Wednesday, February 18, 2026

Review of Stephen Smoot's BYU Studies article

I'm posting this partial review here, even though it involved BYU Studies, because Smoot is one of the Interpreters. He's a great guy, smart, articulate, faithful, etc., which makes it all the more perplexing why he continues to promote SITH.
_____

Partial review of Smoot article in BYU Studies:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/sight-and-power-to-translate-revelatory-translation-seership-and-joseph-smiths-scriptural-productions

 

The Translation of the Book of Mormon

By Joseph Smith’s own declaration, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the Latter-day Saint faith.6 

Smoot frames this as Joseph’s “own declaration.”

We can reasonably infer that Joseph said something like what Woodruff recorded, but it could also have been Woodruf’s own characterization of what Joseph said. Historians should stop repeating this as if it was a direct quotation of what Joseph said.

Fortunately, Smoot cited the only source for this statement in note 6. This is Wilford Woodruff’s summary of a day’s worth of Joseph’s teachings. Woodruff did not even put it in quotations in his journal. Nevertheless, early Church historians converted Woodruff's second-hand journal entry into a first-person statement, inserting it into Joseph's history.

<28> Sunday 28. I spent the day in Council with the Twelve <Apostles> at the house of President [Brigham] Young <conversing with them upon a variety of subjects. Bro Joseph Fielding was present, having been absent 4 years on a mission to England. I told the brethren that the book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the key stone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.>

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-2-november-1838-31-july-1842/427

This history was then incorporated into the official Introduction to the Book of Mormon as a first-person statement by Joseph Smith.

Introduction to the Book of Mormon:

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng

Even if Woodruff had directly quoted Joseph’s words, Smoot’s next assertion doesn’t follow.

This makes it striking and perhaps even counterintuitive how reserved Joseph was in describing the process of rendering the text.

We can infer from Woodruff’s subjective summary that Joseph spent the day explaining how the Book of Mormon brings people “nearer to God” because of its precepts, not because of its origins. The origins are important for two purposes: (i) to show historicity of the text (translated from actual ancient engravings on metal plates) and (ii) to show the divine power and instrument that enabled to translated them.

During an 1831 conference of elders in Ohio, Hyrum Smith solicited “information of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon” from his brother, but the Prophet demurred, stating “that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon.”7

This account of the conference is often quoted and cited as an explanation for why Joseph did not give more details about the translation, but that’s not what the request or answer involved. It’s useful to see the entire exchange, which, like the Woodruff quotation, is merely a summary:

Br. Hyrum Smith said that he thought best that the information of the coming forth of the book of Mormon be related by Joseph himself to the Elders present that all might know for themselves.

Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c.

The phrase “coming forth of the book of Mormon” involves far more than just the translation. From the first visit of Moroni to the final publication in March 1830 there were many “particulars” that could be related. For example, Brigham Young related Oliver Cowdery’s account of visiting the repository of records in the Hill Cumorah, but he emphasized that “Oliver… did not take the liberty of telling such things in meeting as I take” (BY Trying to ¶7 • JD 19:38). Here Oliver acted consistent with Joseph’s statement that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars.”  Brigham Young, who was not in the Church in 1831, apparently felt less constrained by Joseph’s caution. Joseph himself could have related particulars about how he, Oliver and David, while moving from Harmony to Fayette, met the messenger who had the abridged plates. He could have explained his encounters with Moroni and Nephi and much more.

Along these lines, Note 21 in the Joseph Smith Papers says

“To this point, JS apparently had not written a history of the production of the Book of Mormon. In April 1834, he provided “a relation of obtaining and translating the Book of Mormon” to a conference in Norton, Ohio, though the conference minutes do not provide any other information about what he said. An account was finally published in 1842, but it gave few details.”

That JSP note oddly fails to mention the 8 essays Oliver Cowder published in 1834-5, written with the assistance of Joseph Smith, that describe in detail Moroni’s visit and the hill Cumorah, as well as Oliver’s own experience as Joseph’s scribe (canonized as the Note in Joseph Smith-History). The JSP note also ignores Joseph’s answer to the recurring question about the origin of the Book of Mormon, which was published in the Elders’ Journal. Smoot cites but does not quote this:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/10

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.

While Joseph occasionally recounted aspects of the book’s origin, his descriptions were characteristically brief. In an 1833 letter to Noah Saxton,8 an 1843 letter to James Arlington Bennet,9 and in accounts published in 1838 and 1842,10 he described the translation as being accomplished through “the gift and power of God” with the aid of divinely prepared stones—a sentiment he also expressed in the preface to the 1830 first edition of the Book of Mormon.11 

Smoot’s summary of these accounts appears to be driven by his own theories. At the end of this post there is a comparison table showing what Smoot wrote vs. the original sources.

Strangely, Smoot omitted Letter IV, where Moroni tells Joseph Smith that

“this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, 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

The accounts Joseph and Oliver did provide, formally published in Church-owned and affiliated publications, consistently unambiguously explain that Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. This is evident to anyone who reads these accounts.

At the same time, Joseph sometimes spoke of the Book of Mormon as the product of inspiration. In an 1840 discourse, he told a crowd that the book “was communicated to him, direct from Heaven.” The auditor of the speech, Matthew L. Davis, recorded that while Joseph claimed to be the “Author” of the book in a technical sense, “the idea that he wished to impress was, that he had penned it as dictated by God.”12

Here we have another summary, similar to Wilford Woodruff’s, of what Joseph said. The full account shows that Joseph said that by following the precepts of the Bible, people would be saved “whether Mormon or not.” That parallels Woodruff’s account that “by abiding by its [the Book of Mormon’s] precepts,” people would get nearer to God. But in this case, it is unclear whether Joseph was referring to the “Christian Bible” or the “Mormon Bible.”

He closed by referring to the Mormon Bible, which, he said, contained nothing inconsistent or conflicting with the Christian Bible. And he again repeated, that all who would follow the precepts of the Bible whether Mormon or not, would assuredly be saved….

The Mormon Bible, he said, was communicated to him, direct from Heaven. If there was such a thing on Earth, as the Author of it, then he (Smith) was the Author; but the idea that he wished to impress was, that he had penned it as dictated by God.

The author wrote that the book “was communicated to him, direct from Heaven,” which may have referred to the translation or to Moroni’s visit or both. The author did not quote Joseph, but instead conveyed “the idea” he believed Joseph wanted to convey, which could well summarize Joseph’s explanation that he translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim by the gift and power of God, just as Joseph always said.  

 

By piecing together firsthand statements from the Prophet and accounts from those who assisted in the translation and publication of the text, historians have reconstructed a reasonably reliable account of the miraculous events surrounding the translation.13 

Every one of the sources cited in Smoot’s note 13 contains omissions of relevant sources that corroborate what Joseph and Oliver said, and most of them contain assumptions, inferences and theories that contradict what Joseph and Oliver said.

It is not the purpose of this article to revisit those details, which are already well known.

This is precisely the problem: the details are not already well known because the cited scholars either omitted them or declined to discuss them to the extent they supported what Joseph and Oliver said.

Instead, to better understand what Joseph meant when he said he translated the Book of Mormon “by the gift and power of God,” I will examine the revelations he received during the translation process. These revelations offer valuable insights into how Joseph and his collaborators understood his role as a translator of new scripture.

This is a fair approach, conceptually. But detaching the phrase “gift and power of God” from the Urim and Thummim in those same passages is misleading at best.

 

  1. 6. “Remarks, 28 November 1841,” 112, Joseph Smith Papers, Church Historian’s Press, accessed June 18, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/remarks-28-november-1841/1. “Sunday, I spent the day at Brigham Young’s in the company of Joseph Smith and the Twelve, conversing on a variety of subjects. It was an interesting day. Elder Joseph Fielding was present, he having been in England for four years. We also met with a number of English brethren. Joseph remarked that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth and the keystone of our religion, and that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.” The spelling, punctuation, and grammar of manuscript sources in this paper have been standardized, whereas published historical sources are quoted in their original form.
  2. 7. “Minutes, 25–26 October 1831,” in Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833, ed. Matthew C. Godfrey, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Grant Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, and William G. Hartley, Joseph Smith Papers (Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 84, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-25-26-october-1831/4.
  3. 8. “Letter to Noah C. Saxton, 4 January 1833,” in Godfrey, and others, eds., Documents, Volume 2, 354.
  4. 9. “Letter to James Arlington Bennet, 13 November 1843,” 261.
  5. 10. “Elders’ Journal, July 1838,” 42, Joseph Smith Papers, Church Historian’s Press, accessed June 18, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/10; “‘Church History,’ 1 March 1842,” in Documents, Volume 9: December 1841–April 1842, ed. Alex D. Smith, Christian K. Heimburger, and Christopher James Blythe, Joseph Smith Papers (Church Historian’s Press, 2019), 183, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-1-march-1842/5#facts.
  6. 11. Joseph Smith Junior, The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon, upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi (Palmyra, 1830), iii, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/9.
  7. 12. “Discourse, 5 February 1840,” in Documents, Volume 7: September 1839–January 1841, ed. Matthew C. Godfrey, Spencer W. McBride, Alex D. Smith, and Christopher James Blythe, Joseph Smith Papers (Church Historian’s Press, 2017), 179, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-5-february-1840/3, emphasis original. The editors of the Joseph Smith Papers note that the Prophet’s use of the term “author” for the Book of Mormon appears to address claims that he either fabricated the text or borrowed it from another source. Indeed, to meet copyright requirements, the 1830 first edition of the Book of Mormon identified Joseph Smith as its “Author and Proprietor.” See Miriam A. Smith and John W. Welch, “Joseph Smith: ‘Author and Proprietor,’” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Deseret Book, 1992), 154–57; Nathaniel Hinckley Wadsworth, “Copyright Laws and the 1830 Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies 45, no. 3 (2006): 77–96; and Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, Part One: 1 Nephi–2 Nephi 10 (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2014), 35–36. See also “Oliver Cowdery’s Letter to Cornelius C. Blatchly, November 9, 1829,” in A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon, ed. Larry E. Morris (Oxford University Press, 2019), 374–75, for Oliver Cowdery’s explanation of why Joseph is identified as the Book of Mormon’s “author” in the first edition.
  8. 13. For accessible accounts, see Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Greg Kofford Books, 2007); Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2015); John W. Welch, “Timing the Translation of the Book of Mormon: ‘Days [and Hours] Never to Be Forgotten,’” BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2018): 11–50; and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat and Michael Hubbard MacKay, Let’s Talk about the Translation of the Book of Mormon (Deseret Book, 2023). For a compilation of relevant primary sources related to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, see Morris, ed., Documentary History of the Book of Mormon; John W. Welch, “Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Brigham Young University Press; Deseret Book, 2017), 126–227.
  9. 14. “Revelation, July 1828 [D&C 3],” in Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Grant Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, and William G. Hartley, Joseph Smith Papers (Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 8, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-july-1828-dc-3/2#facts.
  10. 15. Joseph Smith Junior, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints: Carefully Selected from the Revelations of God (Kirtland, Ohio, 1835), 157, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/165, hereafter cited as Doctrine and Covenants (1835).
  11. 16. Doctrine and Covenants (1835), 163.
  12. 17. Readers today must recognize that our earliest sources do not always clearly distinguish between the Nephite “interpreters” buried with the plates (Mosiah 8:19; 28:20; Alma 37:24–25)—a pair of transparent stones set in a metal frame resembling spectacles, later called the Urim and Thummim (for example, JS–H 1:35, 42, 52)—and Joseph Smith’s chocolate-colored, oval-shaped seer stone, which he discovered as a young man and also used in translating the record. Some of Joseph’s contemporaries occasionally referred to the brown stone as the Urim and Thummim. For example, Wilford Woodruff, “Journal (January 1, 1841–December 31, 1842),” December 27, 1841, Wilford Woodruff Papers, accessed June 27, 2025, https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/p/LZg), adding to the ambiguity. Further complicating matters, the Nephite “interpreters” functioned as seer stones, meaning that “both the interpreters and the single stone apparently functioned in the same way and both were used to translate the Book of Mormon.” Michael Hubbard Mackay and Nicholas J. Frederick, Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2016), 50. Therefore, we must be cautious in assuming that every use of the term Urim and Thummim by Joseph or his contemporaries necessarily referred to the Nephite interpreters. Careful attention to context and historical details is essential in determining which instrument is being described in each instance.
  13. 18. “Letter from Elder W. H. Kelley,” Saints’ Herald 29, no. 5 (March 1, 1882): 68, https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/303f8d3f-6090-4cdf-862e-eb90dea38f83/0/3, emphasis original.
  14. 19. “Revelation, March 1829 [D&C 5],” in MacKay, and others, eds., Documents, Volume 1, 16https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-march-1829-dc-5/1#facts.
  15. 20. Doctrine and Covenants (1835), 158.

_____

Table of comparisons

Smoot

Original sources

While Joseph occasionally recounted aspects of the book’s origin, his descriptions were characteristically brief. In an 1833 letter to Noah Saxton,8 

 

Sexton letter:

The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western Tribes of Indians, having been found through the ministration of an holy Angel translated into our own Language by the gift and power of God, after having been hid up in the earth for the last fourteen hundred years31 containing the word of God, which was delivered unto them, By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are desendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt, and that the Land of America is a promised land unto them,32 and unto it all the tribes of Israel will come. with as many of the gentiles as shall comply with the requesitions of the new co[v]enant.

an 1843 letter to James Arlington Bennet,9 

Bennet letter:

the fact is, that by the power of God I translated the book of Mormon  from hierogliphics; the knowledge of which was lost to the world.12 In which wonderful event, I stood alone, an unlearned youth, to combat the worldly wisdom and multiplied ignorance of eighteen centuries. with a new revelation; which, (if they would receive <it>)13 (the fulness of the everlasting gospel) would open the eyes of more than eight hundred millions of people,14 and make plain the “old paths,” wherein if a man walk in all the ordinances of God blameless, he shall inherit eternal life

and in accounts published in 1838

Elders’ Journal:

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.

and 1842,10 

Wentworth letter:

After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty, and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22d of September A. D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands.

These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters and bound together in a volume, as the leaves of a book with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters on the unsealed part were small, and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction and much skill in the art of engraving. 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…. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

he described the translation as being accomplished through “the gift and power of God” with the aid of divinely prepared stones—

Comment: It is accurate that Joseph referred to “the gift and power of God” but he also specifically named and described the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates, which Smoot refers to here generically as “divinely prepared stones” to accommodate SITH.

a sentiment he also expressed in the preface to the 1830 first edition of the Book of Mormon.11 

Preface to 1830 edition:

As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by evil designing persons to destroy me, and also the work, 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; which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again—and being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again,

Omitted by Smoot

1832 Boston Investigator Q&A with Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith (a scribe)

https://www.mobom.org/urim-and-thummim-in-1832

Q.-In what manner was the interpretation, or translation made known, and by whom was it written?

A.-It was made known by the spirit of the Lord through the medium of the Urim and Thummim; and was written partly by Oliver Cowdery, and partly by Martin Harris.

Q.-What do you mean by Urim and Thummim?

A.-The same as were used by the prophets of old, which were two crystal stones, placed in bows something in the form of spectacles, which were found with the plates.

 

Letter IV

this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, 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

 

 


No comments:

Post a Comment