Third, Oliver and John both said Joseph used the U&T and never mentioned a seer stone. Martin always said Joseph used the U&T except for one account we’ll discuss later, but he also always distinguished between the U&T and the seer stone. Emma likewise distinguished between the U&T and the seer stone (we’ll discuss her accounts later).

This statement would be factual if it read “Two of Joseph Smith’s scribes mentioned two instruments they claimed were used in translating the Book of Mormon. Joseph and his other two scribes always said Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and never mentioned a separate seer stone.”

But we can all see that the essay was written to accommodate modern theories of the scholars who promote the SITH narrative.

According to witnesses of the translation, when Joseph looked into the instruments, the words of scripture appeared in English.

Here again we have the assumption that what these witnesses claimed they saw was the translation, despite the lack of specificity about what they heard Joseph translate, or when, or where.

One instrument, called in the Book of Mormon the “interpreters,” is better known to Latter-day Saints today as the “Urim and Thummim.”

This is misleading because it was far “better known” to Latter-day Saints during Joseph’s lifetime than it is today. And that’s because Joseph himself called it that and said that’s what Moroni called it.

Joseph found the interpreters buried in the hill with the plates. Those who saw the interpreters described them as a clear pair of stones bound together with a metal rim. The Book of Mormon referred to this instrument, together with its breastplate, as a device “kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord” and “handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages.”

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”

This, of course, is hearsay based on a variety of accounts, none by Joseph.

As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure. As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.

This is outright mindreading, unsupported by anything other than academic theories, yet it is stated as fact.

Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters.

This is based solely on the dubious hearsay attributed to Martin Harris, yet it is stated as a fact.

These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in [Page 172] the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.

This never once occurred. It is conjecture based solely on the 1841 Woodruff journal entry, which did not mention the translation of the plates. Brigham Young’s account of the same meaning shows Joseph Smith clearly differentiated between the Urim and Thummim he used to translate the plates and the seer stone he showed in Nauvoo in December 1841.

The sentence mingles an entirely different concept from 1844’s D&C 130, in which Joseph referred to individual seer stones and planets respectively as “a U&T.”

In ancient times, Israelite priests used the Urim and Thummim to assist in receiving divine communications. Although commentators differ on the nature of the instrument, several ancient sources state that the instrument involved stones that lit up or were divinely illumined. Latter-day Saints later understood the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer exclusively to the interpreters.

Here again we have the “later” narrative, despite what Joseph said.

Joseph Smith and others, however, seem to have understood the term more as a descriptive category of instruments for obtaining divine revelations and less as the name of a specific instrument.³

The “seem to have understood” rhetoric contradicts what Joseph actually wrote when he specified the U&T came with the plates.

The problem is that many Latter-day Saints in recent decades were only aware of the “main” Urim and Thummim as the apparently sole tool for translation of the Book of Mormon.

How is it a problem that Latter-day Saints (not only in recent decades but from the earliest days of the restoration) were “only aware” of what Joseph and Oliver taught? Jeff’s framing is inaccurate anyway, because as we see in the 1834 Mormonism Unvailed, the dual narratives were widely known.

For some, learning that there was another stone like the “ordinary” folk magic stones was troubling.

Joseph’s possession of another stone was not troubling; even Joseph Fielding Smith discussed the seer stone. What was troubling is the claim that Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone about the translation, as Skousen articulated. Obviously, when LDS SITH scholars teach that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the translation (as well as the location of Cumorah), they are corroborating claims of critics that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the other events (restoration of Priesthood, temple keys, etc.) The fact that the SITH scholars rely heavily on David Whitmer, who also denied the restoration of the Priesthood, only reinforces the critical position.

Lucas and Neville feel a need to come to the rescue with a theory aimed at defending our prophets and apostles from the work of critics and questionable voices within the Church introducing dangerous new ideas.

This, again, is Jeff projecting. We don’t see modern LDS SITH scholars as “introducing dangerous new ideas” because these ideas have been around since at least 1834. We’re just pointing out that Joseph and Oliver addressed these ideas back then and the SITH scholars are rejecting what they said not because the historical sources require them to do so, but because they simply weigh the evidence against Joseph and Oliver. We want to show that the evidence that supports Joseph and Oliver is compelling and rational.

The authors insist that we need to believe the (early) prophets and accept that the translation was only done by the one true “Urim and Thummim”—the Nephite interpreters—and not some other seer stone.

This is defensive Jeff thinking he is reading our minds. We insist nothing. We emphasized repeatedly that people can believe whatever they want. We simply made a case for the reliability and credibility of what Joseph and Oliver always taught.

The authors strive to pin nearly all the blame on David Whitmer for the concept of using a seer stone for translating the Book of Mormon.

Now I’m wondering whether Jeff actually read the book or is just repeating the SITH talking points. We pointed out that Mormonism Unvailed articulated SITH in 1834, long before David Whitmer ever did. Jeff either didn’t know or forgot to mention that point in our book.

He certainly has the largest body of statements about what Lucas and Neville have dubbed the “stone-in-the-hat theory.”

It has been called SITH for many years already. The Interpreters avoid the acronym, but they haven’t proposed a better one.

His views are often cited by others, but he is definitely not the only source testifying to Joseph using the seer stone.

Again I wonder, did Jeff even read the book? We discussed all the SITH sources.

Royal Skousen’s work on the witnesses to the translation will be discussed shortly, but for now it’s useful to consider an explanation that he gave to a reader who seemed to be promoting the theories of Lucas and Neville regarding seer stones:

Okay, this is awesome. I’ve done a separate review of Skousen’s Part Seven where he promotes SITH by ignoring statements that contradict his theories and by applying his own standards of evidence inconsistently to reach his conclusions. But let’s look at this specific answer.

To be specific: it isn’t just the Whitmers (David and Elizabeth); there are six other independent accounts of Joseph Smith using the seer stone. Three of them were never Mormons. [Page 173] Why should they all be lying; what’s the motive here, especially from two teenagers (at the time)?

To say “independent” is itself an assumption. Actually, Skousen himself gives us an example of how witnesses commonly collude and/or reinforce one another’s testimony (the walls of Jerusalem story). This is why police question suspects separately. It’s not that witnesses are necessarily lying because memory is flexible and fluid. But witnesses “remember” things from suggestion, such as when someone else says something that they want to corroborate. “Never Mormons” is hardly an exemption from bias, either. And what age group lies more than teenagers?

It's the pure deference to these sources that is puzzling from an academic perspective.

Does Joseph Smith have a motive (and Oliver Cowdery) for avoiding any mention of the seer stone? Yes, because Joseph used it for treasure hunting, and he wants to avoid that virulent discussion. All the anti-Mormon works at the time attacked him for using the seer stone for that purpose. They still do.⁴

This is the “embarrassment” narrative we already discussed. Skousen, like other SITH advocates, states these things as facts instead of admitting he is merely mind-reading and making assumptions and inferences. 

Regardless of who claimed to see the seer stones in use, Lucas and Neville claim that 1) only Joseph and Oliver should be trusted as they were the ones directly involved with the translation (though other scribes such as Emma also made statements supporting Joseph’s use of a seer stone),

Yet again, I wonder if Jeff read the book. We discuss the relative credibility and reliability of all the witnesses, not just Joseph and Oliver. And notice Jeff writing “other scribes such as Emma” as if there are other scribes who agreed with her.

and 2) the claims of using a seer stone are understandable for they arise from seeing Joseph deceptively “demonstrate” the translation process by using a seer stone in a hat to give people an idea (a rather false idea, unfortunately) of what using the Urim and Thummim to translate sort of looked like.

Jeff is projecting here. He frames the “demonstration” as deceptive, which is not what we proposed and doesn’t make sense anyway. This framing is purely and solely a SITH talking point. And how would the demonstration give people a “false idea” when the SITH advocates claim the U&T and seer stone worked in exactly the same way?

It’s a simple concept. Joseph was commanded not to show the U&T or plates, but his supporters wanted to know what he was doing. Zenas Gurley, who interviewed all these witnesses, concluded that Joseph used the seer stone to “satisfy the awful curiosity” of his followers, but used the U&T to translate. No deception involved.

The “Demonstration Hypothesis” described by Lucas and Neville (pp. 82–86) strikes me as far more troubling than claims about using a seer stone to receive actual revelation. But while it seems like an unfortunate detour, it is really a key path toward their objective of denouncing the theory to which they assign the ominous acronym of “SITH” (Stone In The Hat).

Okay, by now we know the Interpreters dislike the acronym, but as for denouncing it, that’s Jeff’s framing, not ours.

While the Demonstration Hypothesis seeks to guide readers into ignoring what they’ve read about the use of seer stones since they were just a prop used for a fake demonstration and not for real translation, the authors go on to explain how real translation was done.

Wow, this is really detached. If we wanted readers to ignore the SITH statements, why would we list them and go through them in detail?

This strikes me as projection by Jeff. At some level, he surely realizes that the Gospel Topics Essay ignore what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation, as does the Saints book and other materials and books prepared by SITH proponents. The SITH advocates seem determined to “de-correlate” what Joseph and Oliver said.

In light of evidence that Joseph was a seer and saw something in the translators, they conclude that he had to see something in English, but not enough to just easily dictate the text.

Precisely. That’s why it was “hard work” and why he had to “study it out in his mind.” Joseph never gave an indication that he was a rote reciter.

What he saw was a crude, possibly literal translation—I prefer the term “fractional translation” to indicate that only a fraction of the heavy lifting was done by Urim and Thummim.

Jeff think this is a descriptive term, but it’s meaningless because a fraction can be anywhere from 1% to 99%.

This way he still had to exert great effort and “study it out” in his mind (Doctrine & Covenants 9:8) to obtain the complete translation expressed in his own dialect, grammar errors and all.

Yes, well said. Also, since we’re quoting scripture, “after the manner of his language.”

Fractional translation raises another set of problems on its own.

Will Jeff specify what fraction he’s thinking of, or is he going to leave it vague?

But long before the authors get so far afield with questionable peripheral theories to try to explain away counterevidence and meet the constraints that they perceive, they do provide an initial argument [Page 174] for the use of only one translation device that seems simple and reasonable, and may be the main appeal of the book for some readers. They explain that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery both wrote letters indicating that the translation was done using the Urim and Thummim (pp. 5–10).

These are the formally published and signed statements (not merely personal letters as Jeff implies) that the GTE, Saints, and other materials written by SITH scholars omit (or censor, depending on how we want to characterize it).

The authors show statements and cite several sources arguing that the term Urim and Thummim was generally understood to be the Nephite interpreters (pp. 95–97). The authors then argue that only the Nephite interpreters were used based on these statements (pp. 77–80, 95–110).

We don’t argue that. We simply relate what Joseph and Oliver actually claimed.

Since Joseph and Oliver knew best, we should reject other voices with other theories and accounts.

Yes. That should be axiomatic. It’s the same with the restoration of the Priesthood, the temple keys, and, for that matter, the Hill Cumorah. Joseph and Oliver were the only participants in these things and knew them best.

Some readers will find this appealing and comforting—respect the prophets, reject the scholars and apologists (the two sets of bad actors frequently chastised in the book).

This is the defensive Jeff the interpreter acting out. We never once suggested that anyone reject “scholars and apologists,” nor did we characterize them as “bad actors.” It’s their arguments and poor analysis of the historical record that we focused on.

What seems unresolved is how this approach squares with respect for today’s prophets and apostles who find the historical evidence compelling that a seer stone as well as the Nephite translators were involved in Joseph’s work.

Now this akin to the Skousen/Gardner statements. Jeff and his fellow Interpreters are now on record claiming that Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone about the translation. Here, Jeff shoves that claim onto the shoulders of Church leaders, which I suspect they would find uncomfortable, if not outrageous.

We all know the essay, the Saints books, and other materials have been written by scholars and published anonymously.

Maybe Jeff has polled the prophets and apostles so he knows their personal views. I haven’t. But that doesn’t matter because no one is claiming any revelation on this topic. This is purely an academic analysis.

Church leaders rely on experts to plan, finance and construct temples and other buildings. They rely on experts to create and administer IT systems, farms and distribution, and myriad other activities. Experts in all these fields sometimes make mistakes that have to be corrected. Historians are no different. (Even Interpreters make mistakes sometimes, despite the arrogant assumption of an organizational name that implies they have special powers of interpretation.)

It seems unlikely that any professional historian would consider his/her current theories as set in stone, impervious to further analysis, consideration, interpretation, or even discovery. Yet this is the essence of Jeff’s argument here.

And on that claim, I couldn’t disagree more.

Those statements from Joseph and Oliver do not explicitly say that Joseph only used the Nephite Urim and Thummim (the two stones set in a frame like spectacles) and do not rule out the possibility of also using another Urim and Thummim in the form of a seer stone.

This is a rhetorical “what is the definition of ‘is’” argument. Anyone can read the statements on their face, or even better in context, and understand the plain meaning of what Joseph and Oliver wrote.

As an aside, I agree with Lucas and Neville as they make the reasonable assumption that the Nephite interpreters held by king Mosiah₂ and used to translate the Jaredites plates, described as “two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow” (Mosiah 28:13), were the Jaredite interpreters (or made therefrom) and the same ones that were delivered to Joseph Smith (pp. 87–88). However, Lucas and Neville do not address the problem that comes with this natural assumption: If Mosiah₂’s interpreters are the same as the two stones the Lord gave to the brother of Jared and the “interpreters” mentioned in Alma 37:21–25, then how did Mosiah₂ obtain them, given that they were mentioned by Ammon to king Limhi in Mosiah 8:13 before the plates of Ether were brought back to be translated by Mosiah₂?

Alma 37 originally referred to directors, not interpreters. That change was made in the 1920 edition.

They didn’t come to him with Ether’s plates. John Tvedtnes raised three possibilities: 1) the Lord could have simply given them to Mosiah₂, 2) the Nephites found them, or 3) they came into possession of the Mulekites somehow, who gave them to Mosiah₂.⁵ Brant Gardner also [Page 175]discusses the issue in his detailed six-volume commentary and finds Tvedtnes’s suggestions plausible.⁶

Or Coriantumr had them when he met the people of Zarahemla.

This problem may be best resolved by Don Bradley’s findings in The Lost 116 Pages, where he explores the provenance of the Nephite interpreters and points to a clue from the Fayette Lapham interview of Joseph Smith regarding an event that may have been described on the lost initial portion of the Book of Mormon translation (commonly called the “lost 116 pages”).

Don’s theories, as interesting as they are, are not “findings.”

That clue suggests that Mosiah₁ may have found the Jaredite interpreters (possibly with the sealed record of the brother of Jared, distinct from the twenty-four plates of Ether) while leading his people from the land of Nephi to Zarahemla.⁷ This approach would fall under Tvedtnes’s proposal #2. I find Bradley’s proposal reasonable and seemingly capable of resolving several problems with its explanatory power, but it is still speculative. The important, thing, though, is that Joseph received the Nephite interpreters, whatever their source, though it seems likely that they were connected to the stones the brother of Jared received.

Yes, that’s the important thing. They were preserved with the records specifically so the records could be translated using them. They were superfluous if all a translator needed was a seer stone he found in a well.

As Lucas and Neville observe, the statements mentioning the Urim and Thummim from Oliver and Joseph give no hint about the use of a single seer stone in a hat. The challenge comes when squaring those statements with many other statements, especially from witnesses of the translation process and people quoting what they said they heard from Joseph and Oliver.

Yes, this is exactly the challenge.

When Lucas and Neville seek to resolve those issues, the effort becomes problematic.

Jeff announces the effort at resolution “becomes” problematic, but then reaches back 100 years to show it has long been problematic.

When they then propose speculative details for how the translation was done, while chastising apologists and professors for proposing other possibilities, they get even further off track. To properly understand the project of Lucas and Neville, it is helpful to recall a related project over a century ago.

B.H. Roberts Revisited

The authors view the use of seer stones for translation as the modern mischief of unfaithful apologists and scholars seeking to embrace troubling secular teachings that can shatter delicate testimonies.

Jeff’s defensiveness surfaces throughout his review. Apparently he think that if he keeps repeating his own framing, his readers will infer, incorrectly, that we called any scholars unfaithful or apostate. But, to repeat, we noted the “mischief” began as early as 1834’s Mormonism Unvailed, which is why Joseph and Oliver were explicit about the U&T. We also discussed the 1829 Jonathan Hadley article.

They view the notion of Joseph reading a finished translation in seer stones or even the Nephite interpreters as a harmful doctrine that undercuts his role as a prophet. Over a hundred years ago, Latter-day Saint [Page 176] General Authority B.H. Roberts had similar concerns, not about new-fangled theories from apostate scholars,

We’re not saying SITH is “new-fangled.” Jeff’s incantation of this SITH narrative is lamentable.

but about the widespread traditional views about the translation process—namely, the old notion, even the original notion, that Joseph’s use of translation tools allowed him to read the finished translation. Roberts is quoted several times by Lucas and Neville, but the historical context of Robert’s reformation campaign seems to be absent.

One source that provides the background story involving B.H. Roberts is cited by the authors, a chapter by John-Charles Duffy on the “Book of Mormon Translation” Gospel Topics Essay.⁸ However, Duffy is only cited as an example of another “critique” of the “Book of Mormon Translation” essay, when it might better be described as an article simply pointing out the conservative nature of the essay and its emphasis on seeing the translation rather than Joseph composing it himself. An especially valuable part of Duffy’s work is setting the historical stage for the controversy raised by the seer stones. Duffy reminds us that B.H. Roberts, one of the seven presidents of the Seventy at the time, managed to get permission from the First Presidency to publish his innovative but controversial theory on Book of Mormon translation in the 1903–1904 lesson manual for the Church’s young men’s organization.⁹ Due to its presence in a Church manual, this theory became known as the “Manual Theory.”

Much like the Gospel Topics essay, Roberts drew on nineteenth-century witnesses to affirm that Smith had translated the Book of Mormon with the aid of two different interpretive instruments: the Urim and Thummim and a seer stone. But that was not the innovative or controversial part of Roberts’s theory; in 1903, the seer stone was still familiar to LDS readers.

It was familiar to LDS readers primarily because it was publicized by David Whitmer. Emma’s “Last Testimony” was on the front page of the Deseret News. But Church leaders, including those who knew Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, invariably reiterated the U&T narrative with no mention of the seer stone. See https://www.mobom.org/urim-and-thummim-in-lds-general-conference 

What was innovative was that Roberts rejected what he called “the popular understanding among the Latter-day Saints” of how Smith had used the interpretive instruments. The popular understanding was that Smith looked [Page 177] into the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone and saw an English translation, which he then dictated word for word to his scribe. As Roberts described—pejoratively—this scenario: “the instruments did all, while he who used them did nothing but look and repeat mechanically what he saw there reflected.” Instead, Roberts argued for a scenario in which Smith looked at the ancient characters through the instruments, “bending every power of his mind to know the meaning thereof,” and then received mental impressions, which he had to render into “such language as [he] could command, in such phraseology as he was master of.”

In the popular scenario, Smith read an English translation that appeared to him in the interpreters; in Roberts’s new scenario, Smith composed the translation based on mental impressions he received from God. In Roberts’s scenario, the language of the English translation originated with Smith, not with the interpreters. That distinction was crucial for Roberts because it explained “the faulty English” that peppered the original edition of the Book of Mormon. It also accounted, Roberts argued, “for the sameness of phraseology and literary style which runs through the whole volume” even though the Book of Mormon supposedly contains writings by multiple ancient authors. In other words, Roberts’s aim was apologetic: he urged the LDS to abandon the idea of a read translation in favor of a composed translation in order to answer challenges to the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. Why would a revealed text contain faulty grammar? Why does the supposedly multi-authored book have only one authorial voice? Roberts’s answer: Because the language of the translation was Smith’s own, not a divine dictation.

Roberts’s composed-translation scenario “gave rise to considerable discussion within the Church,” as Roberts described the controversy later. Concerned readers of the manual wrote letters to the young men’s organization and to the church-run Deseret News. The Deseret News published an editorial supporting Roberts’s scenario, while Roberts himself responded to critics in a series of articles published [Page 178]in three issues of the church magazine Improvement Era in 1906.¹⁰

Roberts’s approach was not driven by data, but by an apologetic goal of defending Joseph from some misguided criticisms of his day.

Wait a minute. Roberts’ data was the language in the text. What other data is there than that (apart from the language in the D&C)?

By understanding the errors in his assumptions and approach, we can better understand some fundamental flaws in the logic of Lucas and Neville, who in part are reinventing Roberts’s solution for similar reasons, with some similar errors, albeit with an important difference: Roberts was rejecting the traditional view of the translation of the Book of Mormon in saying that it would denigrate Joseph to have simply read the translation, while Lucas and Neville believe their similar approach is restoring the traditional view of the translation process.

Study what in your own mind? The problem with Roberts’s application of Doctrine & Covenants 9:7–9

What bothered Roberts was not the use of seer stones, but the traditional (relative to that time) understanding that Joseph saw the translation in English (or in intelligible English, unlike the crude relatively literal translation imagined by Lucas and Neville). Roberts felt that Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9 clearly showed how translation was done: it occurred in Joseph’s mind, the fruit of arduous study and inspired notions that required Joseph to compose the whole of the translation. This was needed to explain the presumed bad grammar of the dictated Book of Mormon and several elements he felt were anachronistic.

At least since the time of the Manual Theory proposed by Roberts, that passage has often been applied to suggest that Joseph needed to study the characters of the Book of Mormon—and later the Egyptian text of the Joseph Smith Papyri involved in the production of the Book of Abraham—in order to propose a translation aided somehow by impressions of the Spirit, as if many days of effort might be needed to even get a start in translating an unknown script.

Here we should point out that Joseph himself said he copied and translated the characters, an effort that would be pointless if he was merely reading words off a stone.

B.H. Roberts wrote the following in the Improvement Era in 1906 concerning Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9:

This is the Lord’s description of how Oliver Cowdery could have translated with the aid of Urim and Thummim . . . and it is undoubtedly the manner in which Joseph Smith did [Page 179] translate the Book of Mormon through the medium of Urim and Thummim. This description of the translation destroys the theory that the Urim and Thummim did everything, and the seer nothing; that the work of translating was merely a mechanical process of looking at a supplied interpretation, in English, and reading it off to an amanuensis. This description in the Doctrine and Covenants implies great mental effort; of working out the translation in the mind, and securing the witness of the Spirit that the translation is correct.¹¹

But no such monumental effort appears to have been needed or noted. When Joseph Smith first got his hands on some of what came to be known as the Joseph Smith papyri, for example, the next morning he already had several pages of translation:

Now Jeff switches horses to the Book of Abraham, an entirely separate topic.

Arriving in Kirtland with his Egyptian artifacts, Chandler stayed at the Riggs hotel and requested an audience with Joseph Smith. According to a later recollection of John Riggs, he “was present when the Prophet first saw the papyrus from which is translated the Book of Abraham.” In examining the papyrus, the Mormon prophet was struck by what he perceived as a similarity between some of the Egyptian characters and characters of “Reformed Egyptian” that he had previously copied from the gold plates. Smith was given permission to take the papyrus home; and “the morning following Joseph came with the leaves he had translated.”¹²

Many indications suggest that Joseph’s translations—whether of the Bible, Egyptian papyri, other missing ancient texts, or of the Book of Mormon—did not require a lengthy period of study.

Again, another straw man distraction. No one suggests Joseph had to learn the language through scholarly means. He explained that he copied the characters and translated them by means of the U&T.

True, Joseph and his peers did apply manual effort in an attempt to understand Egyptian in association with the translation of the Book of Abraham, [Page 180] but abundant evidence shows that this effort drew upon the already translated text rather than seeking to decipher Egyptian as a prelude to translation.¹³

Jeff insists on digressing…

Translation could happen quickly. The claim that he was slowly working everything out in his mind, seeking to decipher characters, and then using his own words to create the text does not fit the numerous statements of witnesses nor the meticulous analysis of the resulting texts and documents.

This is another straw man argument. Although David Whitmer explained it was “hard work,” no one (at least not Jim and I) suggests that Joseph had to “slowly” work everything out in his mind or seek to decipher characters. That’s not what we proposed in the book, which Jeff would know if he actually read it.

Significant data bring together many convergent lines of analysis showing that there must have been a high level of control over the text that allows, for example, numerous traces of ancient word plays to be preserved,¹⁴ allusions to other texts within and outside the Book of Mormon to be made with precision, and influences from the brass plates to be dramatically preserved.¹⁵ 

A few sentences ago Jeff said Roberts had no data, but now he points to “significant data” which consists of nothing more than the text and a variety of analyses/interpretations of the text. While Jeff’s claims here may be relevant to defend against claims that Joseph composed the text, all of the “significant data” he cites would exist if Joseph actually translated the plates, as he claimed.

Most of these would be obscured if the wording were all up to Joseph.

This is mere assumption, but not an unreasonable assumption if Joseph composed the text. But it’s a foolish assumption if he translated the text; i.e., if Joseph translated the text, the wording was not “all up to Joseph.”

Further, there is compelling data from Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen that the words Joseph spoke in dictating the Book of Mormon were not his own dialect and, in fact, were not bad grammar, as B.H. Roberts [Page 181] mistakenly thought and as Lucas and Neville repeat.¹⁶ 

The Skousen/Carmack theory is flawed because, among other reasons, they

(i)                  merely made assumptions about Joseph’s “own dialect” because there are no other verbatim records of how he spoke, apart from the text and a few revelations that contain the same “dialect”

(ii)                oddly relied on databases of published material to assess a verbatim transcript of dictation that, unlike published material, was not edited or even punctuated.

Just as the KJV has Early Modern English grammar and words that were already non-standard in Joseph’s day, the influences on Joseph’s dictation include Early Modern English that often predates the Bible.

To say the KJV English was “already non-standard in Joseph’s day” is astonishing, given that the KJV was the most widely read and quoted text. Schoolchildren memorized long passages from the KJV. It was part of everyday speech.

We don’t know why, but extensive data shows that he was not using his own dialect nor simplistically mimicking the KJV.

There is zero data that “he was not using his own dialect” because there are no verbatim records of his “own dialect” other than the text. The “extensive data” on that point is a charade, but the Carmack/Skousen data is useful to show that Joseph was not solely copying the KJV (although he did incorporate much of it). Indeed, much if not most of the nonbiblical Book of Mormon vocabulary and phrases is found in the work of Jonathan Edwards, including paraphrases of Biblical passages that appear in the Book of Mormon.

Something else was going on that defies the model of Joseph as composer of the verbiage used in the text.

I think we all agree that the evidence contradicts claims that Joseph composed the text. But the evidence strongly supports him as the translator.

Lucas and Neville dismiss the work of Carmack and Skousen, but have completely failed to engage with the extensive data.

We hardly “completely failed to engage” with their work. Once we pointed out the fundamentally flawed assumptions and methodology they employed, there wasn’t much reason to get into the details of their conclusions. Besides, Skousen’s Part Seven shows how he manipulated the historical record to support his conclusions. That casts serious doubt on the objectivity of his analysis of the text.

Lucas and Neville claim that the work of those who propose that Joseph read the translation instead of constantly composing the language himself are driven by a dangerous apologetic agenda (pp. 21–24; cf. p. 113), which is not true.

This is defensive Jeff again. We never stated, suggested, or implied that Joseph was “constantly composing the language himself.” Instead, we argue against composition. A translator doesn’t compose the language; Joseph’s translation was constrained to the original engravings on the plates.

It was the data that led Skousen and Carmack to their observations, not a previously conceived agenda.

This is Jeff mind-reading. Anyone can read Part Seven and observe that Skousen’s treatment of the historical sources is outcome-driven.

The reasons for the observed patterns are unclear, but the benefits of Early Modern English grammar for precision of meaning when translating complex sentences to other languages has been offered as a possible [Page 182] benefit for the large presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon.¹⁷

Lots of theories are possible (multiple working hypotheses), but the simplest is that given in D&C 1:24, as we saw above:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24)

Let’s postulate that Joseph was inspired to employ “Early Modern English grammar.” If so, it was “after the manner of their language” and, rather than introduce complexity and confusion, was done “that they might come to understanding.” While this contradicts the Skousen/Carmack assumption that Joseph didn’t use such grammar as part of his “own dialect,” D&C 1:24 says the opposite. And D&C 1:24 makes the most sense anyway.  

Returning to Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9, the laborious process that would result if the passage really described how Joseph Smith translated has no support from the scribes or other witnesses of Joseph Smith’s translation.

Now Jeff repeats another SITH talking point, that to “study it out in your mind” is a “laborious process.” Every word any person writes or speaks originated in the mind. Sometimes we speak with barely a thought. Other times we contemplate and consider alternative expressions before committing to voice or hand. But the “speed of thought” is virtually instantaneous and anyone who has translated knows that some passages go quickly, while others take more deliberation.

Here is another instance when Lucas and Neville would have done well to pay more attention to modern scholarship. In a 2016 paper at Interpreter, Stan Spencer provided detailed analysis of this commonly misinterpreted passage, yielding the following summary:

As usual, Interpreters citing other Interpreters as if this appeal to authority means anything. Let’s join Jeff and look at Stan’s analysis.

Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9 is conventionally interpreted as the Lord’s description of the method by which the Book of Mormon was translated. A close reading of the entire revelation, however, suggests that the Lord was not telling Oliver Cowdery how to translate but rather how to know whether it was right for him to translate and how to obtain the faith necessary to do so.¹⁸

Sure, Stan’s “suggestion” is one of multiple working hypotheses. It’s probably persuasive to a SITH sayer such as Jeff; IOW, good bias confirmation, which explains why the Interpreter published it. Which is fine. But we can all read it for ourselves and see whether Stan’s suggestion is the most plausible.

Spencer begins by offering four reasons to question the traditional interpretation:

First, neither study nor spiritual confirmation is mentioned as a requirement for translating in the instructions to Oliver Cowdery in section 8 or anywhere else in scripture.

No, but we do know that Joseph said he began by copying and translating the characters, which constitutes studying by any definition. And Oliver was authorized to translate so he did need guidance on how to do it and what he was doing wrong as provided by D&C 9.

Second, before his attempt to translate, Oliver Cowdery had been promised that he would be able to translate “according to [his] faith” (D&C 8:11). Based on this promise, his lack of success would have been due to lack of faith, not improper technique.

That hardly follows logically. Faith is the precursor, the first principle of the gospel. But faith by itself is nothing. Even the second principle requires action (baptism) which can be nullified by “improper technique.” Even if you believe SITH, faith alone would not suffice. You have to at least take the action of looking at the stone.

Third, Doctrine and Covenants 9:5 observes that Oliver Cowdery “began to translate,” which suggests that he [Page 183] actually did translate and must have known how to do so.

Yes, exactly.

Fourth, Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 indicates the need to “study it out” and ask “if it be right,” but there is no obvious antecedent for the pronoun it in the revelation that is consistent with the conventional theory.¹⁹

If there is no “obvious antecedent,” then Stan’s speculations are merely that: speculation. But the preceding verse provides an obvious antecedent: “you have supposed that I would give it unto you…” meaning the translation.

Spencer then carefully explores the antecedents for “it” in these verses and determines that the most reasonable interpretation is that the issue is not how to translate, but whether it was the Lord’s will for Oliver to translate.

Stan’s claim never made sense to me because it was explicitly the Lord’s will for Oliver to translate, and the Lord then explicitly “took away this privilege.” There was nothing to deliberate about. There is no suggestion that Oliver irrationally thought the Lord erred by taking away the privilege.

In my view, verses 9-10 removes any doubt that the Lord was explaining the translation process.

therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me. Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now. (Doctrine and Covenants 9:9-10)

Spencer concludes that “Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9 teaches us how to obtain a spiritual confirmation of a righteous desire.”²⁰

That’s a fine conclusion because it draws a general rule from a specific instance, but the specific instance is what Oliver needed to know in order to translate.

This analysis undermines the basis of B.H. Roberts’s attack on the traditional and scriptural teaching that the work of Joseph in the role of a seer included seeing the translation.

This is Jeff’s circular reasoning. The Interpreters are obsessed with defending SITH. Stan’s bias confirmation approach to D&C 9 fits that agenda, so obviously it would undermine Roberts. Otherwise the Interpreter wouldn’t have published it. I used to call this practice the “citation cartel,” but the SITH and M2C scholars got so offended by that term that I stopped using it. But here we see it at work.

His effusive remonstrations about demeaning Joseph if the translation were simply provided to him are also misguided.

If anything is “misguided” here, it is Jeff’s objection. To be clear, I would agree with Jeff if Joseph had claimed he was merely reading words off the stone, but instead he repeatedly claimed he was translating the plates. In fact, the Lord explicitly commanded him to do so: “you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi.” (Doctrine and Covenants 10:41)

Because Jeff rejects this revelation and everything else Joseph said about the translation, it is he and the other SITH advocates who are demeaning Joseph. To repeat Skousen’s highly demeaning conclusion about Joseph and Oliver:

"Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading."

Why complain about the Lord showing a vision to a seer, whether the vision is of the majesties of heaven, the needs of an individual, or a translated sentence of sacred scripture?

A red herring because no one is complaining about this, but in all cases (other than SITH), we only know about these events because the respective prophets (and ministering brothers and sisters) articulate their visions and impressions “according to the manner of their language,” be it French, Chinese, English, or even Early Modern English.

Should we complain that the account of the crossing of the Red Sea demeans Moses if all he had to do was stretch out his staff to have the waters part without first exerting monumental strength to part the waters as much as he could on his own?

This is a non sequitur.

The improved understanding of Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9 also weakens the work of Lucas and Neville, whose work of “restoring translation to the Restoration” involves denouncing a “modern” theory of Joseph reading what he saw—which turns out to be the early, traditional theory of Book of Mormon translation that offended Roberts.

Once again, Jeff repeats the SITH talking points, contrary to what we wrote in the book. All Jeff has to do is read the book.  

What they see as a restoration of tradition is actually a rejection of the traditional view before B.H. Roberts’s day, while also rejecting his Manual Theory’s model of composition without seeing text.

This is Jeff’s attempt to reframe our argument to fit his SITH talking points.

A critical question and Roberts’s critical response

 

In this section, Jeff reverts to an argument Roberts addressed without the benefit of actual translation devices that we have today, so Roberts could not have comprehended how they would function.

A particularly important part of this historical background is that others in B.H. Roberts’s day already proposed the Lucas and Neville model of an imperfect, possibly literal translation being given to Joseph by sight. Roberts considered this and rejected it in light of reasonable concerns. One question that Roberts received was:

[Page 184] May it not have been that the Prophet did see, as related, through the Urim and Thummim the translation of each sentence from the plates into the English language, but in a so-called word for word or literal translation; and from this odd rendering, it became his task to put the sentence into readable English? Taking this view of it, we can account for how the language of the Book of Mormon is in part modern and in part decidedly ancient. The Prophet having used partly the words as they appeared, and, in order to put it into proper form, used or supplied words of his own. This will account for all errors, and place the responsibility for them where it must belong, with man and not with God. It would give due importance and credit to the sacred instruments, and would leave ample scope for the Prophet to exercise his own mental powers.²¹

In other words, the anonymous writer is proposing, in 1906, essentially the same translation model as Lucas and Neville, though without any express objection to a seer stone. Roberts’s response is noteworthy. After first emphasizing the absurdity of a material device having the power to translate—something that Roberts believed could only be possible with the mind—Roberts points out an obvious problem with the literal translation or “fractional translation” hypothesis:

If the Urim and Thummim possessed that intellectual power it must have been conferred upon it of God, and under that supposition, we are brought face to face again with all our old difficulties, chief of which is the question: If God created such an instrument, and conferred upon it the power to give a transliteration of the Nephite characters, how is it that he did not give it the power to translate the meaning into reasonable and readable, not to say perfect English, at first hand, and relieve us from the awkward supposition that the instrument possessed the mental power to make the literal translation from the Nephite language—which Joseph Smith was left to construct into bad English? What would be gained by the adoption of this cumbersome and, pardon me, untenable [Page 185]theory? 

Here Roberts assumes Joseph translated into “bad English” instead of simply acknowledging that Joseph translated “after the manner of his language.”

This argument parallels the point made by Nephi and Moroni, who lamented that they were not “mighty in writing.” And the warning in the Title Page: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God.”

Theoretically, God could dictate to the prophets exactly what to write and thereby make them “might in writing” and completely avoid “the mistakes of men.” But, apart from SITH, there are no scriptural (or modern) examples of God doing this.

For that matter, there is no scriptural, doctrinal, rational, or even plausible basis for SITH being the sole exception to the basic principle that God works through imperfect humans who produce his work according to their own language and understanding.

Seven times in the D&C the Lord directs us to study: “study it out in your mind,” “study my word” (2x), “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (3x), and “study and learn.” Yet the SITH scholars insist that Joseph (and Oliver) translated by a different principle; i.e., all they had to do is have faith and the words would appear on the stone.

Definitely, SITH is one of multiple working hypotheses. In our book we sought to show that a better working hypothesis is that Joseph and Oliver told the truth, but we’re fine with people believing whatever they want.

And again, what occasion for it, when we have the more simple and reasonable theory of the Manual which is in accord with what God has revealed upon the subject, and not necessarily contradictory of what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have said upon the subject? In order that this may appear, I restate the Manual theory: The Prophet saw the Nephite characters in the Urim and Thummim; through strenuous mental effort, the exercise of faith and the operation of the inspiration of God upon his mind, he obtained the thought represented by the Nephite characters, understood them in the Nephite language, and then expressed that understanding, the thought, in such language as he was master of; which language, as his mind by mental processes arranged it, was caught and held to his vision in Urim and Thummim until written by his amanuensis. That leaves all the factors involved in the work of translation in their true relation: The Urim and Thummim an aid to the Prophet in the work, yet not necessarily, and contrary to human experience and knowledge revealed of God, endowed with intellectual power; the mind of the Prophet, touched through his faith by the inspiration of God, the chief factor; the testimony of Messrs. Harris and Whitmer that both Nephite characters and the English translation appeared in the Urim and Thummim, undisturbed and unimpaired.²²

Lucas and Neville are, in a sense, rekindling a debate already waged by B.H. Roberts. They rely on some of the same misunderstandings of scripture and alleged problems in the Book of Mormon, but with added concerns over seer stones that were apparently not taboo in Roberts’s day.

The only “misunderstanding” that Jeff has identified so far arises from his allegiance and deference to Stan Spencer’s theory, but Stan’s interpretation is cramped and outcome-driven to rationalize SITH. Presumably by “alleged problems” Jeff refers to anachronisms, but there is additional data that Roberts didn’t have, including the analytical work of Skousen and Carmack and the apparent influence of Jonathan Edwards and other Christian authors of different denominations with which Joseph had an “intimate acquaintance.”

Jeff apparently forgot to tell us where Roberts faced the Skousen conclusion that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the translation, which is the essence of the “seer stone” issue.

Roberts resolved the concerns before him to achieve an apologetic goal by denying the gift of sight to the seer (no seeing of an English translation—too easy!) and requiring strenuous mental effort to translate characters in the strange way he extracted from Doctrine and Covenants 9.

Exactly. Roberts’ solution differed from ours, so Jeff’s excursion into the Roberts analysis is both inept and irrelevant.

Lucas and Neville have similar goals and constraints, but have recognized the reality of sight in the translation. More generous than Roberts, they allow at least English text to appear as Joseph gazes into the glass, but he sees only darkly as muddled words from a literal or fractional translation of some kind are [Page 186] given.

This is Jeff’s pejorative rhetoric, not ours.

This still leaves us room to admire Joseph for the mighty mental struggle of piecing those clues together to make the literate, consistent, wordplay-rich text of the Book of Mormon—a text that abounds with evidence of different authors, different voices, and literary power far beyond anything Joseph could have accomplished using his language and knowledge.

Again with the SITH talking points that dramatize the “mighty mental struggle” Joseph had to endure to piece “clues” together, all of which diverges from our proposal.

Neither B.H. Roberts nor Lucas and Neville present a theory that makes sense of the scriptures, the witness statements, and the majesty of the Book of Mormon text, though they offer valuable concepts for discussion and debate.

Obviously, we completely disagree with Jeff’s conclusion and conclude that he didn’t read our book or didn’t read it completely. We’re fine with Jeff believing whatever he wants, but to misrepresent our position is unbecoming of any but an Interpreter scholar, for whom such an approach is typical, if not the rule.

Canonized Doctrine?

To Lucas and Neville, their beliefs about the details of the translation is a matter of canonized truth (pp. 2, 7, 13–15, 19, 21, 27, 29, 34, etc.). They state that those who spoke of using a hat were not witnesses to the actual translation and were apparently misled, albeit by Joseph and Oliver.

If we stated that they were misled, Jeff should cite the page. This is another SITH talking point, not a claim we made.

We should rely on selected statements made about using the Urim and Thummim and believe that this can only be the Nephite interpreters. They see their views on how the translation was done as just the simple truth expressed by the canon.

Not “selected statements” but the explicit statements from Joseph and Oliver (and other statements that corroborated what they taught).

Canonized doctrine? Yes, it is true that our canonized account in Joseph Smith—History refers to Joseph receiving the “Urim and Thummim” for the purpose of translating (v. 35, see also vv. 42, 52), which apparently would be later returned with the plates to Moroni (v. 59). But how those tools worked, how the translation was done, and whether or not other seer stones could be used is not a matter settled by the canon.

While anything is possible, and the scriptures relate a miniscule percentage of actual events (even Mormon couldn’t write “the hundredth part”), what we have in the scriptures is sufficient to corroborate what Joseph and Oliver always said; i.e., that he translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

When it comes to such details, the canon is largely silent except for the fact that it was through “the power of God” that the translation was done, for Joseph did not explain what he experienced or how he did the translation.

This truncation of Joseph’s statements is a common rhetorical tactic used by the SITH advocates. We see it in the Gospel Topics Essays and elsewhere. 

The title page of the Book of Mormon simply says this:

To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof— . . . The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

The first question we must ask here is what gift did Joseph receive? Was it the gift to figure out the grammar and vocabulary of a foreign script in his own mind, or the gift of being a seer—i.e., one who has the gift of visions, of seeing.

Alternatively, it was the gift of the interpreters that God prepared for that specific purpose and made sure they were deposited with the plates in the hill Cumorah.

In fact, the scriptures are not silent on [Page 187] this issue. The Book of Abraham gives us insight into the nature of the Urim and Thummim:

And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees;

And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it. (Abraham 3:1–2)

Apparently, words could also be conveyed through the Urim and Thummim, for Abraham writes of what “the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim” (v. 4), but sight is again unambiguously referenced when the Lord says, “Now, Abraham, these two facts exist, behold thine eyes see it” (v. 6).

While not explicitly a reference to a device such as the Urim and Thummim, Moses 6:35–36 describes how Enoch’s eyes were washed and anointed, enabling him to see “things which were not visible to the natural eye,” and thus he was called a “seer.”

These passage are fine, but not relevant.

Lucas and Neville argue that Joseph peered at the plates with the interpreters and did in fact see English text, but only a crude or literal translation that he then needed to express in his own words.

Jeff keeps inserting “crude” to misrepresent our position.

A crude, literal translation, such as a word-for-word translation, is frequently unsuitable for preparing a meaningful translation. So many idiomatic and nuanced concepts are lost when crudely translated, especially when one word can have multiple meanings or when a string of words together has a meaning seemingly unrelated to the sum of the parts (e.g., common sayings such as “putting the cart before the horse”).

Exactly. Hence the requirement for Joseph (and Oliver) to study it out in his mind.

Why would a divine translation not be at least as good as Google Translate or my preferred translation tool, ChatGPT-4o?

Neither of those is translating the reformed Egyptian characters, which left imperfection in the record that Hebrew would have avoided had the plates been large enough to write in Hebrew. Mormon 9:33. And Jeff knows from our time in China that there is no one-to-one translation of Chinese characters, which is why Google translate offers alternative translations.

If English text is going to be displayed, why not make it precise and accurate? This was exactly the question B.H. Roberts asked when a reader proposed that Joseph might have been given a literal translation of some kind that would get him started but still require mental effort, as discussed earlier.

The easy answer is the one the Lord gave; i.e., that Joseph had to render the translation according to his own manner of speaking.

While we don’t have clear statements from Joseph on what he experienced in translating, the Lord added the word “sight” in describing Joseph’s gift of translating: “God had given thee sight and power to translate” (Doctrine and Covenants 3:12). This is, of course, a canonized text indicating that the power to translate is associated with sight. This and other verses in Section 3 are quoted in Lucas and Neville’s [Page 188]Appendix B, but the implications of the word “sight” are not discussed by the authors.

The ”implication” of sight is obvious from the context of D&C 3 as well as what we wrote in the book. Joseph could see a translation in the U&T when he looked on the plates, just as he did when he copied and translated the characters.

Back to the question of what gift Joseph received, Doctrine and Covenants 5:4 addresses the issue of the gift given to Joseph: “you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you.” Stan Spencer made an interesting observation of the implications of Joseph’s “first gift”:

According to this passage, Joseph Smith’s first and only spiritual gift up to that point was the “gift to translate.” Yet, even before he began translating, he was seeing visions (JS-H 1:21–58). It was his claim of seeing visions that provoked the persecution of ministers who believed divine visions had ceased with the apostles (JS-H 1:21–27, 58). If Joseph Smith’s “gift to translate the plates” was his “first gift,” it must have been the same as his gift for seeing visions.²³

This is a good example of the bizarre logic and rephrasing that Stan employs to rationalize SITH. D&C 5:4 does not say this is the “first and only spiritual gift,” despite Stan’s rephrasing. Nor does it say it was the first gift Joseph had ever received “up to that point.”

The context of D&C 3 is the plates and Joseph’s gift to translate them. One interpretation of “gift” in this context could be the U&T itself; i.e., “you have a gift to translate the plates.” This would be consistent with what Moroni told him in the first place when he said he had the privilege “to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.” To clarify, the passage could be understood in terms of a physical gift; i.e., “you have the U&T to translate the plates.” This makes sense also because if “gift” refers solely to a spiritual gift, Joseph had previously enjoyed not only the gift of the First Vision, but the gift of multiple visits with Moroni, the gift of seeing the plates in the stone box, and the gift of other revelations and instructions.

Another plausible interpretation is that the “gift of translation” was the “first gift” God bestowed on Joseph after he received the plates, which fits the context of D&C 3.  

Another insight from Latter-day Saint scriptures comes from the 1843 revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 130:10, an important touchstone on what can be called a Urim and Thummim:

Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known.

This undercuts the notion that all references to the Urim and Thummim in the translation process must refer to only one specific tool, the dual-stone Nephite device.

Jeff creates another straw man “notion” that we never advanced in our book.

Not only does this Urim and Thummim contain a single stone, but there are multiple such devices, delivered to multiple individuals.

More than that,

8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.

9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon

(Doctrine and Covenants 130:8–9)

This usage of the term Urim and Thummim postdates the translation by 14-15 years (and over 100 revelations documented in the D&C). Applying it retroactively to apply to the seer stone contravenes the distinct usage well documented by Mormonism Unvailed. But perhaps it was precisely because of the arguments of modern SITH advocates that Joseph specified not only that he translated by means of the Urim and Thummim, but that it was the very Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. That clarity removes all ambiguity on this issue.

Unless we think, like Skousen and the other SITH advocates, that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone.

Finally, there may be a clue in ancient scripture about the way the translation of the Book of Mormon would work. Stanford Carmack cites three verses from 2 Nephi 27 in the opening words of his 2016 article, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” offering linguistic evidence drawing from Royal Skousen’s work suggesting that Joseph must have seen text rather than formulating it in his own words:

Wait a minute. Jeff has been complaining that we propose Joseph saw a text, but now he’s contesting a straw man argument that Joseph didn’t see text.

[Page 189]Wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee. . . . Wherefore when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee . . . the Lord shall say unto him that shall read the words that shall be delivered him. (2 Nephi 27:20, 22, 24)²⁴

2 Ne 27 involves “the words of a book,” not the words of a stone.  The words on the stone were not “delivered” to Joseph; the plates were.

But the book shall be delivered unto a man, and he shall deliver the words of the book, which are the words of those who have slumbered in the dust, and he shall deliver these words unto another; (2 Nephi 27:9

This passage is consistent with the Lord telling Joseph “you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi.” (Doctrine and Covenants 10:41) The engravings are the words that were delivered to Joseph. He “read the words” by means of the Urim and Thummim prepared for that purpose.

Other verses in 2 Ne 27 warn Joseph against touching the things which are sealed, which is a meaningless warning if Joseph was not translating the engravings on the plates. According to SITH, Joseph didn’t use the plates and was not translating the engravings on them. Thus,  if Joseph dictated the contents of the sealed portion, that would be the fault of SITH, not anything Joseph could have done.

Nothing in 2 Nephi says or even implies that Joseph would read the words off a stone with no reference to the plates as SITH requires.

The coming forth of the Book of Mormon as described in 2 Nephi 27 may indeed indicate that the seer would see the words of the translation, with no hint of seeing them “darkly” in the interpeters’ [sic] glass.

This is strange rhetoric from Jeff. What there is no hint of in the scriptures are the ideas that (i) Joseph would not even use the book that was delivered to him but would instead read words that appeared on a stone, and that (ii) Joseph (and Oliver) would lie about that because they were embarrassed about the stone.

The Demonstration Hypothesis

A major challenge for the “no seer stone, no hat” position held by Lucas and Neville is found in the numerous accounts of Joseph translating using a hat to look at a seer stone. To cope with this, the authors have created a novel theory called the “Demonstration Hypothesis” in which Joseph and Oliver pretended to translate with a seer stone in a hat to satisfy the curiosity of those around them regarding the translation method.

This is another straw man Jeff imagined. Nowhere did we say or imply that Joseph “pretended” to translate.

Since Joseph was forbidden from letting others see the interpreters, he and Oliver would occasionally engage in mock translation with a seer stone and a hat to give others a completely misleading feel for the miraculous translation process.

Further imaginary expansion of Jeff’s straw man.

This novel but strange hypothesis was introduced in a prior book of Neville, A Man That Can Translate, and was rebutted in a book review by Spencer Kraus. The theory clashes with the historical record in several ways.

It’s not a novel hypothesis; Zenas Gurley explained long ago, after personally interviewing the witnesses, that Joseph used the seer stone to “satisfy the awful curiosity” of his followers.

Kraus summarizes:

Neville’s “Demonstration Hypothesis” is explored in A Man That Can Translate, arguing that Joseph recited a memorized text from Isaiah rather than translate Isaiah from the Book of Mormon record. This hypothesis, meant to redefine how Joseph Smith used a seer stone during the translation of the Book of Mormon, however, fails to deal with the historical record seriously or faithfully.

I responded to Kraus before, including in a longer response that the Interpreter refused to publish, so Interpreter readers would be unaware of how Kraus created a straw man here.

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2022/11/my-response-to-kraus-rejoinder.html

He writes, “redefine how Joseph Smith used a seer stone during the translation” but my point was that he did not use the seer stone for the translation. Kraus is so enamored with his assumptions, inferences and theories that he was unable to distinguish them from the available facts.

Neville, in a purported effort to save Joseph Smith’s character, ironically describes Joseph as a liar, reinvigorating old anti-Latter-day Saint claims that Joseph simply recited a memorized text, even to the point that Neville defends hostile sources while targeting Church-published histories and publications.

Anyone who reads the book can see I absolutely did not describe Joseph as a liar. That’s purely Kraus’ invention, which Jeff apparently adopted. And my suggestion about the memorization of parts of Isaiah is manifestly contrary to the claims of anti-Mormons.

I don’t blame Kraus; he wrote his review pursuant to the Dan Peterson/Interpreter school of misrepresentation and animus that he has been trained in and must follow to be published in the Interpreter. But until this review, I thought Jeff would rise above such low forms of apologetics.

He further attacks the witnesses of the translation in an effort [Page 190] to discredit their testimonies regarding the seer stone, and repeatedly misrepresents these sources.²⁵

This is another example of Kraus confusing facts with his assumptions, inferences, and theories. True, some people claimed to be witnesses of the translation, but that claim does not make it so. As I’ve already explained, none of them told us what, exactly, Joseph was dictating in their presence, or even when and where the event occurred. Nowhere did I misrepresent any of the sources; I included them all verbatim in the appendix to make this obvious to every reader but Kraus.

There is no plausible basis for the far-fetched and deceptive mechanism. Indeed, the logic of it seems outlandish. Why not use ordinary spectacles with a book if Joseph translated the way the authors insist that he did? Why mislead others with a seer stone and a hat?

These rhetorical questions answer themselves, as Gurley pointed out long ago.

I appreciate the authors’ intent of defending the Restoration by respecting the words of prophets and apostles, but their approach seems to call for disrespecting modern leaders of the Church who have approved of publications openly discussing the use of a seer stone and a hat for some of the translation process.

Okay, now we’re back to Jeff’s efforts to canonize the anonymous essays written by his cohorts.

The Church’s Gospel Topics Essay, “Book of Mormon Translation,” recognizes Joseph’s statement in the preface of the 1830 Book of Mormon: “I would inform you that I translated [the book], by the gift and power of God.”²⁶ 

That’s a good example of truncating what Joseph wrote to advance an agenda instead of informing readers. Here’s the passage in context:

I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon…

By explaining he “took” the account “from the Book of Lehi,” Joseph refuted claims that had been circulating that he took the account from a stone (or spectacles) in a hat. Because Joseph’s complete statement refutes SITH, the SITH advocates never quote it, and to accommodate SITH, the GTE omits the context of what Joseph wrote in the quoted excerpt.

This essay must offend Lucas and Neville, however, in its teachings on a seer stone being used.

Jeff and other Interpreters frequently talk about “offense,” which is a repeated refrain in the Dan Peterson school of apologetics. The Interpreters take all of these discussions personally, as if they are so wedded to their theories that any criticism is perceived as a personal attack. Hence Jeff’s mind-reading that the GTE “must offend” us, when in reality we’re not offended in the least.

We just think the GTE was poorly written, with factual and logical fallacies, significant omissions of relevant information, and most of all, is subject to improvement, which we hope someone, sometime, makes.

A footnote is provided in the essay in support of the statement that Joseph and his peers used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to a seer stone as well as the Nephite interpreters:

For example, when Joseph Smith showed a seer stone to Wilford Woodruff in late 1841, Woodruff recorded in his journal: “I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM” (Wilford Woodruff journal, Dec. 27, 1841, Church History Library, Salt Lake City). See also Doctrine and Covenants 130:10.²⁷

This is one of my favorite footnotes of all time because it doesn’t support the claim in the GTE and because it omits Brigham Young’s more detailed account of the same event, which directly refutes SITH. Woodruff didn’t even describe what he saw. And delightfully, it begins with “for example,” as if there are other examples (which there are not).

In fact, the main SITH witnesses, David Whitmer and Emma Smith, both clearly and consistently distinguished the U&T from the seer stone, just as Mormonism Unvailed did. This leaves the SITH scholars relying entirely on Woodruff’s brief, vague diary entry to contradict the statements not only of Joseph and Oliver, but of the very witnesses they rely on to establish SITH in the first place.

Wilford Woodruff was an apostle at the time that he bore witness [Page 191] to having seen the “Urim and Thummim” in the form of a singular seer stone. Thus, we have the words of an apostle as well as the words of scripture indicating that the Urim and Thummim can refer to a single stone, not just the Nephite interpreters.

“The words of an apostle” in his private journal hardly supersede the published writings of Joseph and Oliver, not to mention the many other apostles whose published testimonies fill the Conference Reports as they have reaffirmed what Joseph and Oliver taught. This is particularly so when Woodruff’s brief account contradicts Brigham’s more detailed account, in which Joseph specifically distinguished between the Urim and Thummim he used to translate the plates and the seer stone he showed the apostles that day in December. The obvious explanation is that Joseph explained the difference and told the apostles the seer stone is “a U&T,” foreshadowing D&C 130. But nothing in Woodruff’s brief statement suggest or implies that Joseph applied the term retroactively. And as we’ve seen, Joseph foreclosed that line of rationalization by specifying he used the U&T that came with the plates.

Wilford Woodruff’s 1841 statement is important. To their credit, it is at least noted by Lucas and Neville, but only in a footnote, where it is largely dismissed and then misread. To set the stage for an apparent misuse of a reference, it is helpful to consider the context of the paragraph that ends with the problematic footnote:

Craig Ostler, a professor of religious education at Brigham Young University, has undertaken a comprehensive review of descriptions of the instruments used to translate the Book of Mormon. His research shows that until the 1843 revelation, no one used the term “Urim and Thummim“ to mean anything other than the interpreters and that, in fact, in the 1830s and 1840s, almost the only written references to the use of a lone seer stone are from Mormonism Unvailed.[159] Almost all of the seer stone claims do not appear until decades later, and none attempted to conflate the seer stone with the Urim and Thummim until modern scholars needed to confuse the two in order to account for this large time discrepancy between the early accounts of the interpreters and the much later appearance of the seer stone claims. (p. 79)

Footnote 159 refers to “Craig Ostler, ‘Book of Mormon Translation Instrument Descriptions: Interpreters, Urim & Thummim and Seer Stones.’” This is a presentation by Ostler at the April 2020 FIRM Foundation conference, available at https://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/streaming/videos/bom/dr-craig-j-ostler-book-of-mormon-translation-instrument-descriptions_-interpreters-urim-thummim-and-seer-stones/. This video is secured behind a paywall. Searching for written publications with this title has revealed nothing, nor is any seemingly related work listed on Ostler’s biography page at BYU. Such invisibility is not the typical end-product of a comprehensive investigation by a university professor. While whatever Ostler said remains unclear, Lucas and Neville infer that nobody except anti-Mormons referred to seer stones as the Urim and Thummim before 1843 when Doctrine and Covenants 130:10 was given. They try to couch their assertion in non-absolute terms (“. . . almost the only written [Page 192]references . . .”), without discussing those written references—such as Wilford Woodruff’s 1841 statement—that disprove the argument they attempt to make. In any case, Doctrine and Covenants 130:10 makes it clear that the term “Urim and Thummim” can refer to a seer stone.

Okay, now here we have the “such as” phrase that implies there were other references in addition to Woodruff’s. But if there are, they aren’t cited anywhere that I’ve seen. Certainly Jeff didn’t provide them. His use of “such as” is deceptive.

Woodruff’s brief, ambiguous private journal entry is a very thin reed indeed to support the entire SITH narrative and conclude that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone.

In the course of trying to prove that early statements about the translation of the Book of Mormon rule out the possibility that Joseph used seer stones in some way in a significant part of his translation work, they require the faithful reader to believe that Joseph’s widely attested use of seer stones viewed in a hat was a matter of deception.

Again, this is the SITH talking point but not what we proposed.

They propose a mere hypothetical demonstration of the use of the divine interpreters, the Urim and Thummim. Lucas and Neville insist that when Joseph and Oliver talked about the Urim and Thummim, they only meant one thing—the Nephite interpreters.

Jeff persistently repeats these SITH talking points as if repetition will make them convincing, or even plausible. But he just as persistently avoids the simple point that Joseph foreclosed other meanings by saying he used the U&T that came with the plates. No one I’m aware of, not even Jeff, suggests that Moroni included the seer stone with the plates and just forgot to mention that.

Ironically, in their effort to take the words of the prophets and apostles seriously (more specifically, the words of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery), they run the risk of demeaning the words of modern prophets and apostles who have approved publication of information about the use of both the Nephite interpreters and a seer stone in the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Back to the canonization of the GTE, contrary to their purpose as stated in the Introduction.

Twisting and Turning

A frequent frustration for this reader is the way in which counterevidence is often turned about, especially in summary statements, as if it supported the various positions the authors take. These twistings and turnings can be frustrating, if not aggravating.

This is delightful projection by Jeff, who has been doing exactly that throughout this review.

For example, we have a passage discussing what Oliver may have said about the translation method:

Although many speculated about the operation of the interpreters, only the actual translation team—Joseph and possibly Oliver—could speak from firsthand experience. Neither left a formal description of the operation of the interpreters.

However, an 1831 article claimed to relate Oliver’s testimony in a trial that Joseph “found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates.”

[Page 193] And in 1848, as he was returning to the Church, Oliver discussed the subject with Samuel W. Richards. Years later Richards left an account of how he remembered Oliver describing the use of the Urim and Thummim. According to Richards, Oliver said the translation was “done by holding the translators over the words of the written record,” upon which “the translation appears distinctly in the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the purpose of translating languages.”

In both of these cases, it is not clear whether Oliver spoke as an eyewitness, inferred what he thought Joseph saw, or was reporting what Joseph told him.

Regardless, Oliver’s testimony is the closest we will come to an accurate account of what Joseph experienced. The key point is that Joseph was using the interpreters instrument to interact with the engravings on the plates. He was not merely reading words off a stone in a hat, unconnected with the plates. (pp. 181–82, emphasis added)

In this passage, Lucas and Neville cite Samuel Whitney Richards, who waited until 1907 to write of his 1848 conversation with Cowdery (p. 181n380), about six decades after the conversation and eight decades after the translation work. This is a second-hand account of what Oliver said and a third-hand account with respect to Joseph, if Joseph ever explained what he saw to Oliver. Further, this was recorded at an extraordinary length of time after the conversation and longer still after the translation. How can this count as meaningful evidence for what Joseph experienced?

Jeff inexplicably omitted our footnote to this quotation, misleading his readers to conclude we hadn’t addressed the potential problem with the Richards account.

The late date of the actual writing down of the account (1907 vs. 1848) would be a concern in evaluating the account.  However, we note that Richards was an attorney who served for many years as a judge, which makes it likely that he would have been careful and precise in setting down his recollections even after 60 years.

To that I will add that we don’t know whether Richards made contemporaneous notes that he lost or otherwise re-created, and that the quoted document from 1907 was written in the context of ongoing discussion about the SITH narrative promoted by David Whitmer.

The link in our footnote (which Jeff also forgot to mention) explains that Samuel Richards was a younger brother of President Franklin D. Richards, one of the original regents of the University of Deseret, a member of the first city council of Salt Lake City, editor of the Millennial Star, and a two-time president over the European Mission. All of that is relevant when assessing his credibility and reliability.

Anyone can read Richards’ statement for themselves and assess its credibility and reliability.

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/1017f387-3951-4950-87ad-1f42e45ddab6/0/0?lang=eng

But there is an even bigger gap when the authors only see confirmation of their theory, even as it is being contradicted.

Jeff projecting again, resorting to confirmation bias. The Richards account directly and explicitly refutes SITH. Here it is in full (since Jeff didn’t provide it) from the above link.

I was surprised to see the bright recollection he [Oliver] seemed to have of his early experience with the prophet Joseph, especially as relating to the translation of the Book of Mormon, some of which I will here relate.

He represents Joseph as sitting by a table with the plates before him, and he reading the record with the Urim & Thummim. Oliver, his scribe, sits close beside to hear and write every word as translated. This is done by holding the translators over the words of the written record, and the translation appears distinctly in the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. This instrument now used fully performed its mission. Every word was made distinctly visible even to every letter, and if Oliver did not in writing spell the word correctly it remained in the translator until it was written correctly. This was the mystery to Oliver, how Joseph being comparatively ignorant could correct him in spelling without seeing the word written, and he would not be satisfied until he should be permitted or have the gift to translate as well as Joseph. To satisfy Oliver, Joseph with him went to the Lord in prayer until Oliver had the gift by which he could translate, and by so doing learned how it was that Joseph could correct him even in the spelling of words.

Any one acquainted with the Book of Mormon can well see the necessity of such a provision; as the book is full of names of persons, places, and names of things entirely unused in our ordinary English language. After this experience Oliver was quite satisfied to write what was given hm and make the corrections required. The entire record written as the Book of Mormon was thus brought forth to the world, not by the learning of Man, but by the gift and power of God and is Truth.

This interview with Brother and Sister Cowdery was one of entire freedom and familiarity, although we had never met before; and his experience in connection with the prophet Joseph, when the ministrations of angels were frequent in restoring Priesthood, and the keys of Knowledge by which man might be in future, in constant communication with God and Angels for the establishment of an Everlasting Government upon the earth, made it all a most divinely and sacred interview to me.

The careful work of Royal Skousen points out that there were uncorrected spelling inconsistencies in the Original Manuscript, which suggests that Oliver was referring to the spelling of proper nouns, as Richards’ account explains.

Two sources report Oliver explaining that a divine translation was seen (“was able to read in English” and “the translation appears distinctly in the instrument”). Then the authors summarize this work by restating their own opinion, as if it naturally followed from Oliver’s words: Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to “interact” with the engravings, followed with their assurance that Joseph “was not merely reading words off a stone in a hat.” No hat may have been needed with the Nephite instrument, but to say he was not reading words and not seeing the actual translation flies in the face of these two quotes. Evidence against their hypothesis is turned about and twisted violently. This would not pass academic scrutiny.

Notice the irony of Jeff’s phrase “would not pass academic scrutiny.” The quotation from our book that he cites is exactly accurate; Joseph “was not merely reading words off a stone in a hat,” as much as Jeff and other SITH advocates insist that’s exactly what he did.

Plus, the thesis we propose is exactly what this description relates: Joseph saw English words when he looked on the plates through the U&T.

The question is whether the words Joseph saw were a literal translation (as we propose) that required reformulating “after the manner of Joseph’s language,” or whether Joseph read the words verbatim off the U&T.

Inexplicably, Jeff ignores that distinction. Instead, he simply inserts the term “actual” in front of “translation” to create his own narrative to supersede Richards’ narrative.

[Page 194]As another example, in arguing that Joseph’s mind did much of the heavy lifting in the translation, the authors discount the evidence that he was not a highly literate student.

“Heavy lifting” is Jeff’s pejorative caricature, using a phrase that we did not use to convey a relative weighting we never proposed. The “heavy lifting” was the engravings on the plates. All Joseph had to do was translate them. With the English provided by the U&T, Joseph’s effort required him to “study it out in his mind” and ask if it was right, which undoubtedly required hard work. So in that sense, we view Joseph as more of a participant than a passive, out-loud reader of a fully provided text.

They consider his mother’s well-known statement about her family listening carefully to Joseph’s teachings, a boy “who had never read the Bible through in his life; for he was much less inclined to the perusals of books then any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.”²⁸ The meaning here should be clear: Joseph was not a bookworm and had not yet read the whole Bible.

That’s only the clear meaning to those who want to portray Joseph as ignorant. Kudos to Jeff for focusing on this so we can have a good discussion about this point.

Here are two points to consider.

Joseph and the Bible. Contrast what Lucy said about Joseph and the Bible here with what Joseph said he was doing when he was twelve years old:

the all importent concerns of for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel exceedingly

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/2

At twelve, Joseph was “searching the scriptures” and had an “intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations,” which is evidence by the pervasive non-biblical language in the text of the Book of Mormon, including words and phrases used by Jonathan Edwards and others whose works were on sale in the Palmyra bookstore Joseph frequented.

For examples, see the annotated chapters of the Book of Mormon here:

https://www.mobom.org/jonathan-edwards 

Lucy herself reported on Joseph’s deep study of the Bible when she said that Joseph.

refused from the first to attend the meeting with us He would say Mother I do not wish to prevent you from going to meeting or joining any church you like or any of the Family who desire the like only do not ask me to <​do so​> for I do not wish to go But I will take my Bible and go out into the woods and learn more in two hours than you could if you were to go to meeting two years

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/49

Bookworms. There was a time when LDS apologists claimed Joseph couldn’t have plagiarized books readily available in Palmyra because his family was too poor to own books. Now, because of his interpretation of Lucy’s use of the word “peruse,” Jeff is insisting that all the children (except Joseph) were bookworms who would regularly “go through searchingly or in detail, run over with careful scrutiny,” etc. This in a farming family who struggled to get by and even lost their house. Jeff has inadvertently come up with a new explanation for their poverty: because the kids spent so much time and energy “perusing” books that they didn’t work on the farm.

Or, maybe Lucy just noticed that the other kids read books at home more than Joseph did.

But Lucas and Neville still manage to see confirmation of their thesis in yet another statement that undermines it. They note that the original draft of Lucy’s history used the word “study,” and then offer a clever twist on a possible reason for the change:

Perhaps Lucy realized that the first draft conveyed a misunderstanding and she wanted to make the point that Joseph did not read/study/peruse as many books as the other children, but focused on meditation and deep study of the books he did access. (p. 167, emphasis added)

It seems more reasonable that the change, whoever made it, was to improve readability by not using “study” twice in the same sentence.

Whether this is “more reasonable” depends on what bias one want’s to confirm. In our view, she contrasted the perusal of books by the other children with Joseph’s more focused “meditation and deep study.”

Lucy does not talk about deep study of books at all, but merely of “meditation and deep study,” in contrast to the “perusals [or study] of books” by her other children.

What would Joseph use for “deep study” if not books? His imagination?

But then Lucas and Neville argue that Lucy meant that Joseph was indeed a very deep student of books, a nearly 180-degree turn in meaning achieved by adding a phrase not found in the text, “of the books he did access.” This, too, would not pass academic scrutiny.

Again, the “academic scrutiny” standard. As a long-time Interpreter, Jeff is accustomed to the practice of “peer approval” as a pretext for “peer review,” and there’s no question that our book would not pass the Interpreter’s “peer approval” system because we reject the Interpreter’s SITH narrative.

Yet in this very review, Jeff has frequently “added a phrase not found in the text” to formulate and promote his arguments. That’s a standard practice for clarifying alternative interpretations, and we did not add the phrase to Lucy’s quotation; we made it to clarify the alternative explanation that Jeff opposes because it contradicts his SITH narrative.

Further, the authors turn to a current dictionary to show that “peruse” can mean to read something carefully or to read something casually. Thus, the authors argue that:

Lucy contrasted “the perusals of books” with “meditation and deep study.” This suggests she meant that the other children’s perusals were more relaxed and informal than Joseph’s “deep study.” This connotation is consistent with her observation that Joseph had not “read the Bible through,” because “meditation and deep study” requires [Page 195]more detailed examination of cross-references and commentaries than merely reading it through like a novel. (p. 168)

“Peruse” today can be used to refer to casual reading, just as the verb “read” can refer to casual skimming of the text. But the initial draft’s plural form, “perusals,” seems to echo the non-casual nature of the reading. Indeed, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the original meaning of “peruse” is “to go through searchingly or in detail, run over with careful scrutiny,” with a later meaning of “read casually” apparently first attested sometime in the nineteenth century.²⁹ However, the Grammarist website notes that “Examples of peruse used in the newer sense (to browse or to skim) are easily found in sources from the middle 20th century, but they are rare or nonexistent before then.”³⁰ As evidence, one can see that various forms of the word “peruse” occur four times in Lucy’s first draft, none of which require the meaning of casual reading.

Jeff forgot to mention our point that addresses this very objection:

To clarify which meaning they intend, writers use adjectives such as “attentively” or “negligently.” In a letter dated April 13, 1833, Joseph Smith wrote “Dear Broth Carter your letter to Broth Jared is just put into my hand and I have carefully perrused [sic] its contents, and imbrace [sic] this oppertunity [sic] to answer it.”[2] The adverb carefully would be redundant if the term had the meaning commonly ascribed to Lucy’s statement.

Joseph’s use of the adjective clarified which meaning he intended for “peruse” here. Joseph also wrote to his brother William that “I have received your letter and perused it with care,” again adding a superfluous phrase if everyone understood that “peruse” meant what Jeff says it can only mean.

It’s important to note also that, contrary to Lucy’s portrayal here, the Joseph Smith Papers note that

Pomeroy Tucker, a contemporary of JS who lived in the town where JS grew up, wrote that JS “frequently perused the Bible, becoming quite familiar with portions thereof. . . . The Prophecies and Revelations were his special forte.” (Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism, 17.)

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-8-april-1843-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1?highlight=peruse

Here again, “perused” could be taken two ways. Whether it means “browse” or “study,” it was the frequency of his engagement with the Bible that made him “quite familiar with portions thereof.”

But Lucy was apparently oblivious to what Pomeroy observed.

An obvious explanation for this discrepancy between Pomeroy and Lucy that we didn’t mention in the book is the likelihood that they each reported their experiences with Joseph, but in different contexts. Lucy observed Joseph at home; Pomeroy observed him in town and at the bookstore. The discrepancy is easily reconciled by Lucy’s statement that Joseph was engaged in “deep study,” even if she didn’t know exactly what prompted that deep study.

Further, the final version changes an instance of “reading” in the first draft to “perused” in a context that clearly involves serious effort. In the initial draft, the sentence “To accomplish this, I spent much of time my time in reading the Bible and praying”³¹ was changed in the final draft to: “In order to this I perused the Bible and prayed incessantly.”³² There is no hint of casual reading in her use of this word.

This again goes both ways. Lucy could just as easily have changed the original sentence to clarify that she essentially skimmed the Bible and focused more on prayer, which she did “incessantly,” something she could only do in her heart and mind while doing her other chores.

The point of Lucy’s passage about Joseph is how unusual it was that a son much less interested in books than her other children would suddenly have so many stories and religious teachings to share with her family. Lucas and Neville seem so bent on advancing their hypothesis that they fail to see how their novel reading does so much injustice to the text.

If that is the point of Lucy’s passage, then Pomeroy’s observations make that much more sense. Pomeroy was more privy than Lucy to Joseph’s engagement with the Bible, whether because he studied it or frequently browed through it.

A Failure to Consider Related Scholarship

Lucas and Neville’s work claims to be comprehensive in considering original sources, but clearly is lacking. Several relevant and important sources are neglected, and skewed interpretations are given to accounts that don’t fit their narrative.

“Relevant and important sources” are not neglected solely because we don’t discuss them.

[Page 196] For example, in 2021, Royal Skousen released a 91-page pre-print of a chapter of his work on witness statements about the translation of the Book of Mormon.³³ I wish that chapter had been carefully considered by the authors of By Means of Urim & Thummim. 

Jeff is mind-reading, but I quoted from Skousen’s preliminary work in my paper about bias in the Joseph Smith Papers, here:

https://www.academia.edu/67756647/Agenda_driven_editorial_content_in_the_Joseph_Smith_Papers

Had we cited Skousen’s preliminary chapter, Jeff could have faulted us for relying on a preliminary source.

If readers want to see an analysis of the final published chapter of Skousen’s Part VII, they should read my review on Academia.org and in InterpreterPeerReviews.blogspot.com. Here’s a link to the first part of that review.

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2024/12/review-of-royal-skousens-part-vii-first.html

This is just a small fraction of the massive work of Royal Skousen on the translation of the Book of Mormon, a lifetime of work that has taught us much about the dictation of the Book of Mormon with implications on the translation process. Important conclusions have been elicited from the intricate details of the scribal work in the Original Manuscript which are highly consistent with Joseph reading text to a scribe, typically in chunks of about twenty words at a time, and sometimes spelling out names. A large body of evidence suggests that Joseph did indeed see text that was being revealed to him.

The evidence is not conclusive and reflects Skousen’s confirmation of his bias anyway.

Skousen also carefully explores statements of witnesses and associates about the translation process, concluding that there were two methods used: a first process in which Joseph looked through the Nephite interpreters with the plates before him, and a second process in which he peered into a seer stone without the need for the plates to be exposed before him. In both processes, there is evidence that he saw something that he could read aloud.

While we reject the seer stone narrative, we agree that Joseph saw something he could read aloud. The question is whether he merely read the words, or articulated the meaning in his own language. The only thing Joseph said was a literal translation was the Title Page.

This account is by Nancy Towle, a non-member, who visited Kirtland in October 1831:

He accordingly went; and was directed by the angel to a certain spot of ground, where was deposited a ‘Box,’ and in that box contained ‘Plates,’ which resembled gold; also, a pair of ‘interpreters,’ (as he called them,) that resembled spectacles; by looking into which, he could read a writing engraven upon the plates, though to himself, in a tongue unknown.³⁴

Jeff makes a good point here. While we didn’t include the Towle quotation in our book and we probably should have, I did include her entire statement in A Man that Can Translate. At any rate, this refutation of SITH is exactly what we’re proposing.

[Page 197]This statement suggests that reading was involved in the translation during the first stage (while using the interpreters).

Which is exactly what we’re saying in our book.

Skousen also provides detailed documentation regarding the witnesses of the translation process during the second stage, with a stone and a hat. Here is a summary:

I won’t rehash the myriad problems with Skousen’s analysis here. Those interested can read my separate review.

All eight primary witnesses of the translation independently refer to Joseph Smith using the seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon, from the beginning in the spring of 1828 in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, to the end in June 1829 at the Peter Whitmer home in Fayette, New York; that is, from some portion of the 116 pages containing the book of Lehi to the small plates of Nephi; and from the first scribes, Emma Smith, Reuben Hale, and Martin Harris, to the final scribes, Oliver Cowdery and two Whitmers, John and Christian. Nearly all mention obscuring the light or at least having the viewing occur in darkness; all explicitly state that the seer stone was placed in a hat. In these statements, there is some variety in how the seer stone is referred to: once as “the Urim and Thummim” (Joseph Knight), once as “the director” (Elizabeth Anne Whitmer), three times as simply “the stone” (Emma Smith, Elizabeth McKune, and Joseph McKune), and three times as “the seer stone” (Michael Morse, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris). By implication, there was no curtain or blanket separating Joseph Smith and his scribe. Nor did Joseph have any books, manuscripts, or notes that he was consulting.³⁵

At the same time, we have statements from Joseph and Oliver (these are included and discussed in Skousen’s chapter, along with many other witness statements) that don’t mention the seer stone and only speak of the Urim and Thummim.

Actually, Skousen omits some of their statements.

Skousen proposes that both men felt a need to downplay the role of the seer stone given the trouble Joseph had already faced in that area.

Jeff euphemistically reframes Skousen’s actual conclusion, which we’ll repeat here:

"Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading."

There’s no way to eliminate tension here: either many witness statements need to just be disregarded, or we must accept incomplete or inaccurate reporting on [Page 198] some details of the translation from Joseph and Oliver.

More euphemism from Jeff. Kudos to Skousen for not beating around the bush. There is simply no room for SITH in what Joseph Smith published about the translation.

Again, I appreciate the desire of Lucas and Neville to create a tidy scenario, but I feel they create more problems than they believe they have solved.

That’s fine, but so far Jeff hasn’t identified the problems he thinks we’ve created, apart from Jeff’s defensiveness about his fellow Interpreters who have bound themselves to the SITH mast.

They also fail to consider the convincing arguments of other scholars.

These arguments are only convincing to those who are convinced. They’re far from convincing to us. It hardly seems fair to ask readers to sit through an analysis of scholarly arguments that we think are flawed in the first place. But I’ll engage this here because Jeff asked me to.

For example, one work that needs to be considered for their arguments to be taken seriously is that of Stan Spencer in his 2017 publication, “Seers and Stones: The Translation of the Book of Mormon as Divine Visions of an Old-Time Seer.” 

I did a peer review of that article 5 years ago:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2020/06/seers-and-stones-peer-review.html

Spencer’s opening paragraphs clearly lay out the case for references to “Urim and Thummim” including seer stones:

Joseph Smith and some of his associates referred to the interpreter stones as well as other seer stones as urim and thummim, considering urim and thummim to be a class of revelatory instruments.

It’s a bad sign when Stan starts with a patently untrue statement.

The term Urim and Thummim was used in this sense by Joseph Smith in his comment on the white stone mentioned in the Book of Revelation: “The white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17 will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one” (D&C 130:10).

That statement from 1843 had nothing to do with “the interpreter stones” despite Stan’s claim in the preceding sentence.

The “Urim and Thummim” mentioned in the introductory headings of some of the early sections of the Doctrine and Covenants was, according to David Whitmer, the brown seer stone.

David wasn’t present when any of these revelations were received, nor did he explain his source of information, apart from his belief that Joseph did not receive the U&T back after he lost the plates, a belief that Joseph himself contradicted, along with Oliver Cowdery, Lucy Mack Smith, and David’s brother John.

In a meeting on December 27, 1841, Joseph Smith taught some of the apostles about urim and thummim. Regarding the meeting, Brigham Young wrote in his journal:

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.

This is exactly the point made by Brigham Young that refutes the interpretation the SITH scholars give to Woodruff’s account. Here, Joseph specifically identifies the U&T as the Interpreters and distinguishes them from the “seer stone” that each man is entitled to, including the one he showed them.

Since Joseph Smith had given his brown seer stone to Oliver Cowdery, the stone he showed the apostles was most likely his white one.

Pure speculation, of course.

Wilford Woodruff recorded the same experience in his journal, but used a different label for [Page 199] the seer stone: “The twelve or a part of them spent the day with Joseph the Seer. . . . I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the Urim and Thummim.” Less than two months later, Woodruff again called Joseph Smith’s seer stone “the Urim and Thummim” in reference to its use in translating the Book of Abraham, and apostle Parley Pratt made a similar statement in a church newspaper a few months later.

Again, none of this relates to the translation of the Book of Mormon. And note, there is no extant statement from Joseph Smith to support any of this. But we all know that D&C 130 expanded the scope of what “a” Urim and Thummim can be. That doesn’t make the Earth equal to the Nephite interpreters.

In 1959, apostle Joseph Fielding Smith also referred to Joseph Smith’s seer stone as a urim and thummim. 

Inexplicably, Jeff omitted Stan’s footnote here, which doesn’t support Stan’s claim. Here is the footnote:  

In 1959, Joseph Fielding Smith stated: “We have been taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church. Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim after that date are evidently errors. The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the church.” Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, vol. 3, comp. Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956), 255.

JFS made a clear distinction between the U&T Joseph used to translate the plates and Wilford Woodruff’s use of the term to refer to the seer stone. Rather than providing separate support for Stan’s claim, the quotation from JFS simply points out that Woodruff’s use of the term was an aberration.  

According to a journal entry of Wandle Mace, Joseph Smith even applied the term urim and thummim to a pair of stones brought over from England that had been “consecrated to devils.” For Joseph Smith, a urim and thummim was an object used to obtain revelation, and “the Urim and Thummim” was whatever object he was currently using for that purpose.³⁶

The term Urim and Thummim can obviously be used for two different kinds of instruments—the Nephite “spectacles” and a lone seer stone.

It’s amazing that Jeff thinks continual repetition of this theme is relevant or useful in any way. We’ve already seen that in 1843, Joseph used the term to apply to the Earth and “the place where God resides,” as well as the individual stone for each individual pursuant to Rev. 2:17. But that later expansion of the use of the term has nothing to do with the instrument Joseph used to translate the plates.

There is no need to insist that all references to the Urim and Thummim must be dual stones in a frame from the Nephites.

While we recognize that Jeff rejects what Joseph and Oliver taught, it’s not a question of “insisting” but of simply recognizing the facts of the historical record.

When Joseph wrote about the U&T he used to translate the plates, he specified that the U&T he used came with the plates.

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

“With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.

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

Joseph published these formal statements in a historical context in which he had been accused of using a seer stone in a hat (a “peep stone”) as an alternative to the claim that he translated the plates by means of the U&T.

That SITH allegation is also why Oliver promptly emphasized Joseph used the U&T, which Moroni had identified the first time he met Joseph, and why Joseph still had to emphasize the point in 1838 in print, and again in 1842.

Many other errors evident in By Means of the Urim & Thummim could have been avoided with peer review. For example, the authors draw upon the “discontinuity theory” that the small plates of Nephi were largely unknown for centuries among the Nephites until Mormon, at the end of his work, finds and attaches the brass plates. This misses important finds about the “continuity” of the influence of the small plates on later writers such as Alma. See, for example, Matthew Scott Stenson’s work on Alma and his thorough review of prior works in the continuing debate of discontinuity vs. continuity.³⁷

I can’t find where we “drew upon” the “discontinuity theory,” and Jeff didn’t cite a page, but this digression deserves a brief comment. In Words of Mormon, Mormon explains that he discovered the “small plates of Nephi” during his abridgment work at Cumorah. But King Mosiah said he had “kept them with” the other plates, so obviously the Nephite prophets had access to them all along.

Other errors could have been avoided by recognizing that Mormon did not find the small plates at the end of his editorial work with the large plates, but near the beginning of that work, as Clifford Jones [Page 200]has shown with multiple lines of evidence.³⁸ 

Uh, that’s exactly what we propose. Read the book next time, Jeff, before reviewing it.

Jones’s work is one of the more important scholarly advances in our understanding of the Book of Mormon and its influences, including the influence of the small plates on Mormon and Moroni, and greatly clarifies a number of relevant details.

Further, one of several important but neglected sources is Orson Pratt, a witness of Joseph’s translation of the Bible:

Elder Pratt said he was present when this revelation was given. No great noise or physical manifestation was made; Joseph was as calm as the morning sun. But he noticed a change in his countenance that he had never noticed before, when a revelation was given to him. Joseph’s face was exceedingly white, and seemed to shine. The speaker had been present many times when he was translating the New Testament, and wondered why he did not use the Urim and Thummim, as in translating the Book of Mormon. While this thought passed through the speaker’s mind, Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit, and did not need the assistance of that instrument.³⁹

Jeff has a good point. We could, and maybe should, have included this quotation in the book because it corroborates what Joseph and Oliver said and refutes SITH. But it’s inapposite anyway because when he dictated revelations, Joseph was not translating an ancient text and had not been instructed to do so by means of the Urim and Thummim that had been created for that purpose.

The translation of the Bible may have been much different than that of the Book of Mormon, but Pratt’s statement at least merits consideration when discussing the role of aids for interpretation.

By “aids for interpretation” Jeff euphemistically seeks to accommodate SITH, despite the crystal clear statement in the quotation that Joseph used the U&T.

Conclusion

Lucas and Neville wish to underscore the remarkable and divine work of Joseph Smith as the translator of the Book of Mormon. In so doing, they should be aligned with many faithful scholars, members, and leaders of the Church who affirm that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.

Which we obviously are, to the extent those scholars do not claim that Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone. That’s why we are not “aligned” with Royal Skousen, Jeff, and other SITH advocates.

 How that translation [Page 201]occurred might seem of secondary import, but it is vitally important to the authors of By Means of the Urim & Thummim.

It’s not so much a question of “how the translation occurred” as a question of whether Joseph and Oliver told the truth or “intentionally misled” everyone about the translation. And it’s also a question of the entire narrative about the origin (and setting) of the Book of Mormon. The reason Mormonism Unvailed promoted SITH in the first place was to undermine the credibility and reliability of Joseph and Oliver. That modern LDS scholars promote allegiance to Mormonism Unvailed instead of Joseph and Oliver continues to amaze many Latter-day Saints. Probably most Latter-day Saints that have access to the complete historical records, which unfortunately is relatively few and decreasing because the promotion of SITH requires Latter-day Saints to remain ignorant about what Joseph and Oliver specifically taught.

Unfortunately, the authors’ zeal takes them past the bounds of the historical data and beyond the scope of scripture as they focus on the wrong enemies.

Naturally, the Interpreters can identify the “correct” enemies, and they aren’t the Interpreters.

The enemies of faith are not faithful scholars who observe the data and recognize evidence that Joseph read the words and dictated even complete chapters of Isaiah by revelation, without notes, without the use of a Bible, without prompting, and impossibly dictating (for most of the text we have) while looking at a seer stone in a hat.

Don’t forget, those same scholars think Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone.

This translation process defies any theory of Joseph as the author or even the composer, especially when the details of the remarkably consistent text are examined.

That we agree with.

The authors do not achieve their goal of restoring early theories of translation by joining B.H. Roberts in his disdain for theories in which Joseph read the translated text. Rather, they ironically reject the same traditional model Roberts attacked, offering instead a new version of Robert’s “Manual Theory” in which Joseph’s work as a composer gets a boost with the “through a glass darkly” model by presuming a view of a poor initial translation.

This is all Jeff’s spin, not what we proposed.

Roberts seemed justified in rejecting that in 1906, as he did not have access to information disclosed through the work of later scholars. We do, however, have greater knowledge and should probably reject Roberts’s conclusions.

We do have greater analytical data, but the data and the conclusions are two separate issues. The data do not support the SITH scholars’ conclusions that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone.

We also seem justified in rejecting, as well, the conclusions of those like Lucas and Neville who want to return to the mistakes now evident in Roberts’s work. These mistakes, unfortunately, are only exacerbated by the painful “Demonstration Hypothesis” model that seeks to resolve the problems of witness accounts of a seer stone in a hat by saying that the stone and the hat were real, but the translation was deceptive.

This is awesome irony because not only does Jeff misrepresent our position, it is Jeff and his fellow Interpreters who claim Joseph and Oliver were intentionally deceptive.

By Means of the Urim & Thummim strikes me as as [sic] a case of zeal out of control.

[Author’s Note: I wish to thank Stan Spencer, Royal Skousen, and Godfrey Ellis.]

 

1. James W. Lucas and Jonathan E. Neville, By Means of the Urim & Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration (Cottonwood Heights, UT: Digital Legend Press & Publishing, 2023). It seems there have been multiple editions of the book, as the front matter of the book reviewed here states “Updated May 2023 and January and August 2024 from first edition.” All quotes in this review are from this printed edition of the book.

2. Don Bradley presents the possibility that even more than 116 pages was lost. Don Bradley, The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Book of Mormon’s Missing Stories (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2019), 91–96.

3. “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics Essays, accessed 6 October 2024, churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation.

4. Royal Skousen, email correspondence to author, 27 August 2024.

5. John A. Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar (Salt Lake City; Cornerstone Publishing, 1999), 322.

6. Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 3, Enos through Mosiah (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 220–21.

7. Bradley, The Lost 116 Pages, 196–99, 253–58.

8. John-Charles Duffy, “The ‘Book of Mormon Translation’ Essay in Historical Context,” in Matthew Harris and Newell G. Bringhurst, eds., The Latter-day Saint Gospel Topics Series: A Scholarly Engagement (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2020), 97–130.

9. Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations Manual, 1903–1904, vol. 2, New Witnesses for God, part 1, The Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1903), archive.org/details/ymmia1903/page/66/mode/2up. See especially pp. 66–72.

10. Duffy, “The ‘Book of Mormon Translation’ Essay in Historical Context,” 101–2.

11. B.H. Roberts, “Translation of the Book of Mormon: Answers to Questions Respecting the Theory in the Senior Manual,” Improvement Era 9, no. 6 (April 1906): 429–30, archive.org/details/improvementera0906unse/page/428/mode/2up.

12. Terryl Givens and Brian M. Hauglid, The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism’s Most Controversial Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 120, citing Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine 3, no. 3 (July 1884): 283. In the cited article from Tullidge’s, it indicates that when Joseph brought the leaves he had translated, they were read that morning by Oliver Cowdery, who was also present. “History of Provo City,” Tullidge’s Quarterly Magazine 3, no. 3 (July 1884): 283.

13. See John Gee, “Fantasy and Reality in the Translation of the Book of Abraham,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 42 (2021): 127–70, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/fantasy-and-reality-in-the-translation-of-the-book-of-abraham/; John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017 ); and Jeff Lindsay, “A Precious Resource with Some Gaps,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 33 (2019): 13–104, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-precious-resource-with-some-gaps/.

14. See, for example, Matthew L. Bowen, Name as Key-Word: Collected Essays on Onomastic Wordplay and the Temple in Mormon Scripture (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2018) and Matthew L. Bowen, Ancient Names in the Book of Mormon: Towards a Deeper Understanding of a Witness of Christ (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2023).

15. Jeff Lindsay and Noel B. Reynolds, “‘Strong Like unto Moses’: The Case for Ancient Roots in the Book of Moses Based on Book of Mormon Usage of Related Content Apparently from the Brass Plates,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 44 (2021): 1–92, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/strong-like-unto-moses-the-case-for-ancient-roots-in-the-book-of-moses-based-on-book-of-mormon-usage-of-related-content-apparently-from-the-brass-plates/, and Jeff Lindsay, “Further Evidence from the Book of Mormon for a Book of Moses-Like Text on the Brass Plates,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 61 (2024): 415–94, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/further-evidence-from-the-book-of-mormon-for-a-book-of-moses-like-text-on-the-brass-plates/.

16. See, for example, Stanford Carmack, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11 (2014): 209–62, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-look-at-some-nonstandard-book-of-mormon-grammar/; Stanford Carmack, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 41–64, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-read-the-words/; Stanford Carmack, “Personal Relative Pronoun Usage in the Book of Mormon: An Important Authorship Diagnostic,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 49 (2021): 5–36, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/personal-relative-pronoun-usage-in-the-book-of-mormon-an-important-authorship-diagnostic/; Stanford Carmack, “The Book of Mormon’s Complex Finite Cause Syntax,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 49 (2021): 113–36, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-book-of-mormons-complex-finite-cause-syntax/; Stanford Carmack, “Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 36 (2020), 1–28, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/bad-grammar-in-the-book-of-mormon-found-in-early-english-bibles/; Stanford Carmack, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 33–40, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/; Stanford Carmack, “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13 (2015): 175–217, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/what-command-syntax-tells-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship/; and Stanford Carmack, “Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828),” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15 (2015): 65–77, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/why-the-oxford-english-dictionary-and-not-websters-1828/.

17. For a summary of Stanford Carmack’s comments in a March 2015 presentation, see Kirk Magleby, “English in the Book of Mormon,” Book of Mormon Resources (blog), 23 March 2015, bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2015/03/english-in-book-of-mormon.html. Also see Jeff Lindsay, “Possible Benefits of the Broad Early Modern English Elements in the Book of Mormon,” Arise from the Dust (blog), 26 September 2024, arisefromthedust.com/possible-benefits-of-the-broad-early-modern-english-elements-in-the-book-of-mormon.

18. Stan Spencer, “The Faith to See: Burning in the Bosom and Translating the Book of Mormon in Doctrine and Covenants 9,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (2016): 219, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-faith-to-see-burning-in-the-bosom-and-translating-the-book-of-mormon-in-doctrine-and-covenants-9/.

19. Spencer, “The Faith to See,” 224–25.

20. Spencer, “The Faith to See,” 232.

21. “Book of Mormon Translation: Interesting Correspondence on the Subject of the Manual Theory,” Improvement Era 9, no. 9 (July 1906): 706–7, archive.org/details/improvementera0909unse/page/706/mode/2up.

22. “Book of Mormon Translation: Interesting Correspondence,” 709, emphasis (bold) added; italic in original.

23. Stan Spencer, “Seers and Stones: The Translation of the Book of Mormon as Divine Visions of an Old-Time Seer,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 24 (2017): 50, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/seers-and-stones-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-as-divine-visions-of-an-old-time-seer/.

24. Carmack, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” 41.

25. Spencer Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach to Joseph Smith’s Translation of Ancient Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52 (2022): 1, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/an-unfortunate-approach-to-joseph-smiths-translation-of-ancient-scripture/. See also Neville’s response to Kraus’s review in Jonathan E. Neville, “A Man That Can Translate and Infinite Goodness: A Response to Recent Reviews,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 53 (2022): 171–84, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-man-that-can-translate-and-infinite-goodness-a-response-to-recent-reviews/. This response was, in turn, provided in Spencer Kraus, “A Rejoinder to Jonathan Neville’s ‘Response to Recent Reviews,’” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 53 (2022): 185–98, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-rejoinder-to-jonathan-nevilles-response-to-recent-reviews/.

26. “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics Essays.

27. “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics Essays, n21.

28. Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845, page 1, book 4, The Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/43.

29. Online Etymology Dictionary, s.v. “peruse,” updated 15 April 2020, etymonline.com/word/peruse.

30. Grammarist, s.v. “peruse,” 2024, grammarist.com/usage/peruse/.

31. Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, chapter 4, p. 28, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/94#full-transcript.

32. Smith, History, 1844–1845, p. 2, book 2, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/43#full-transcript.

33. Royal Skousen, “The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” in The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, vol. 3, part 7 (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2024). A pre-print of this article has been available for over three years at “Update of the Pre-Print of a Discussion of the Book of Mormon Witnesses,” Interpreter Foundation Blog, 25 August 2021, interpreterfoundation.org/blog-update-of-the-pre-print-of-a-discussion-of-the-book-of-mormon-witnesses-by-royal-skousen/.

34. Skousen, “Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” 11. Skousen cites the statement to “Joseph Smith Addendum,” in Early Mormon Documents, vol. 1, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996), 204; and “Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, 2nd ed., ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017), 132. The original is Nancy Towle, Vicissitudes Illustrated in the Experience of Nancy Towle, in Europe and America (Charleston, SC: James L. Burges, 1832), 138–39, contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/BOMP/id/1341. The emphasized word is in all four sources cited.

35. Skousen, “ Witnesses of the Book of Mormon,” 12. See the witness accounts for the second method on pp. 12–19.

36. Spencer, “Seers and Stones,” 28–29.

37. Matthew Scott Stenson “‘According to the Spirit of Revelation and Prophecy’: Alma₂’s Prophetic Warning of Christ’s Coming to the Lehites (and Others),” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 55 (2023): 107–68, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/according-to-the-spirit-of-revelation-and-prophecy-alma2s-prophetic-warning-of-christs-coming-to-the-lehites-and-others/.

38. Clifford P. Jones, “That Which You Have Translated, Which You Have Retained,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 1–64, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/that-which-you-have-translated-which-you-have-retained/.

39. Orson Pratt, “Two Days’ Meeting at Brigham City, June 27 and 28, 1874,” Millennial Star 36 (11 August 1874): 498–99, contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/MStar/id/13925.

 

---

[1] Gel-Mann amnesia: the phenomenon of experts reading articles within their fields of expertise and finding them to be error-ridden and full of misunderstanding, but seemingly forgetting those experiences when reading articles in the same publications written on topics outside of their fields of expertise, which they believe to be credible.

[2] Joseph Smith, Jr., “Letter to John S. Carter,” (April 13, 1833), Joseph Smith Papers, Letterbook 1, (emphasis added) at https:/‌/‌www.josephsmithpapers.org/‌paper-summary/‌letter-to-john-s-carter-13-april-1833/‌1.