Readers here know that I think the Interpreter is awesome, as are the self-appointed "Interpreters" who manage and edit the Interpreter.
We're fine with people believing whatever they want. And we like multiple working hypotheses pending new/better information. We encourage people to make informed decisions by assessing evidence and arguments on all sides of an issue.
But at the same time, we pursue clarity, charity and understanding. And clarity requires us to discuss specifics.
It starts with the name, of course. There cannot be a more pretentious, arrogant name for an LDS "academic" journal than "Interpreter."
We charitably like the Interpreters on a personal basis. They are all faithful LDS who are admirable in every way. We assume they have good intentions and are trying to do what they think is right, but we can only chuckle every time we see the name of the journal, as well as the name of the foundation.
The pursuit of understanding leads us to appreciate the irony of the name the self-appointed "Interpreters" have given themselves. Consider first the definition of the actual interpreters on the Church website:
See also Urim and Thummim Interpreters
things are called interpreters, Mosiah 8:13 (8:19).
interpreters, and conferred them upon him, Mosiah 28:20.
that ye preserve these interpreters, Alma 37:21.
interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, Alma 37:24.
sealed up the interpreters, Ether 4:5.
The irony arises because the self-appointed "Interpreters" at the Interpreter Foundation uniformly reject what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said about the actual interpreters.
Instead, they promote the stone-in-the-hat narrative (SITH) published by Mormonism Unvailed in 1834. Joseph and Oliver denounced and refuted that book and its narratives, but our modern-day, self-appointed "Interpreters" promote SITH as sacrosanct.
One of the best-known promoters of the SITH narrative is Royal Skousen. His latest book, Part Seven: The Early Transmissions of the Text, includes this memorable claim:
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.
(emphasis added)
You might notice the irony there, too. When we read Skousen's Part Seven carefully, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that (i) his book is only partially true and that (ii) he is intentionally misleading his readers.
Some people don't believe Skousen actually wrote that, so here's an image of the page from his book:
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
The Interpreter had previously published a draft of Skousen's work that included this quotation. I commented on it back then, hoping Skousen might reconsider. But instead he doubled down, with the Interpreters lined up behind him.
Skousen's Part Seven was published by FARMS (The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies), complete with the old Mayan logo that Book of Mormon Central reclaimed:
Royal Skousen on Book of Mormon Witnesses:
a Comprehensive Analysis
Review
of Royal Skousen’s Part Seven: The Early Transmissions of the Text, from
Volume Three: The History of the Text, published by The Foundation for Ancient
American Research and Mormon Studies and Brigham Young University Studies,
Provo, Utah, 2024 (723 pages)
Jonathan Neville
This impressive
and welcome addition to Royal Skousen’s Critical Text of the Book of Mormon
project focuses on the early transmission of the text from Joseph Smith through
publication.
I’ve been eager
for this important reference in which Skousen provides exacting and useful
detail on the transmission of the text, including changes in the text that
Joseph and Oliver made in the 1837 and 1840 editions of the Book of Mormon. The
3,168 textual changes between the 1830 and 1837 editions are itemized and classified
in a highly useful and informative presentation.
Much of Part Seven
is technical and detailed, which is exactly what many of us appreciate most
about Skousen’s work. We can rely on his expertise and diligence for these
sections of the book. For example, the detailed exposition of the changes in
the 1837 edition supports Skousen’s conclusions that (i) the editing of the
1837 edition standardized the language of the text instead of making it
grammatically correct, and (ii) although obvious errors were corrected,
unpredictable errors that would have required looking at the original
manuscript (OM) were not corrected. This is exemplary scholarly work.
The book is
organized into several useful preliminary chapters, a chapter on The Witnesses
of the Book of Mormon (pp 41-131), Copying the Manuscript (pp 133-171), Changes
in Copying the Original Manuscript (pp 173-318), Typesetter’s Changes in
Copying the Manuscripts ([[ 319-424), and then three sections on the 1830,
1837, and 1840 editions of the text.
Problems with
the Witnesses chapter
While the bulk of
Part Seven is comprehensive, detailed, and reliable, there are glaring problems
with the chapter on The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Because Skousen’s book
is likely to be cited and quoted as a definitive source on the translation,
this review will focus on that chapter.
Skousen’s work
here is a serious problem because the takeaway message from Part Seven for many
readers will be this declaration from that chapter on page 62:
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.
(emphasis added)
Whether Skousen’s
claims are supported by the evidence is up to each reader, but in my view, despite
the 90 pages in this chapter, his treatment:
(i)
omits relevant, credible sources that contradict Skousen’s theories,
(ii)
accepts uncritically sources that confirm Skousen’s theories, and
(iii)
applies inconsistent standards to the sources using outcome-determined reasoning.
Skousen even
truncates the references he does quote to omit portions that contradict his
theories.
In sum, this
chapter is not up to the standards of the rest of Skousen’s work.
Skousen’s
manipulation of the historical record is consistent with the approach taken by
leading LDS scholars generally. Skousen relied on three main sources:
(i)
John
W. Welch’s Opening the Heavens (OTH), which also omits some important sources,
(ii)
Dan
Vogel’s groundbreaking Early Mormon Documents series (EMD) which
although groundbreaking years ago is incomplete and has been superseded by resources
readily available on the Internet, such as the Church History Library’s online
content, and
(iii)
Lyndon
W. Cook’s David Whitmer Interviews (DWI), which is an essential source
but also suffers from transcription errors and lack of context.
While it may be
understandable that Skousen relied on these reference materials in the past instead
of looking at the original sources (many of which are now available online),
that is no longer a legitimate excuse. He could and should have corrected the
errors and omissions in these references instead of perpetuating them.
This selective
approach to history is similar to the approach taken by the scholars who
composed the Gospel Topics Essay (“GTE”) on Book of Mormon Translation, which
doesn’t even quote what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said about the
translation. At least Skousen offers some of what they said, although he
dismisses it as “intentionally misleading.” (Note: The scholars who wrote Saints,
Vol 1, likewise manipulated the historical record by omitting these statements,
along with others that Skousen omitted, but if it is consistency with the GTE
and Saints that Skousen sought to offer, he should have made that
explicit.)
Unfortunately, this
chapter on the witnesses is so unreliable that it undermines the credibility
and thus the usefulness of the rest of Skousen’s work, in this volume and
elsewhere. We are left to wonder whether—and where—Skousen has manipulated
evidence in other aspects of his work.
It is probably
too much to ask, but a second edition that corrects these oversights and
deliberate omissions would rehabilitate the reliability of Skousen’s work in
Part Seven.
The FAITH
model of analysis
In this article,
I will discuss the Witnesses chapter by applying the FAITH model of analysis.
FAITH is an acronym for Facts, Assumptions, Inferences, Theories, and
Hypotheses. It may seem axiomatic that we must start with facts. To quote John
Adams (and early LDS author Benjamin Winchester), “facts are stubborn things.” Everyone,
regardless of their conclusions, biases, and beliefs, should be able to agree
with the facts. People reach different conclusions about those facts because of
their different assumptions, inferences, and theories, but the facts themselves
should be incontrovertible.
For example,
everyone should agree about the existence of a particular document, which is an
observable, objective fact. The contents of the document are also facts.
What is not a
fact is the authenticity of the document and the reliability, accuracy and
credibility of any claims made in it. Readers (and historians) make assumptions
and inferences about these indicia of trustworthiness, drawing on extrinsic
evidence in the light of their own biases, experiences, expertise, and overall
worldviews.
Distinguishing
between facts and the multiplicity of assumptions, inferences and theories can
be challenging, but it is essential for everyone to understand how and why we
reach multiple working hypotheses.
Royal Skousen’s
Part Seven is an ideal candidate for applying the FAITH model.
Summary of
problems.
There are four
categories of major problems with Part Seven’s Witnesses chapter.
(i)
Omission
of relevant original sources, especially those that contradict Skousen’s
theories
(ii)
Inconsistent
application of Skousen’s own standard of evidence
(iii)
Failure
to distinguish facts from assumptions, inferences and theories
(iv)
Failure
to consider alternative interpretations
The rest of this
paper offers details, including citations and links, about each category.
The paper also includes
three Appendices.
Appendix A is a
brief discussion of the 1829 Jonathan Hadley “Gold Bible” article that Skousen
did not address, but which has been recently promoted as the earliest account
of the Book of Mormon’s production.
Appendix B
presents the full content of the 1834 article “Mormonism” that this review
refers to at several points, but which Skousen omits even though it provides
essential context for many of the sources he promotes.
Appendix C discusses
Skousen’s explanation of the language in the Book of Mormon, assessing aspects
of his Foreword to Part Seven and his chapter “On the Importance of the
Original Manuscript.” There I suggest that the work of Skousen and Stanford Carmack
would be enhanced by expanding their focus to sources known to be available to
Joseph Smith prior to his translation of the plates. The examples discussed in
the postscript also indicate that Joseph himself was fully capable of producing
the text as a translation in his own language.
The FAITH model applied to
the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon
As observed above,
the takeaway message of Part Seven for many readers will be this sentence from
page 62 in the chapter titled “The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.”
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.
(emphasis added)
To assess this
claim, we will examine the sources Skousen quoted and cited. We recognize that
Skousen necessarily summarizes the historical record. This would not be a
problem except that:
(i)
he
makes claims that contradict the historical record, which is not apparent to
readers because he omits sources that contradict his theories, and
(ii)
he
manipulates the historical record to support his theories by inconsistently
applying his own standards of reliability.
Types of
Witnesses.
Skousen opens the
chapter on page 41 by identifying two types of witnesses:
(i)
those
who saw, felt or hefted the plates, including the Three and Eight Witnesses,
Mary Whitmer, and six individuals who felt or hefted the plats; and
(ii)
those
who “viewed the translation process, witnesses who actually observed Joseph
Smith dictating the text of the Book of Mormon. We have at least eight
individuals who qualify as firsthand witnesses of the translation process.”
Skousen inexplicably
excludes statements by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery from group (ii),
relegating them to a separate group of “generic accounts” that he characterizes
as misleading.
We will apply the
FAITH model to each group in turn.
Skousen sets out
his standard of evidence on page 42.
In
selecting witnesses and their statements, we hunt for those accounts that are firsthand,
preferably in the witness’s own hand or otherwise based on fairly
recent interviews of the witness. As with all accounts of historical
events, we will find that they tend to change over time, which means that the earliest
accounts are the most reliable ones. Most importantly, we find that the
most reliable accounts are supported by more than one witness and that they end
up being quite consistent. (emphasis added)
Skousen’s
assessment of the witnesses does not follow his own standards. In the case of
David Whitmer, for example, Skousen privileges later statements over earlier
ones.
Furthermore, the
last sentence ignores the investigative problem that witnesses can
intentionally or unintentionally influence each other’s statements, leading to
a mix of memories or even a collusive consensus version of events. This is why
police interrogate people individually and why judges don’t allow witnesses to
be present in the courtroom when other witnesses are testifying.[1]
In fact, although
Skousen gives us a specific example of this coordination occurring with the
Book of Mormon witnesses (the walls of Jerusalem anecdote), he seems oblivious
of this common problem when describing the testimony of the witnesses about what
they claimed to be the translation.
As noted above,
Skousen provides a list of “the more comprehensive sources for the witness
statements” (p. 42):
-
Lyndon
W. Cook’s David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness, published by
Granding Book Company, Orem, Utah, 1991
-
Dan
Vogel’s Early Mormon Documents, published in five volumes by Signature
Books, Salt Lake City, Utah: volume 1 (1996), volume 2 (1998), volume 2 (2000),
volume 4 (2017), and volume 5 (2003).
-
“Documents
of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” pages 126-227 in John W. Welch’s
second edition of his Opening the Heavens (published by BYU Studies,
Provo, Utah, 2017) (hereinafter “OTH”)
To the extent
Skousen limited his research to these three sources, many of the errors and
omissions in this chapter are understandable. Cook’s book is generally reliable
but contains some well-known transcription errors. Vogel’s books were
ground-breaking at the time, but in some cases have been superseded by new
findings. Welch’s book is a useful resource but is tainted by his editorial
agenda which led him to omit references that contradict his own theories about
the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. We will offer examples of each of
these problems as they surface in Skousen’s analysis.
Witnesses of
the golden plates (pp 42-47)
Skousen
identifies three groups in this section: (i) the three witnesses, (ii) the
eight witnesses, and (iii) Mary Whitmer. He acknowledges that Joseph Smith
belongs in the first two groups.
The first thing
to notice is the omission of Josiah Stowell’s testimony that he observed a
corner of the plates and hefted them.
The only way to
clearly and effectively address Skousen’s analysis of the three witnesses is by
interlinear commentary on Skousen’s exact wording (indented below). My comments
are bolded.
1. The three witnesses. (Oliver Cowdery,
David Whitmer, and Martin Harris)—and in the presence of Joseph Smith—were
shown the golden plates by the angel, sometime near the end of June 1829.
The
formal Testimony states, “we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of
God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we
beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon.”
The
experience was visionary and none of them actually handled the plates.
This
statement, written as fact, reflects the formal Testimony but ignores other
statements by the witnesses. Oliver Cowdery later said he handled the plates (which
the Three Witnesses did not), but Skousen never provides that statement. It is
possible that Oliver was referring to a separate occasion, presumably when he
attempted to translate. Nor does Skousen mention these statements from Martin
Harris that he handled the plates, published in OTH: (i) 1831 – He [Martin]
told all about the gold plates, Angels, Spirits, and Jo Smith.—He had seen and
handled them all, by the power of God! OTH #136, p. 176. (ii) 1859 – At one
time, Martin said “as many of the plates as Joseph Smith translated I handled
with my hands, plate after plate.” OTH #46, p. 133. (iii) 1922 – “I saw the
angel, I heard his voice, I saw and handled the plates upon which the Book of
Mormon was written.” OTH #61, p. 139. (iv) 1923 – “with these hands,” holding
out his hands, “I handled the plates containing the record of the Book of Mormon.”
OTH #62, p. 139.
Instead,
the angel showed them the plates and turned the leaves over so they could see
them. When the angel appeared there also appeared a table on which the golden
plates lay, along with other Book of Mormon artifacts, including the original
plates of brass, the sword of Laban, the Liahona, and the interpreters that
came with the golden plates.
None
of this is found in the formal Testimony. The sentence is based on something
David Whitmer reportedly said to Edward Stevenson in 1877 (see below). D&C
17:1 promises the witnesses “a view of the plates, and also the
breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim an Thummim… and the miraculous
directors,” yet their Testimony mentions only the plates. The original version
of this revelation is not extant. The revelation does not appear in the 1833
Book of Commandments. The earliest known version is the one printed in the 1835
D&C. The phrase “and also” may suggest that the witnesses would see the
plates on one occasion, and then see the other objects separately. Furthermore,
none of the witnesses reported seeing a seer stone as part of this experience,
which should have been critical if it was the actual means of translation.
The
voice of the Lord told the three witnesses that the translation was correct and
that they should testify of what they had seen.
The
formal Testimony says “the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear
record of it,” the pronoun “it” presumably referring to the experience of
seeing the angel and the plates while hearing the voice of God. Clearly the
Testimony does not mention any objects other than the plates.
David
and Martin consistently referred to their experience as spiritual (as being
seen with their “spiritual eyes”).
And
yet, as we just saw, both Martin and Oliver said they handled the plates.
This
witnessing occurred twice, first to Oliver and David along with Joseph; and
then soon thereafter to Martin, along with Joseph once more.
This
is an example of witnesses coordinating their testimony because contrary to the
plain implication of the Testimony, the three did not share the same experience.
Certainly, Martin left no record of having seen a table covered with artifacts.
Their
account of this experience was published as “The Testimony of Three Witnesses”
in the first (1830) edition of the Book of Mormon; in the earliest editions it
was placed at the end of the Book of Mormon, but with later editions at the
beginning.
2. The eight witnesses (Christian Whitmer,
Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Junior, John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith
Senior, Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith) were shown the plates by Joseph
Smith, also near the end of June 1829. Each witness was allowed to hold and
examine the plates.
This
may be another example of witnesses coordinating their testimony because
contrary to the plain implication of the Testimony, the eight may not have seen
the plates simultaneously. P Wilhelm Poulson wrote a letter about an interview
he did with John Whitmer in April 1878. Poulson asked, “Were you all eight
witnesses present at the same time?” Whitmer: “No. At that time Joseph showed
the plates to us, we were four persons, present in the room, and at another
time he showed them to four persons more.”[2]
Their joint Testimony does not say they individually handled the plates: “as
many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our
hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon.”
Their
witness was purely physical in nature, without any visionary or spiritual
aspect.
Accurate
according to their Testimony and separate statements.
3. Mary Whitmer (the mother of the five
witnesses from the Whitmer family) was shown the plates by the angel sometime
in the early part of June 1829.
Mary
did not describe the personage as an angel. Based on her description, David
Whitmer inferred that it was the same messenger whom he met on the road from
Harmony to Fayette. David reported to Edward Stevenson that Joseph Smith
identified the personage as a “messenger” who “was one of the Nephites &
that he had the plates.”[3]
Separately, Stevenson reported that David said Joseph said “their visitor was
one of the three Nephites to whom the Savior gave the promise of life on earth
until He should come in power. After arriving home, David again saw this
personage, and mother Whitmer… is said to have seen not only this Nephite…” Skousen
omitted this account from his book, however.
She
was the first witness of the golden plates.
Skousen
presumably means other than Joseph Smith. Obviously we cannot know this. At
most we can say she was the first witness whose statement is known. We can also
infer that when Oliver Cowdery said he handled the plates, he was referring to
his attempt to translate in Harmony, which preceded Mary’s experience in
Fayette.
Her
experience was a physical one, unlike the spiritual one of the three witnesses,
but also different from the eight witnesses’ experience: namely, the angel
turned over the leaves of the plates so she could view them, but Mary did not
handle the plates; and Joseph Smith was not present.
This
is a reasonable inference from the available facts, but all we know about Mary’s
experience is what others said.
Mary
never wrote down her experience, as far as we know, but she told it to her
children; we have three accounts of her experience, one from David Whitmer,
another from John C. Whitmer (the son of Jacob Whitmer), and a third from the
extended family of Christian Whitmer.
The
paucity of reliable information about Mary’s experience makes this almost a
recreational belief, but we can examine the sources we do have.
On page 43
Skousen republishes a 2014 article he published in the Interpreter,
which occupies nearly four full pages (43-47) and relates three hearsay
accounts related by Mary’s descendants. But nowhere does he include Stevenson’s
account, quoted above, in which David explicitly explains that Joseph
identified the messenger. We’ll look at the three accounts.
1. The first
account Skousen provides is an excerpt from David Whitmer’s 1878 interview with
Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, published 16 November 1878 in the Deseret
News. David explained that he picked up Joseph and Oliver from Harmony and
was taking them to his father’s home in Fayette when they met a “nice-looking
old man” on the side of the road. David offered him a ride, but the man said
“No, I am going to Cumorah.” David then said, “This name was something new to
me, I did not know what Cumorah meant.” He described the man as “about 5 feet 8
or 9 inches tall and heavy set” with white hair and a long white beard, and
then said “It was the messenger who had the plates, who had taken them from
Joseph just prior to our starting from Harmony.” David said his mother “was met
out near the yard by the same old man (judging by her description of him)…
Thereupon he showed her the plates.”
But inexplicably,
Skousen omitted an earlier account that David gave of this encounter with the
messenger. In December 1877, Edward Stevenson interviewed David and, at the
request of Zina Young, asked David about the encounter with the messenger. (Zina
and her family had been converted by David Whitmer and Hyrum Smith when they
were missionary companions in 1832, which presumably is when she first heard
the account.)
Stevenson
promptly recorded his interview in his journal, including this excerpt.
"I
wish to mention an Item of conversation with David Whitmer in regard to Seeing
one of the Nephites, Zina Young, Desired me to ask about it. David Said,
Oliver, & The Prophet, & I were riding in a wagon, & an aged man
about 5 feet 10, heavey Set & on his back, an old fashioned Armey knapsack
Straped over his Shoulders & Something Square in it, & he walked
alongside of the Wagon & Wiped the Sweat off his face, Smileing very
Pleasant David asked him to ride and he replied I am going across to the hill
Cumorah. Soon after they Passed they felt Strangeley and Stoped, but could see
nothing of him all around was clean and they asked the Lord about it. He
Said that the Prophet Looked as White as a Sheet & Said that it was one of
the Nephites & that he had the plates." (emphasis added)[4]
Ten year later
Stevenson published an article about his visit with David in the Instructor,
including this important detail that Skousen should have included in this
section.
David
relates, the Prophet looked very white but with a heavenly appearance and said their
visitor was one of the three Nephites to whom the Savior gave the promise of
life on earth until He should come in power. After arriving home, David
again saw this personage, and mother Whitmer, who was very kind to Joseph
Smith, is said to have seen not only this Nephite, but to have also been
shown by him the sealed and unsealed parts of the plates from which the Book of
Mormon was translated.[5]
The Three
Nephites were promised that they “shall never taste of death” 3 Nephi 28:7. The
scripture doesn’t say what age they would be when they were changed to enjoy
perpetual mortality, but the other nine disciples were promised that “after
that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall come unto me in my kingdom.” v.
3. David’s description of the messenger is compatible with his appearing to be around
72 years old. (Compare 3 Ne. 28:3)
One would think
this account would be dispositive about the identity of the messenger,
particularly when Mary Whitmer herself corroborated David’s account (see below).
But instead of informing his readers about this account and incorporating it
into his theory, Skousen ignores it in favor of his extended discussion of a
couple of attenuated hearsay accounts that amount to family lore.
2. The first family
lore Skousen quotes is John C. Whitmer’s 1878 account, recorded by Andrew
Jenson and published in 1901 in his Latter-Day Saint Biographical
Encyclopedia.
I
have heard my grandmother (Mary Musselman Whitmer) say on several occasions
that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by a holy angel, whom
she always called Brother Nephi. (She undoubtedly refers to Moroni, the angel
who had the plates in charge.) It was at the time, she said, when the
translation was going on at the house of the elder Peter Whitmer, her husband…
(emphasis added)
The Moroni
parenthetical raises a question that Skousen addressed after continuing the
lengthy quotation.
We
should note here that there is some issue about the identity of the angel. Mary
Whitmer referred to him as Nephi, but John C. Whitmer identifies him as Moroni.
Skousen claims it
was John C. Whitmer’s parenthetical, but people don’t speak in parentheticals. When
we look at the passage, it seems obvious it was Andrew Jenson who inserted the
parentheticals. John Whitmer would not have put his grandmother's name in a
parenthetical. More importantly, John was likely familiar with his uncle
David's earlier account identifying the messenger, which Royal hasn't shared
yet. For whatever reason, Jenson simply assumed Mary was mistaken and inserted
the parenthetical when he published the account.
Either way, it is
obvious that Mary Whitmer did not identify the angel as Moroni. Instead, “she
always called [him] Brother Nephi.” That is consistent with Joseph Smith’s
identification of the messenger as one of the Three Nephites. At the time of
the encounter, Mary would not have read the Book of Mormon, which was still in
manuscript form and not completely translated, which makes her identification
of the messenger all the more significant. Furthermore, Brigham Young explained
that Joseph interacted with both Nephi and Moroni.[6]
3. The next
family lore account that Skousen quotes was provided by Carl Cox, who shared a narrative
attributed to Elvira Cox, who was a teenager in 1829. Elvira was the orphaned
niece of Sylvester Hulet, the second husband of Anna Shott, the widow of
Christian Whitmer, who died in 1835 in Missouri. Hulet married Shott in
Missouri.
Carl Cox
explained that a family history dated 1958 contained an account written by a
grandson of Elvira, O.C. Day, who was born in 1885. Carl told Skousen that “O C
Day heard the stories from his grandmother, Elvira, and from his mother,
Euphrasia, in his youth, but didn’t write them down until the 1950s.” This
means O C was in his 70s when he first recorded his childhood memories.
Aside from the
attenuated memory and hearsay problems, the credibility of this account depends
on a series of assumptions, such as that Elvira somehow had first-hand
knowledge even though her uncle married Christian’s widow after Christian died
in Missouri.
In O C’s version
of Elvira’s account, “David Whitmer had invited Joseph and Oliver to live in
his father’s home while translating.” This is false, because Joseph was
commanded through the Urim and Thummim to contact David and Oliver wrote a
letter to David asking him to come pick them up.[7]
The account
continues by claiming that “a short, heavy-set, gray-haired man carrying a
package met her and said, ‘My name is Moroni. You have become pretty tired with
all the extra work you have to do…” This account, which directly contradicts
what both Mary and David said, was likely influenced by the Moroni
parenthetical in the 1878 account Andrew Jenson published that we discussed
above, which others picked up as well.
After his
extended discussion of the dubious Cox account, Skousen writes (p. 47):
We
should also add here the earliest record of the angel appearing to Mary
Whitmer. This is found in Edward Stevenson’s interview of David Whitmer on
22-23 December 1877 and is recorded as follows in Stevenson’s diary [Cook 13,
Vogel 5:31]:
&
the next Morning Davids Mother Saw the Person at the Shed and he took the
Plates from A Box & Showed them to her She Said that they were fastened
with Rings thus: D he turned the leaves over this was a Sattisfaction to her.
Important note: In Stevenson’s journal, this excerpt comes
just a few lines after the excerpt quoted above about the messenger being
one of the three Nephites.
He
Said that the Prophet Looked as White as a Sheet & Said that it was one of
the Nephites & that he had the plates. On arriving at home they were
impressed that the Same Person was under the shed & again they were
informed that it was so. They saw whare he had been. & the next Morning
David’s Mother Saw the Person at the Shed…
Given that
Skousen was aware of Stevenson’s interview with David Whitmer (because he
quoted an excerpt from it), it is all the more puzzling that he omitted both
(i)
the
part of Stevenson’s journal entry that identified the messenger and
(ii)
Stevenson’s
published account of that interview.
It’s difficult to
think of a reason why Skousen omitted David’s identification of the messenger other
than that it contradicts Skousen’s belief that the messenger was Moroni.
A post on this
topic that includes images of the relevant source material is here:
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2024/12/creating-narrative-with-selective.html
Readers can
decide for themselves what is going on here.
_____
Witnesses who felt or hefted the covered plates
In this section
(pp. 47-49), Skousen relates statements from Josiah Stowell, Lucy Mack Smith,
William Smith, Katherine Smith Salisbury, Martin Hartis, and Emma Smith
Bidamon. He includes a statement from Martin that he hefted the plates, but as
we saw previously, he omits the statements from Martin about his handling the
plates.
_____
Two different methods of translating the Book of
Mormon (pp 49-79)
Skousen starts
this section with a statement that led to his conclusion that what Joseph Smith
said about the translation was only partially true and that what Oliver Cowdery
said was deliberately misleading.
The
Book of Mormon, as we have it today (the result of losing the 116 manuscript
pages), was most probably all translated by means of a seer stone that Joseph
Smith had. While translating the 116 pages… Joseph could have used the Nephite
interpreters (that is, the spectacles) that came with the plates…. Ultimately,
a more convenient method weas for him to use the seer stone, by placing it in a
hat to obscure the light….
Skousen points
out that “there is nothing in the original manuscript to indicate which method
of translation Joseph Smith was using.”
Thus, we must
rely on witness statements for information about the translation.
Next, Skousen
writes that “Joseph Smith sems to have consistently refused to tell others how
the translation process worked.” He quotes the minutes of the 1831 conference
in which Joseph said “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.” Yet the translation was only part of
the “coming forth of the book of Mormon.”
Joseph never
provided the particulars of where, exactly, the stone box was located on the
hill Cumorah, nor the repository of Nephite records, nor his interactions with
Moroni and Nephi. But he did explain that he translated the plates by means of
the Urim and Thummim, and we have some accounts of how he looked through the
Urim and Thummim at the engravings on the plates when he translated.
Furthermore,
those present at the 1831 meeting did not apparently understand “the coming
forth of the book of Mormon” to mean the translation because several of them
did talk about the translation after that meeting.
Later in the
chapter (p. 52) Skousen introduces his eight translation witnesses by claiming
that “All eight primary witnesses of the translation independently refer to
Joseph Smith using the seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon.” To say they
acted “independently” is merely an assumption that they neither coordinated
their statements nor were influenced by one another, an assumption contradicted
by Skousen’s own analysis of the “walls of Jerusalem” example.
In the next part
of the paper, we will apply the FAITH model to these witnesses to assess
credibility and reliability.
Applying the FAITH model to the section on Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.
The FAITH model
starts with identifying all the relevant Facts, which everyone can agree upon,
and then moves to an analysis of the various Assumptions, Inference, and
Theories that lead to the overall Hypothesis or Worldview being advocated. By
separating objective Facts from subjective Assumptions, Inferences, etc.,
everyone can clearly understand the thought process followed by each of the
multiple working hypotheses about the translation of the Book of Mormon.
For example, the
existence and content of a particular historical document are facts everyone
can agree upon. Whether the contents of that document are factual is a
separate question that involves assumptions and inferences, as well as
evidentiary criteria such as credibility, reliability, means, motive, and
opportunity.
Regarding
personal accounts, when a purported witness relates an account without
mentioning personal experience (or in a context when personal experience is
known independently), my default assumption is that the account is hearsay.
In this section
of his book, Skousen mingles facts with assumptions, inferences, etc. By
applying the FAITH model of analysis, we can separate the facts and enable
readers to make informed decisions for themselves.
As mentioned
above, Skousen quotes the brief minutes from the 1831 meeting. Then he makes
this statement:
Joseph
liked to simply refer to the translation as having been done "by the gift
and power of God", which doesn't really tell us anything about the actual
translation procedure.
Although Skousen
states this as a fact, it is not accurate to say that Joseph “simply” referred
to the translation as having been done “by the gift and power of God.” To the
contrary, he usually accompanied that statement with clarity about the
instrument he used, as we will see in his statements.
_____
On page 50,
Skousen discusses what he calls “the first method” with this heading:
The first
method: Using the Nephite interpreters along with the plates
To his credit,
Skousen quotes JS-H 1:62 (although he inexplicably cites Vogel and Welch
instead of JS-H).
I
commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number
of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them. (Joseph
Smith—History 1:62)
Skousen dismisses
this first-hand statement by saying it “does not provide much detail.” Maybe
not “much” detail, but Joseph gives us the important detail that he was copying
and translating individual characters “by means of the Urim and Thummim.” This
is far from Skousen’s concept that he was reading words and/or complete
sentences off a stone in a hat without looking at the plates.
The FAITH model
recognizes the statement as at least approved by Joseph Smith (although
apparently written by scribes). It is a reasonable assumption that the
statement is factual, meaning Joseph Smith actually did copy characters and
translate them, which is corroborated by Martin Harris taking Joseph’s
translation to New York. People can make different assumptions about whether
and how Joseph used the Urim and Thummim (“U&T”).
Skousen and
others characterize this as the “first method” because they cannot reconcile
Joseph translating individual character with the stone-in-the-hat (“SITH”) narrative,
as we will see.
Next, Skousen
quotes the John A. Clark statement based on what he claimed was Martin Harris’
account.
Before we discuss
the Clark statement, you might wonder why Skousen did not include other
statements by Joseph Smith or the accounts from Oliver Cowdery. Skousen saves
those for later, on page 62, in a section he titles “Generic accounts from
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery,” which we will discuss below.
The Clark
statement:
“Smith
concealed behind the blanket, pretended to look through his spectacles, or
transparent stones, and would then write down or repeat what he saw, which,
when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of
the suspended blanket.”
Next Skousen
quotes two accounts by Charles Anthon. The first is from Mormonism Unvailed:
“being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather,
looked through one of the glasses, decyphered [sic] the characters in the book…”
Anthon’s 1841 letter describes it a little differently: “having fastened the
spectacles to his head, had read several pages in the golden book, and
communicated their contents in writing to certain persons stationed on the
outside of the curtain.”
Skousen does not
comment on these references, which are all hearsay based on what Martin Harris may
have told Anthon. Obviously, if Martin was behind a curtain he could not know
what Joseph was doing unless Joseph explained it to him, or demonstrated it
somehow.
These accounts
are at least consistent. They corroborate what Joseph said about the
commandment not to show the Urim and Thummim or the plates (JS-H 1:59), because
otherwise there would be no need for a curtain. This curtain—this
“vail”—surfaces in the title of the book Mormonism Unvailed.
Skousen then
provides the Nancy Towle account from 1831, another hearsay account:
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.
Here again we
have Joseph looking into, or though, the pair of interpreters to read the
engravings on the plates. This corroborates both Joseph’s account in JS-H 1:62
where he was translating characters “by means of the Urim and Thummim” and
D&C 10:41 (“you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of
Nephi).
_____
Skousen’s next
section starting on page 51 is titled:
Shifting from
the first method to the second one
But before going
through this section, we note that Skousen inexplicably omits three important
accounts of “the first method,” two related by actual scribes and one by
Joseph’s mother.
1. Samuel H.
Smith
Samuel H. Smith,
brother of Joseph Smith, was one of the scribes Joseph used and was thus an
eyewitness of the translation.[8]
In 1832, Samuel
was a missionary companion with Orson Hyde. They responded to a reporter's
questions, as reported in the Boston Investigator newspaper.[9]
The Q&A included the translation of the Book of Mormon:
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.
D&C 5:30
implies that Martin served as a scribe in March 1829 before Oliver arrived. Note
that Samuel did not mention he was also a scribe. Perhaps he refrained out of
humility, or to avoid complicating the conversation. He (and Orson Hyde) also
did not mention Emma, John Whitmer and Christian Whitmer as scribes, possibly
because neither of them was present when they were scribing.
Had Samuel not
been a scribe, these answers might have been hearsay. As one of the scribes,
for however briefly he may have served, Samuel is a first-hand witness of the
translation process. People can make different assumptions and inferences about
the accuracy of the newspaper account, but it corroborates what Joseph and
Oliver always said.
Some may argue
that Samuel was a scribe only for the lost 116 pages, but that does not fit the
chronology of Joseph’s 1832 history. Joseph said that Oliver Cowdery saw the
plates in a vision and explained that “now my wife had writen some for me to
translate and also my Brothr Samuel H Smith but we had become reduced in
property and my wives father was about to turn me out of doors.”[10]
Oliver, who arrived in April 1829, was the answer to Joseph’s prayer for help.
_____
2. John
Whitmer
John Whitmer,
David's brother, served as a scribe in Fayette, NY, where Joseph translated the
plates of Nephi (as commanded in D&C 10).
The book Opening
the Heavens includes John's statement here:
104. John
Whitmer, as interviewed by Zenas H. Gurley (1879)
He
had seen the plates; and it was his especial pride and joy that he had written
sixty pages of the Book of Mormon. . . . When the work of translation was going
on he sat at one table with his writing material and Joseph at another with the
breast-plate and Urim and Thummim. The latter were attached to the breast-plate
and were two crystals or glasses, into which he looked and saw the words of the
book. The words remained in sight till correctly written, and mistakes of the
scribe in spelling the names were corrected by the seer without diverting his
gaze from the Urim and Thummim.[11]
It’s unclear why
Skousen omits this account. John was a scribe in Fayette and therefore had
nothing to do with the lost 116 pages. This account has Joseph and the scribe
sitting at separate tables with no mention of a curtain between them. The
account has John specifically seeing the plates (he was one of the Eight
Witnesses) and implies he also observed the Urim and Thummim and breast-plate
when Joseph was translating at the other table. But he also described the words
remaining in sight, which John could not have seen, so at least that part of
the sentence is hearsay. The ambiguous nature of this account supports multiple
working hypotheses, but it must be included in any analysis of witness
statements.
3. Lucy Mack
Smith.
Lucy related her
experience when she came to visit Joseph in Harmony in the fall of 1828.
when I
entered his house the first thing that attracted [p. 135] my attention was a
red morocco trunk, that set on Emma’s bureau; which trunk Joseph shortly
informed me, contained the Urim and Thummim and the plates. In the evening
he gave us the following relation of what had transpired since our separation…
[quoting Joseph, p. 138] “on the 22d of September, I had the joy and
satisfaction of again receiving the Urim and Thummim; and have
commenced translating again, and Emma writes for me; but the angel said
that the Lord would send me a scribe, and <I> trust his promise will be verified. He also seemed pleased with me, when
he gave me back the Urim and Thummim; and he told me that the Lord loved me,
for my faithfulness and humility.[12]
Lucy’s account
shows Joseph possessing and using the U&T after the loss of the 116 pages.
The angel had taken the U&T when he lost the pages but then returned it and
Joseph “commenced translating again.”[13]
In her 1844-5
history, Lucy related this event a little differently, with interlinear
addition of the U&T.
I then continued
<said> Joseph my suplications to God without
cessation that his mercy might again be exercised towards me and on the 22 of september I had the Joy
and satisfaction of again receiving the record <urim and Thummin> into my possession and I have commenced translating and Emma writes for me now but the
angel said that if I got the plates again that the Lord
woul[d] send some one to write for me and I trust that if it
will be so. he also said that the <he> angel seemed <was> rejoiced when he gave him <me> back the plates <urim and Thummim> and said that he <God> was pleased with his <my> faithfulness and humility also that the Lord was pleased with him and loved him <me> for his <my> penitence and dilligence in prayer in the which he <I> had performed his duty so well as to receive the record <urim and Thummin> and be <was> able to enter upon the
work of translation again[14]
These accounts
from Samuel Smith, John Whitmer, and Lucy Mack Smith contradict Skousen’s
conclusion, but that is no excuse for omitting them.
_____
Let’s return to
Skousen’s next section that begins on page 51.
Shifting from
the first method to the second one
Skousen writes:
A
few witnesses clearly distinguish between the two translating instruments.
According to these accounts, the Nephite interpreters were used for translating
the lost 116 pages (or only in part, according to Martin Harris's account), but
afterwards Joseph Smith used only the seer stone:
“A few” means
Emma Smith Bidamon, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris.
Skousen provides
an excerpt from Emma’s 1870 letter to Emma Pilgrim:
Now
the first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of Urim, and
Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a
small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color.[15]
The existence of
this letter and its content are facts everyone can agree upon. Whether the
contents are factual, however, is a question of assumptions and inferences that
lead to different conclusions. Note the significance of Emma distinguishing
between the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone, a distinction that some modern
LDS scholars have sought to blur.
In terms of
credibility, the first thing to notice is the date: 1870, over 50 years after
the translation of the Book of Mormon. The lateness of the account is not
dispositive; people can recall details their entire lives. But in this letter,
Emma says she could give a better answer if she could look at the Times and
Seasons, but someone had taken her copies, which suggests her memory was
vague. She gives no details about where she scribed or what she scribed, and
does not express personal knowledge, such as “I saw” or even “Joseph told me.”
Instead, it comes across as hearsay which anyone could have related.
The letter seems
to contradict Emma’s 1879 “Last Testimony” in which she claimed Joseph used the
stone-in-a-hat to translate the portion she wrote, presumably in Harmony during
the translation of the 116 pages (because she wrote “day after day” and doesn’t
mention other people being present). But in the Pilgrim letter, she claims Joseph
used the Urim and Thummim to translate those pages and used the seer stone
after those pages were lost (which was David Whitmer’s belief). If her
statements are both correct, she could not have written any part of the 116
pages, but could only have been a scribe for the existing Book of Mosiah and/or
a portion of the plates of Nephi in Fayette. (In my view, Emma was a scribe
during all three portions of the translation, but she adopted the SITH narrative
for apologetic purposes to rebut the then-prevailing Spalding theory.)
The Spalding
theory held that Joseph was reading a pre-existing manuscript from behind a
curtain. The SITH narrative serves as an apologetic refutation of the Spalding
theory. William McLellin claimed Joseph never had any Urim and Thummim. And in
this time frame, William McLellin had been visiting all the Reorganized members,
pushing the stone in the hat theory. In her letter, Emma asked Pilgrim about McLellan
in an apparently favorable context.
please
write to me again and let me know how you will get along and how Mr. Hedrich
and Mr. McLelland manages with regard to the Church, do they have any regular
Church organisation, or not, and what their moral and religious influence is
among the people there.
Juxtaposed to
these credibility problems with the Pilgrim letter is the more contemporaneous,
specific, and first-hand account from Joseph’s mother that we discussed above. With
respect to the U&T, Lucy Mack Smith’s account is much earlier and more
specific than the Pilgrim letter.
Next Skousen
quotes an excerpt from the 1877 David Whitmer interview recorded by Edward
Stevenson. “David said that the Prophet translated first by the Urim &
thumim [sic] & afterwards by A Seer Stone.”
This statement
corroborates Emma Smith’s distinction between the U&T and the seer stone,
but David is vague about (i) when and where Joseph used either instrument and (ii)
what he translated. Furthermore, the statement is compound hearsay because
Edward was reporting a summary of what David said and David was never present
in Harmony for the translation and thus had no personal knowledge of how Joseph
translated there. In this account David does not share the basis for his
belief.
The third
statement in this section is from Martin Harris, recorded by Edward Stevenson.
Stevenson claimed Martin related the account on 4 September 1870 during the
train ride to Utah from Ohio. Martin died in 1875 after giving many interviews,
but apparently did not relate this account to anyone else. Stevenson first
published the account on 30 November 1881.
He
said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to
translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then
used the seer stone. [Martin then described the Urim and Thummim.]
This statement is
the source of the “convenience” narrative. Martin’s other accounts, discussed
above, describe a blanket or screen between him and Joseph. The Stevenson account
does not explain how Martin would know what instrument Joseph was using.
Martin’s description of the Urim and Thummim likely was based on his experience
as one of the Three Witnesses.
Skousen omitted
another account that would fall in this category.
Zenas Gurley,
Jr., a member of the Reorganized Church, interviewed David Whitmer and others
of Joseph’s associates. He published an account of his visit with David and discussed
the Urim and Thummim at some length, pointing out that:
Had
the Book of Mormon been translated from ‘behind a blanket,’ as its opponents
assert, it would even then be in harmony with that kind of practice among the
high priests, as seen from the above quotation [from Dr. Robinson’s Bible
Encyclopedia].
Then Gurley
wrote,
That Joseph had another
stone called seers' stone, and ‘peep stone,’ is quite certain. This stone was frequently
exhibited to different ones and helped to assuage their awful curiosity; but
the Urim and Thummim never, unless
possibly to Oliver Cowdery.
[Gurley then quotes Oliver Cowdery’s account which is now the note at
the end of JS-H.]
This agrees with Joseph Smith’s account of the translation; and though
Joseph lost the Urim and Thummim through transgression, the latter part of June
(probably), 1828, yet they were returned to him in July of the same year; by
which, according to his statement above, he accomplished by them what was required at his hand…[16]
Gurley thus
offers an explanation of the translation that fits the evidence; i.e., that
Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim (interpreters) that came
with the plates, but he also had a seer stone that he showed the early Saints to
“assuage their awful curiosity.” What Gurley meant by that is open to
assumptions and inferences. One possibility is that Joseph, having been
commanded not to show the Urim and Thummim, used the stone to explain how the
translation worked by demonstrating it. This would explain him putting the
stone in a hat and dictating words as related by the witnesses discussed below.
Another possibility is that Joseph simply used the stone as a sort of prop,
even though he did not need it to receive revelations.
At any rate,
Skousen should have included Gurley’s account in this section for his readers
to assess.
_____
The next section,
starting on page 52, is titled
The second
method: Placing the seer stone in a hat in order to obscure the light
Skousen
introduces this section with this statement:
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
early months 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.
There is a lot to
unpack here.
When Skousen
refers to “all eight primary witnesses of the translation,” he specifically
omits Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Samuel Smith, and John Whitmer, none of
whom stated, suggested or implied any use of the seer stone in the hat. In
other words, Skousen identifies the SITH witnesses as the “primary witnesses.”
Skousen says
these witnesses “independently” refer to SITH. Yet as we have seen, Skousen
also points out that the “walls of Jerusalem” anecdote, which presumably
originated with Emma Smith, was repeated by David Whitmer instead of being an
“independent” account. What Skousen describes as “some variety” is not
necessarily evidence of independence, but can also be seen as confusion from
multiple hearsay accounts.
Next we will
assess what Skousen calls the eight “primary witnesses.” Note that he does not
consider Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Samuel Smith, John Whitmer, or Lucy Mack
Smith as “primary witnesses,” apparently because they do not support the SITH narrative.
1. Joseph
Knight Senior wrote this
reminiscence between 1835 and 1847:
Now
the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned
his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman
Letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go
away the next sentance would Come and so on But if it was not Spelt rite it
would not go away till it was rite so we see it was marvelous thus was the hol
[whole] translated.
Nothing in this
account indicates first-hand observation or the source of Knight’s knowledge.
Skousen simply assumes Knight was an actual witness. Because he thinks it would
be impractical for Joseph to put large spectacles in a hat, Skousen writes, “I
have assumed that here in his description of the translation process, Joseph
Knight uses the term ‘urim and thummim’ to mean the seer stone.”
Obviously, it is
not difficult to put eyeglasses into a hat. It is a question of relative size.
Skousen’s assumption here is neither logical nor likely.
When a purported
witness relates an account without mentioning personal experience, my default
assumption is that the account is hearsay. For example, before Knight wrote
this statement, the “Mormonism” article that described stone-in-the-hat
narrative had been published.[17]
In this case,
Skousen uses compound assumptions to reconcile obvious problems with Knight’s
statement to make it fit the SITH narrative.
2. Elizabeth
Anne Whitmer Cowdery’s
account, which purports to be “a certificate in her own hand,” exists only as a
copy by William E. McLellin in a letter dated 15 February 1870. Elizabeth was
14 years old during the translation. She later married Oliver Cowdery.
Skousen gives
this excerpt from the McLellin letter:
I
staid in Richmond two days and nights. I had a great deal of talk with widow
Cowdry, and her amiable daughter. She is married to a Dr Johnson, but has no
children. She gave me a certificate, And this is the copy. “Richmond, Ray Co.,
Mo. Feb 15, 1870———I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of
Joseph Smith’s translating the book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at
my Father’s house. And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and
write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his
scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and
then place his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read the
words?] as they appeared before him.
At first glance,
this appears to be a first-person account of direct observation. But the
context raises serious questions. Even assuming that a 14-year-old farm girl
would plausibly sit for hours listening to Joseph dictate the Book of Mormon,
Elizabeth doesn’t relate what Joseph dictated on these occasions. Was he
quoting Isaiah? Dictating Nephi’s original words? We don’t know.
In his letter,
McLellin writes he “visited David Whitmer again in Richmond…” This is important
context. Elizabeth’s purported statement was written 42 years after the fact,
in the presence of her brother David, who was the primary promoter of SITH.
This raises an inference that Elizabeth was supporting her brother’s accounts,
or perhaps her statement was coached. It was hardly an “independent” statement.
Furthermore,
McLellin copied her statement: the original is not extant. We can’t know
whether he copied it accurately or adjusted it to fit his own agenda, which he
expressed elsewhere in his letter. Before getting to Elizabeth’s account,
McLellin wrote, “I dont think there would be much object of his [David’s]
acting much without he can obtain the Interpreters.”
After relating Elizabeth’s
account, McLellin wrote:
“I
am now looking for some man to rise with the Interpreters or Directors—those
ancient eyes by which hidden treasures can and will come to light. (Joseph in
his history and all L.D.S.ism call those interpreters the Urim & Thummim),
but I prefer calling it by its proper name—it never was Urim nor Thummim but
LDSism nicknamed almost every holy thing which it touched I have less and less
patience with its unholy doings, the more I see of it.
McLellin rejected
what Joseph (and Oliver) said about the translation, raising an inference that
he used his visit to David and Elizabeth to confirm his biases.
Skousen notes
that “In the Book of Mormon, the interpreters are sometimes referred to as
directors (Alma 37:21, 24) while the singular director is used to refer to the
compass that Lehi found, also called the Liahona (Mosiah 1:16; Alma 37:38, 45).”
Skousen’s
analysis is complicated by D&C 3:15: “thou hast suffered the counsel of thy
director to be trampled upon from the beginning.” Does “director” here
mean the Lord (a unique name) or the Urim and Thummim? Also, D&C 17:1 uses
the plural: “the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in
the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea.”
McLellin referred
to “interpreters or directors,” plural, while Elizabeth’s statement refers to
“the director.” Perhaps the latter was a copy error by McLellin, but it could
also be a discrepancy between their respective beliefs (i.e., spectacles,
plural, and seer stone, singular). In either case, Joseph had been commanded
not to show the Urim and Thummim (spectacles) to anyone, so presumably
Elizabeth did not see the Urim and Thummim. But if Elizabeth was referring to
the spectacles, her account is corroborated by the Knight account that Skousen
disputed.
One view could be
that McLellin reached his conclusion because of what Elizabeth and David said.
On the other hand, McLellin had his falling out with Joseph Smith decades
earlier and spent much of his life justifying his position.
Bottom line:
Elizabeth’s account, which appears credible at first glance, has serious
credibility problems when read in context.
3. Emma Smith
Bidamon’s account,
recorded by her son Joseph Smith III in 1879, is so problematic that even
Joseph Smith III did not refer to it when he later concluded in a careful
article that his father used the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates.
For more
analysis, see the book By Means of the Urim and Thummim: Restoring
Translation to the Restoration, by James Lucas and Jonathan Neville.[18]
4. Michael
Morse, brother-in-law to
Emma Smith, was interviewed in May 1879 by W.W. Blair. Blair’s letter
describing the interview was published in the June 15, 1879, issue of The
Saints’ Herald.
Skousen quotes an
excerpt from the letter in which Blair reported his version of Morse’s
recollections from 50 years earlier. Blair was a missionary for the Reorganized
Church who wrote letters to local newspapers as part of his work and visited
local congregations, including the one at Amboy. He was also a co-editor of The
Saints’ Advocate with Zenas Gurley.
Below is the
excerpt Skousen quotes:
He
further states that when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon, he,
(Morse), had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw
him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in
Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face
into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his
knees, and then dictating, word after word, while the scribe-Emma, John
Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other, wrote it down.[19]
At first glance,
this is a persuasive account because Blair writes that Morse said he went into
Joseph’s “immediate presence and saw him engaged at his work of translation.”
But a closer examination raises questions beyond the 50-year gap between the
events and the recollection.
First, there is
evidence of why Morse contacted Blair. Blair wrote the letter, dated May 22,
1879, from Sandwich, Illinois, stating that “When at Amboy a few days since, I
learned from Mr. Mochel Morse…”. Sandwich is about 40 miles from Amboy,
Illinois.
On April 30,
1879, the Amboy (Ill.) Journal had published an article titled “Mormon
History” by Joseph Lewis and Hiel Lewis. The week before they had published
affidavits in the same newspaper.
The Lewis
brothers were cousins of Emma’s. They were sons of Nathaniel Lewis, a Methodist
lay preacher who was opposed to Joseph’s activities. Among other things, Joseph
Lewis reported that he confronted Joseph Smith about joining the local
Methodist Episcopal church and got him to strike his name from the class book
because he, Joseph Lewis, thought Joseph Smith’s “name would be a disgrace to
the church.”
[For more
background on the various members of the extended Hale family and their neighbors,
see Appendix B which shows the interdependence of their statements, their unified
bias against Joseph, and the relationship to the anti-LDS book Mormonism
Unvailed which first widely promoted the SITH narrative. That most of the
Hale family accounts were originally solicited by Philastus Hurlbut is critical
historical context which Skousen fails to disclose. This controversial
provenance should be factored into any evaluation of the credibility of these
hostile sources.]
In their
affidavits and article the Lewis brothers related accounts of Joseph Smith
engaging in “peeping” using a “peep stone” to find local hidden treasures and
tied this to his translation of the Book of Mormon. On June 4 and June 11 Hiel
and Joseph Lewis published additional articles in the paper. Hiel Lewis claimed
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the same enchanting
spirit that directed him to make dog sacrifices.
Because the first
two of these highly critical articles appeared in the local Amboy newspaper
just a few weeks before Blair met with Morse in Amboy, it is reasonable to
assume that Morse was influenced by the articles. It is likely that these
articles prompted Morse to contact Blair, although Blair does not explain how
he came to meet Morse.
Skousen notes
Morse was “never a Mormon.” Blair pointed out that “Mr. Morse is not, and has
never been a believer in the prophetic mission of Joseph,” and that Morse
“states that the sons of Mr. Hale seemed opposed to and at enmity with Joseph
from the first, and took occasions to annoy and vex him, and that at one of
these times, when out fishing, Joseph threw off his coat and proposed to defend
himself.”
Morse married
Emma’s sister so these “sons of Mr. Hale” were his brothers-in-law, and from
his description, Morse shared their enmity toward Joseph. Morse described
Joseph as “an awkward, unlearned youth.” When asked whether Joseph could have
composed the text, “Mr. Morse replied with a decided emphasis, No. He said he
then was not at all learned, yet was confident he had more learning than Joseph
then had.”
In the statement,
Morse refers to three scribes: Emma, John Whitmer, and O. Cowdery. Whitmer was
never a scribe in Harmony. This suggests Morse was repeating information that
he heard or read somewhere, or mingling others’ accounts with his own, instead
of relating his personal knowledge. Blair says Morse related “Joseph's placing
the Seer Stone,” a term that Morse may have borrowed or Blair supplied, because
Morse did not believe Joseph had prophetic powers.
On the other
hand, Blair’s letter is the first known source to describe Joseph putting a
stone into the “crown” of the hat (a term David Whitmer adopted later that
year). It is also the only known source to describe Joseph “resting his elbows
upon his knees.” Those specific details suggest credibility.
The Morse
interview raises the question of why Joseph was commanded not to show the
plates or the Urim and Thummim. If just anyone could repeatedly walk in on the
translation—particularly antagonistic skeptics—with no problem, then Moroni had
no reason to warn Joseph against showing the U&T. He wasn’t using it
anyway.
Like the other
late SITH accounts, the Morse account could be either a mishmash of derivative
hearsay or an authentic personal experience tainted by errors.
But Blair himself
apparently did not find Morse convincing. As Associate Editor of The Saints’
Herald in 1888, he responded to a letter addressed to him that asked
whether David Whitmer’s account was correct. There he rejected David’s SITH narrative
in favor of the plates-and-interpreters narrative from Joseph Smith and Oliver
Cowdery.[20]
5. David
Whitmer. David provided
the most numerous accounts of SITH. Lyndon Cook’s book David Whitmer
Interviews contains over 250 pages of transcripts of his various accounts. The
bottom line: David’s first accounts of the translation described the Urim and
Thummim, but he later began to promote the SITH narrative instead.
Skousen begins his
discussion of Whitmer with the Traughber interview, published in The Saints’
Herald on 15 November 1879. It is an interesting choice because this
interview is the first known account of David Whitmer relating the SITH narrative.
It includes the “crown” description from the letter that Blair published in The
Saints’ Herald a few months earlier in May. The article even quotes from
the Blair letter.
The Traughber
article is mainly a response to an earlier article (April 15, 1879) in The
Saints’ Herald in which T.W. Smith said he heard David Whitmer say
that
he saw Joseph translate, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, time and again… as
the translation was being read by the aid of the Urim and Thummim of the
characters on the plates by Joseph Smith, which work of translation and
transcription he frequently saw.[21]
Smith’s article,
“Origin of the Mormon Bible,” was largely an apologetic defense against the
Spalding theory. Smith concluded his article by writing “I would suggest that
if the Book of Mormon is Solomon Spaulding’s Romance, that the novel loving
public get and read it as a novel.”
Because
Traughber’s article argued in favor of stone-in-the-hat theory and directly
contradicted Smith’s account, Smith published a rejoinder in the 1 January 1880
edition of The Saints Herald that we will consider after we discuss the
Traughber article.
In the excerpt
Skousen provides, Traughber claims that
I,
too, have heard Father Whitmer say that he was present many times while Joseph
was translating; but I never heard him say that the translation was made by aid
of Urim and Thummim; but in every case, and his testimony is always the same,
he declared that Joseph first offered prayer, then took a dark colored, opaque
stone, called a "seer-stone," and placed it in the crown of his hat,
then put his face into the hat, and read the translation as it appeared before
him. This was the daily method of procedure, as I have often heard Father
Whitmer declare; and, as it is generally agreed to by parties who know the
facts, that a considerable portion of the work of translation was performed in
a room of his father's house, where he then resided, there can be no doubt but
what Father David Whitmer is a competent witness of the manner of translating…
With
the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does
not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and
Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a "Seer
Stone," which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his
face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine
forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of
characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least,
so Joseph said.
I provided
Skousen’s entire excerpt above because the part he omitted, indicated by the
ellipses, is highly relevant.[22]
The omitted part consists of the author’s assessment of the translation debate.
Here is what
Skousen omitted, starting four words before his ellipses. My comments are
inserted in brackets below.
…the
manner of translating. I am aware of the fact that the “Urim and Thummim” story
has long been foisted upon the world as the true account of the origin of the Book
of Mormon;
[Traughber
refers to accounts by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, using the pejorative
“foisted” akin to Skousen’s conclusion that Joseph and Oliver deliberately
misled everyone]
but
the times demand, and, the interest of truth demands, that the truth should be
told. We need not be afraid of truth; and I greatly doubt if anybody will be
ultimately benefitted by the perpetuation of a falsehood, which was invented
for the purpose of gaining prestige, in the minds of the people, for ambitious
leaders.
The
proofs are clear and positive that the story of Urim and Thummim Translation
does not date back, for its origin, further than 1833,
[This
1833 narrative has been refuted by the 1832 Boston Investigator article
discussed above in connection with Samuel Smith. Yet it remains prevalent among
many LDS scholars today and persists even in parts of the Joseph Smith Papers.]
or,
between that date and 1835; for it is not found in any printed document of the
Church of Christ up to the latter part of the year 1833, or the year 1834. The
“Book of Commandments” to the Church of Christ, published in Independence, Mo.,
in 1833, does not contain any allusion to Urim and Thummim; though the term was
inserted in some of the revelations in their reprint in the “Book of Doctrine
and Covenants” in 1835.
[Among
some modern LDS scholars, this narrative has been reframed as an “embarrassed”
explanation; i.e., that Joseph and Oliver were embarrassed by SITH because of
its connections with folk magic, so they introduced the Urim and Thummim
narrative to avoid embarrassment.[23]]
Who
originated the Urim and Thummim story, I do not know; but this I do know, that
it is not found in the first printed book of revelations to the Church of
Christ, and there is other testimony to show that it is not true. It is proper
to notice what it is claimed the Urim and Thummim was. P. P. and 0. Pratt both
say it was an instrument composed of two clear or transparent stones set
in the two rims of a bow. It is also confounded with the “Intrepreters,” [sic]
which were shaped something like a pair of ordinary spectacles, though larger.
Now
let us see. David Whitmer declares, and I have shown him to be a competent
witness, that Joseph Smith translated by aid of a dark stone, called a “seer
stone,” which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph thrust his
face.
In
the Saints’ Herald of June 15th, 1879, pages 190 and 191, 1 find a
letter from President W. W. Blair, in which he states some facts, learned from
Mr. Michael Morse, who married a Miss Hale, “a sister to Sr. Emma.” Among other
things which I have not space to notice here, but which your readers can find
by following the reference I have given, President Blair says :
[quoting
from the Blair letter as Skousen excerpted]
The
above agrees perfectly with David Whitmer’s statements, and goes far to confirm
Father Whitmer’s testimony;
[As
we have seen, Morse’s testimony claimed he saw John Whitmer act as scribe, but
John was never in Harmony, indicating Morse at least incorporated that element
of David’s statements about the translation. The agreement between Morse and
David Whitmer is as much evidence of influence and coordination as it is of any
independent, accurate recollection from 50-year-old events.]
but
this is not all. In the Saints’ Herald of October 1st, 1879, in an
article headed “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” on first page of the Herald,
third column, near the bottom of the page, Sr, Emma is represented as saying:
“In
writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the
table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone
in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us ”
This
statement was made to President Joseph Smith, by his mother in February, 1879.
The wife of Joseph Smith — who acted sometimes as his scribe, certainly is a
competent witness, and her last testimony is entitled to respectful
consideration, and she says Joseph translated by a stone placed in his hat.
[As
we have seen, Joseph Smith III did not even mention his mother’s account when
he assessed David Whitmer’s SITH narrative and concluded that his father used
the Urim and Thummim interpreters.]
Why
did not Mrs. Bidamon not say that Joseph translated by aid of Urim and Thummim?
[Traughber
was apparently unaware of the Pilgrim letter in which Emma did say Joseph used
the Urim and Thummim, although in that account only for the first part of the
translation.]
The
reason is obvious in the light of the facts, to which I have briefly alluded:
because he translated with a stone, a Seer Stone; not two clear stones set in
the rims of a bow. Thus we see that Mr. Morse and Mrs. Bidamon both agree that
Joseph Smith used a stone and not Urim and Thummim, nor Interpreter either.
[Here
Traughber confuses the facts of the existence and content of the various
statements with the separate question of whether that content is factual. He
assumes these statements support one another, but they just as logically
demonstrate interlocking influence.]
Will
those who hold the Urim and Thummim story to be correct, still continue to give
the lie to David Whitmer, Michael Morse and Mrs. Emma Bidamon ? Or will they
have the courage to admit that those who have held high positions have been
guilty of gross fabrication ?
[This
logical fallacy—the appeal to authority—falls flat, particularly in the face of
the authority of Joseph and Oliver, who specifically and repeatedly affirmed
the U&T narrative that Traughber is disputing.]
[The
article continues with the second excerpt that Skousen provides.]
With
the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does
not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and
Thummim; ; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a “Seer
Stone,” which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face,
so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth,
and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters
from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph
said.
In
her last testimony Mrs. Emma Bidamon said to President Joseph Smith [III]:
“David
Whitmer I believe to be an honest and truthful man. I think what he states may
be relied on.”
[Of
course, this cuts both ways. Emma, who admitted a faulty memory in her Pilgrim
letter, may well have simply deferred to David Whitmer’s SITH narrative. That
would explain her lack of specificity—where, when and what she wrote as Joseph
translated.]
So
say all who know him. And as sure as he is truthful and honest, the Book of
Mormon was translated by means of a Seer Stone. And if it was not, I say
distinctly that David Whitmer, the only surviving witness to the Book of
Mormon, is not truthful.
[This
false dilemma is another logical fallacy. It is entirely possible that David
Whitmer observed Joseph put a stone in a hat and dictate words. But whether he
was dictating the text of the Book of Mormon on that occasion is unknown and
unknowable. Gurley’s conclusion, after interviewing David and others, that
Joseph used the seer stone to “assuage the awful curiosity” of people is a
rational alternative interpretation that accounts what seems to be a direct
conflict between the SITH accounts and the Urim and Thummim accounts.]
J.
L. Traughber, Jr
As mentioned
before, Thomas Wood Smith published a response to Traughber in the January 1,
1880, Saints’ Review, published in Cook, 56-7.
Bro.
Joseph: When I first read Mr. Traughber’s paper in Herald of November 15th,
I thought that I would not notice his attack at all, as I supposed that I was
believed by the Church to be fair and truthful in my statements of other men’s
views, when I have occasion to use them, and I shall make this reply only: That
unless my interview with David Whitmer in January, 1876, was only a dream, or
that I failed to understand plain English, I believed then, and since, and now,
that he said that Joseph possessed, and used the Urim and Thummim in the
translation of the inscriptions referred to, and I remember of being much
pleased with that statement, as I had heard of the “Seer stone” being used. And
unless I dreamed the interview, or very soon after failed to recollect the
occasion, he described the form and size of the said Urim and Thummim. The
nearest approach to a retraction of my testimony as given in the Fall River
Herald and that given publicly in many places from the stated from January,
1876, till now, is, that unless I altogether misunderstood “Father Whitmer” on
this point, he said the translation was done by the aid of the Urim and
Thummim. If he says he did not intent to convey such an impression to my mind,
then I say I regret that I misunderstood him, and unintentionally have
misrepresented him. But that I understood him as represented by me frequently I
still affirm. If Father Whitmer will say over his own signature, that he never
said, or at least never intended to say, that Joseph possessed or used in
translating the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim, I will agree to not repeat
my testimony as seen in the Fall River Herald on that point.
T.
W. Smith
Smith’s account
reflects his strong confidence in what he remembers David having told him in
1876. The Traughber article elicited an even earlier account of David
testifying about the Urim and Thummim.
The 1 March 1880
issue of The Saints’ Herald included a letter dated January 25, 1880, by
Eri B. Mullin, relating a memory from 1874.
Dear
Brethren:--
I
have been reading the news in the Herald for several years, and among the many
testimonies that I have read is one from Mr. L. Traughber, of Carrol county,
Missouri, said to be from D. Whitmer. Mr. D. Whitmer told me in the year 1874,
that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim when he was translating. But now it
is said that he lost it when he gave the first part of the book to Martin
Harris; after that he used the Stone. Bro. T. W. Smith, I think was right.. I
for my part know he said that Joseph had the instrument Urim and Thummim. I
asked him how they looked. He said they looked like spectacles, and he (Joseph)
would put them on and look in a hat, or put his face in the hat and read. Says
I, “Did he have the plates in there.” “No; the word would appear, and if the
failed to spell the word right, it would stay till it was spelled right, then
pass away; another come, and so on.” Now this Mr. Traughber used to say that
the Reorganized Church was right, but now he fights against us; says we are not
right, neither the Book of Covenants. I believe both to be right, but that Mr.
Whitmer carried the idea that the translation was by both, or either Urim and
Thummim and the stone.
Eri
B. Mullin
We can all see
the dilemma. The earliest known accounts of David Whitmer relating his
knowledge of the translation are recollections from 1874 and 1876. Both
accounts have David saying that Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim.
In December 1877 Edward
Stevenson interviewed David and recorded an account in his diary. Although his
original entry does not mention the translation, at an unknown date Stevenson
inserted a note above the margin that reads: “David said that the Prophet
translated first by the urim & thummim & afterwards by A Seer Stone—E.
Stevenson.”[24]
Stevenson wrote letters to Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and the Salt Lake Herald
describing his interview with David Whitmer. (Cook, pp 14-19.) None of these
letters mention the translation. Thus, it is unknown whether Stevenson inserted
the note based on something he forgot about his own interview or based on what
he subsequently read or heard about a later interview David gave, such as those
in The Saints’ Herald.
[Note:
this is the same diary entry in which Stevenson related David’s account of Joseph
identifying the messenger as “one of the Nephites.” In his letter to John
Taylor, Stevenson wrote “He related many very interesting items of seeing one
of the Nephites in company with the Prophet and Oliver, when Joseph’s
countenance became almost transparent, &c.”]
The chronology so
far goes like this:
In 1874 and 1876,
David Whitmer said Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim.
In 1877,
Stevenson interviews David and records nothing about the translation but later
inserts a comment about the U&T and the seer stone.
On April 15,
1879, The Saints’ Herald publishes T.W. Smith’s recollection from 1876,
relating David’s account of the Urim and Thummim.
Also in April,
the Lewis brothers start publishing their antagonistic memories of Joseph Smith
in Amboy, Illinois. In May, Blair interviews Morse in Amboy, who relates a SITH
account.
On June 15, 1879,
The Saints’ Herald publishes Blair’s letter about Morse’s SITH account.
On 15 November
1879 The Saints’ Herald publishes Traughber’s article relating David
Whitmer’s first SITH account, incorporating one detail from the Morse
interview.
In January 1880,
The Saints’ Herald publishes T. W. Smith’s letter reaffirming his
recollection of David Whitmer’s U&T account.
To corroborate
Smith’s account, Mullin writes a letter that is published in The Saints’
Herald, explaining that in 1874 David Whitmer testified about U&T.
The rest of
Skousen’s quotations from David Whitmer postdate 1880 and continue the SITH
narrative. As we saw, W.W. Blair rejected all of these in 1888.
Skousen provides
excerpts from an interview published 1 June 1881 in the Kansas City Journal,
which David later claimed was incorrect because, as he wrote to the paper, “I
did not say that Smith used ‘two small stones’ as stated nor did I call the
stone ‘Interpreters.” I stated that “he used one stone (not two) and called it
a sun stone.” The following year David wrote a letter complaining that he did
not write “sun stone” but instead wrote “seer stone.”
These accounts
illustrate the confusion that arose from David’s accounts. For example, Skousen
includes an excerpt from an 1881 Chicago Times interview: “The tablets
or plates were translated by Smith, who used a small oval kidney-shaped stone,
called Urim and Thummim.”
In ensuing
accounts, David became more adamant about the SITH narrative, to the point that
in his 1887 An Address to all Believers in Christ, David does not even
use the term Urim and Thummim. Instead, gives the oft-quoted “description of
the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated,” and relates the SITH narrative.
But he introduces
this narrative with a discussion of the Spalding theory.[25]
The historical
record leaves no clear indication of why David changed his narrative about the
translation from the Urim and Thummim to SITH, but because he addressed the
Spalding theory in connection with his SITH account, we can reasonably infer
that he saw SITH as a useful apologetic response to the Spalding theory.
6. Martin
Harris.
Skousen provides
an excerpt from Edward Stevenson’s recollection from 4 September 1870,
published in 1881, which we discussed above.
Skousen comments
that
Martin
Harris died on 10 July 1875; thus this account was published more than six
years after Martin's death. Since this reminiscence dates from the Sabbath
meeting that occurred on 4 September 1870, then this account would be over 11
years old. One aspect that is unexplained is what Joseph and Martin did when
the text did not disappear after Martin said "written". It seems that
they would have had to repeat the text in some manner in order to correct it.
Although this account does not mention any hat being used for the darkening, it
clearly indicates that Joseph Smith was viewing the text under conditions of
darkness, thus Joseph's exclamation "All is as dark as Egypt."
The credibility
of this account is dubious for the reasons we previously discussed. Stevenson
was the sole witness of this account, recorded it after the fact, and did not
publish it until long after Martin had died.
Further, although he liked to recount the stone-swapping anecdote,
Stevenson never again said the seer stone was used “for convenience,” and
otherwise always ascribed the translation to the Urim & Thummim. Stevenson even went so far as to include in
an 1893 book of his recollections a lithograph showing Moroni handing the
spectacle-like Urim & Thummim interpreters to Joseph.
7. Elizabeth
L. McKune.
Elizabeth was a
niece of Issac Hale and the sister of the Lewis brothers (Hiel and Joseph)
discussed above. Her statement is part of the series of antagonistic articles
that the Lewis brothers published in 1879 (50 years after the fact). Elizabeth
claimed she “saw Smith translating his book by the aid of the stone and hat.
Reuben Hale, acting as scribe…” This fits the SITH narrative, reflecting
allegiance with her brothers’ determination to damage Mormonism.
Hiel Lewis wrote
that “Smith’s excuse for using his spectacles (that is, peep-stone) and hat to
translate with, instead of those spectacles, was that he must keep the
spectacles concealed, but any and all persons were permitted to inspect the
peep-stone; and that he could translate just as well with the same.”
Skousen suggests
that “Lewis’s actual statement accidentally replaces his intended peep-stone
with spectacles, in anticipation of the following use of spectacles.” That is
one possibility. Another possibility is that Lewis was confused about
terminology and what actually happened.
Members of the
Lewis and McKune families contributed to the 1834 article “Mormonism” mentioned
above in which Isaac Hale expressed his strong antipathy toward Joseph Smith
and the others joined in with their contempt. See the transcript in Appendix B.
8. Joseph
Fowler McKune, in a
reminiscence recorded by Rhamanthus M. Stocker in 1887, reportedly lived in
Broome County, NY and “was quite often in Smith’s home. Mr. McCune states that
Reuben Hale acted as scribe a part of the time. He says Smith’s hat was a very
large one, and what is commonly called a “stove pipe.” The hat was on the table
by the window and the sone in the bottom or rather in the top of the hat. Smith
would bend over the hat with his face buried in it so that no light could enter
it, and thus dictate to the scribe what he should write.”
Skousen comments
that:
Stocker
is here referring to the early translating of the Book of Mormon, in 1828, when
Reuben Hale was one of the scribes. This provides additional evidence that the
seer stone was used early on in the translation. McKune himself was born in
1815, so he would have been about 13 years old when he observed Joseph Smith
translating.
Of course, this
contradicts the Pilgrim letter, in which Emma said Joseph used the Urim and
Thummim for the first part of the translation that Martin Harris lost.
Stocker actually
interviewed McKune’s widow, Sarah (Sallie) McKune, years after Joseph Fowler
McKune died. Stoker documented her recollections of her husband’s experiences
in Centennial History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (1887).
Separately, Sarah claimed she knew there was a blanket between Joseph and his
scribes, which corroborates the second-hand accounts based on what Martin
Harris said. Naturally, the use of a blanket contradicts the accounts of Joseph
using the stone in the hat in the open.
_____
In the next
section, Skousen categorizes elements of the stone-in-the-hat statements.
Characteristics
of the second method
-
The
plates were not directly used.
Skousen observes that two accounts state the plates were not directly used:
Emma’s “Last Testimony” and the 1881 Kansas City Journal article. We
discussed the credibility of each above. If Joseph did not need the plates or
the Urim and Thummim to produce the Book of Mormon, not only were those items
superfluous, but the arduous work of Nephite scribes and prophets keeping the
records for centuries and protecting them from the Lamanites, Mormon and Moroni
abridging the records, Moroni depositing them in the Hill Cumorah to preserve
them for more centuries, and then Joseph’s exertions to protect them would
seemingly all be pointless. Not to mention, as Mormonism Unvailed did in
1834, the testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses were of no use if Joseph did
not even use the plates anyway.
-
There
was curtain or blanket between Joseph Smith and his scribe. Skousen surmises that the blanket “seems
to have been used only in the very beginning, when Joseph Smith had the plates
out in the open… In using the seer stone, there was no need for a curtain since
the plates were not being used.” The latter conclusion is axiomatic, but the
first is merely an assumption that contradicts the sources. If Joseph had no
reason to conceal anything from public view, then Moroni’s warning to Joseph
that he would be destroyed if he did show them was a pointless threat. On the
other hand, if, as Gurley concluded, Joseph used the seer stone to “assuage the
awful curiosity” of people, a blanket would impede that effort.
-
There
were no notes, manuscripts, or books.
Whether Joseph was reading words off the stone in the hat, or translating the
engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim, he would not have
referred to extraneous sources. Every account that mentioned this point was
consistent, usually in connection with a reference to the Spalding theory
(e.g., Emma’s “Last Testimony” and David Whitmer’s Address to All Believers
in Christ.).
_____
Next, starting on
page 59, Skousen provides accounts that he excluded from consideration under
the heading “Problematic accounts.”
1. Truman Coe
wrote a letter to the editor of the Ohio Observer, published 11 August
1836, that included this passage:
The
manner of translation was as wonderful as the discovery. By putting his finger
on one of the characters and imploring divine aid, then looking through the
Urim and Thummin, he would see the import written in plain English on a screen
placed before him. After delivering this to his emanuensi, he would again
proceed in the same manner and obtain the meaning of the next character, and so
on till he came to a part of the plates which were sealed up, and there was
commanded to desist: and he says he has a promise from God that in due time he
will enable him to translate the remainder. This is the relation as given by
Smith.
Skousen rejects
this account (he uses scare quotes around “relation”) because, he says, “Joseph
Smith always refused to give this kind of detailed account.” That obvious
tautology—Joseph did not give a detailed account to Coe because he did not give
detailed accounts—comes across as cognitive dissonance on Skousen’s part.
Skousen also
objects because Coe did not mention a blanket or curtain, which would have been
required if the plates were in the open for Joseph to access. But Coe said he
was relating what Joseph said, not what a witness or scribe might have said.
Joseph would have no reason to mention a blanket.
Skousen further
objects that “a single character corresponding to an entire thought… seems to
be impossible.” Yet we have Joseph’s own account of copying characters and
translating them.
Finally, Skousen
writes that “Joseph was also told in advance not to touch the sealed portion,
so this description of him working up to the sealed part and then suddenly
being told not to go on also contradicts Joseph’s own account of the sealed
portion.”
Think about that
objection. Moroni spelled out the commandment: “I have told you the things
which I have sealed up; therefore touch them not in order that ye may
translate; for that thing is forbidden you, except by and by it shall be wisdom
in God.” (Ether 5:1)
If Joseph was not
handling the plates when he was translating, as Skousen claims, this is another
superfluous command from Moroni. The stone would simply not display the
forbidden translation. But if he was handling the plates, he would naturally
come to a place where the plates were sealed. Coe’s statement is a little
ambiguous, but it can be read consistently with Moroni’s commandment; i.e.,
that there, at that point, Joseph knew he had been commanded not to proceed.
In terms of the
FAITH model, the Coe account has advantages over the SITH accounts, including
proximity to the events (published in 1836 instead of the 1870s), published
during Joseph’s lifetime with no known objection by Joseph, specificity that
corroborates what Joseph said about translating characters and what Moroni
warned against in Ether 5:1, and corroboration of what Joseph and Oliver always
said about the Urim and Thummim.
Skousen’s
objections boil down to nothing but incompatibility with Skousen’s SITH narrative.
2. Eri B.
Mullin’s recollection David Whitmer’s statement from 1874.
We discussed this
account above. Here is Skousen’s rationale for rejecting it:
So
David supposedly says that Joseph Smith put on the Nephite interpreters (the
spectacles) and then looked in the hat, "or put his face in the hat and
read" -without anything in the hat? This account mixes up the seer stone
with the Nephite interpreters.
Eri said David
described the Urim and Thummim (“they looked like spectacles”) and said Joseph
would put them on and look in a hat. The point of spectacles is to put them on,
so that part makes sense. Skousen does not explain why he objects to words
appearing on the Urim and Thummim instead of on a stone, but the function is
the same. The account is not detailed, leaving open the question of whether
Joseph first looked at the engravings on the plates before reading the U&T
in the darkness of the hat.
This is the
earliest known account of David describing the translation, which lends it
credibility over later accounts. Eri wrote the letter to the editor in response
to the Traughber article, which is a legitimate motivation.
Again, Skousen’s
objections boil down to incompatibility with Skousen’s SITH narrative.
3. Chicago
Times, August 1875, report of an interview with David Whitmer. This
account relates that “Having placed the Urim and Thummim in his hat, Joseph
placed the hat over his face, and with prophetic eyes read the invisible
symbols syllable by syllable and word by word, while Cowdery or Harris acted as
recorders…. Three times has he been at the hill Cumorah and seen the casket
that contained the tablets, and the seer-stone.”
Skousen rejects
this account because it “mixes up the (Nephite) interpreters with the seer
stone.” However, this account, sandwiched in time between the Eri Mullin and
T.W. Smith accounts, also precedes David’s later accounts when he shifted to
pure SITH.
4. Samuel W.
Richards interview of
Oliver Cowdery. Cowdery stayed with Richards during the winter of 1848-9. 58
years later, on May 21, 1907, Richards hand wrote his recollection.
He
[Oliver] 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.
Skousen rejects
this testimony, claiming it is “full of error.”
“First of all,”
Skousen writes, “Oliver had not yet seen the plates. It is possible that this
is how the (Nephite) interpreters worked, but Joseph Smith would have done this
behind a curtain at this time, if he had been translating using the
interpreters.”
These are
Skousen’s assumptions, but there are at least two plausible explanations.
Although Oliver sat close to Joseph, there could have been a curtain between
them that Richards did not mention, at least until Oliver was given the “gift to
translate” (D&C 6:25) and thus presumably had access to the plates and the
interpreters. Oliver himself said he handled both. Richards’ account is not
necessarily chronological; he may have started with Oliver’s explanation of the
process that Oliver learned after he had been given the gift to translate.
Skousen
continues: “But with the seer stone it was done with a hat and no plates being
directly used, although they were often nearby wrapped up in a cloth.”
Obviously, Skousen’s statement, written as a fact, contradicts what Richards
remembered Oliver saying. Skousen’s theory collides with the Richards account,
but that alone is not a basis for rejecting the Richards account.
Skousen also
objects because “Richards invokes an ironclad interpretation for the
transmission of the text, and even has Joseph correcting Oliver's spelling. Yet
Oliver Cowdery's frequent misspellings are never corrected in the original
manuscript.” This is a good point, but it applies as well to several SITH statements
that claim the stone corrected the spelling of the scribes. A plausible
explanation is that the spelling correction occurred for certain proper nouns but
that the rest of the translation and was then more loosely related using
Joseph’s mental language bank of vocabulary and phrases.
5. Nathan
Tanner Junior interview
of David Whitmer, 13 May 1886, recorded on 17 February 1909.
Tanner said that
David said that Joseph was separated from the scribe by a blanket, and “that he
had the Urim and Thummim, and a chocolate colored stone, which he used
alternatively, as suites his convenience…. He said that Joseph would—as I
remember—place the manuscript beneath the stone or Urim, and the characters
would appear in English, which he would spell out, and they would remain there
until the word was fully written and corrected.”
Skousen objects
to this account because Tanner’s diary entry for 13 May 1886 lacks the
information, and the account “is compounded by the folklore that had arisen by
the early 1900s.”
But that same
objection applies to all the accounts from the 1870s and later.
Skousen objects
to the “ironclad” approach of one word at a time and other discrepancies.
_____
Skousen’s next
section, starting on page 62, is titled:
Generic
accounts from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery
In this section,
Skousen provides the well-known accounts from Joseph and Oliver. He rejects
them all. We will assess his reasoning after listing the accounts. Skousen
bolded the passages as indicated below.
-
Joseph’s
“Answers to Questions” in the July 1838 Elders’ Journal: “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.”
-
The
1842 Wentworth letter: “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.”
-
Oliver
Cowdery, Letter I, JS-History note: “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted,
to wrote from his mouth as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or,
as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history, or record, called
‘The book of Mormon.’”
-
Oliver
Cowdery, 1848, recorded by Reuben Miller: “I wrote with my own pen the entire
Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet as
he translated it by the gift and power of God by means of the Urim and Thummim,
or as it is called by that book, holy interpreters.”
Here is Skousen’s
reasoning, with my comments in brackets.
The
two individuals that could have told us the most about the translation process
are Joseph Smith, the translator, and Oliver Cowdery, his primary scribe.
[While
this is undoubtedly true as far as it goes, it is an ironic statement because
Skousen explicitly rejected more detailed accounts from both Joseph and Oliver
on the ground that they never gave detailed accounts—the tautology that we
discussed above.]
Besides
stating that the translation was done by "the gift and power of God",
they both explicitly claim that Joseph made the translation using the Urim and
Thummim, meaning the interpreters that came with the plates.
[Exactly.
The consistent, formal, published statements from Joseph and Oliver, when read
in historical context, responded to the SITH claim in Mormonism Unvailed.
Affirming that the translation was accomplished through divinely-appointed
means instead of through a superstitious and occult “peep stone” was more
important than satisfying curiosity about the specific mechanism. And yet, they
did relate the specific mechanism to some people, as recorded in the accounts
that Skousen rejects.]
But
in no case did they give any details, nor did they ever mention the seer stone.
[We
saw in the previous section that both Joseph and Oliver did give details, but
Skousen just rejected the accounts. There was no reason for Joseph and Oliver
to “mention the seer stone” because, as they repeatedly explained, Joseph used
the Urim and Thummim instead.]
It
appears that their witness statements purposely avoid mentioning the stone in
the hat, the method that would have linked Joseph to treasure hunting.
[This
is the “embarrassment” narrative used to explain and justify SITH. Obviously
they would have avoided mentioning SITH because Joseph never used the seer
stone to translate. The idea that Joseph and Oliver “misled” (a euphemism for
“lied”) about the translation in multiple published statements because they
were embarrassed is not plausibly consistent with their courageous testimonies
regarding the Restoration overall.]
And
although it is true that Joseph used the interpreters in the very beginning of
the translation, there is no firsthand witness who confirms their use after the
loss of the 116 pages of manuscript.
[Except
Joseph, Oliver, Samuel Smith, and John Whitmer.]
In
fact, three witnesses gave evidence that the seer stone was used when Oliver
was the scribe: Emma Smith (February 1879), Michael Morse (8 May 1879), and
David Whitmer (14 October 1881); Emma's evidence is indirect, but the two
others specifically list Oliver by name.
[Morse
also listed John Whitmer, who was never in Harmony, showing that Morse was
relating hearsay. Besides, John Whitmer said Joseph used the Urim and Thummim
and breastplate. The 14 October 1881 account is not a direct quotation from
David but a newspaper reporter’s version that conflates various accounts. The
article never mentions a hat. It reads, “The tablets or plates were translated
by Smith, who used a small oval kidney-shaped stone, called Urim and Thummim…
Frequently, one character would make two lines of manuscript, while others made
but a word or two words.” Skousen rejected another account for such a statement
about the characters. And if David told the reporter that the seer stone was
called Urim and Thummim, then David’s accounts are even more inconsistent than
we thought.]
Thus
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.
[Of
course, this is Skousen’s remarkable conclusion that prompted me to write this
review. By now it is obvious that Skousen reached that conclusion first, then
assembled and organized the evidence to support the conclusion.]
On page 63,
Skousen starts a section titled “Other claims,” but before reviewing that
section we should consider some additional statements that Skousen omitted from
consideration.
1. The Reuben
Miller account. Skousen
provided an excerpt of the Miller account (which he promptly dismissed as
intentionally misleading), but when viewed in context, the account is more
significant than Skousen’s readers will realize from his treatment of it.
When Cowdery
returned to Church membership in 1848 he spoke to an Iowa conference. His words
there were recorded by Reuben Miller. Recall that on this occasion, he had
possession of the brown stone that Skousen and others say Joseph used to
translate the Book of Mormon, yet Oliver did not mention that stone at all. Nor
did he display it to the audience to prove his testimony.
Instead, he addressed
ongoing challenges to the Restoration: stone-in-the-hat and Spalding theories,
and Priesthood.
First, Oliver reaffirmed
the translation by the Urim and Thummim. Then he specifically addressed the
Spalding theory from Mormonism Unvailed. Finally, he reiterated the
literal restoration of the Priesthood.
I
wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell
from the lips of the Prophet as he translated it by the gift and power
of God by means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, holy
interpreters.
I
beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it
was translated.
I
also beheld the Interpreters.
That
book is true.
Sidney
Rigdon did not write it.
Mr.
Spaulding did not write it.
I
wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet. ….
Bro.
Hyde has just said that it was all important that we keep in the true channel
in order to avoid the sandbars. This is true, the channel is here, the
priesthood is here. I was present with Joseph when an holy angel from God came
down from heaven and conferred, or restored, the Aaronic priesthood. And said
at the same time that it should remain upon the earth while the earth stands. I
was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek priesthood was conferred by
the holy angels of God which we then confirmed on each other by the will and
commandment of God. (emphasis added)
Skousen infers
that Oliver intentionally misled his audience about the translation but
presumably accepts Oliver’s testimony about the plates, the interpreters, the
Spalding theory, and the restoration of the Priesthood.
Readers can make
up their own mind about the consistency and plausibility of Skousen’s approach.[26]
2. Letter IV. The fourth of Oliver Cowdery’s essays
about early Church history, published in 1835, includes a detailed account of
Moroni’s visit. Oliver introduced the account by writing “to use his [Joseph’s]
own description.”
Among other
things, Oliver explained that Moroni said
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.[27]
Scholars debate
whether it was Moroni, Joseph Smith, or Oliver Cowdery who used the term “Urim
and Thummim” here. The passage can be read to support all three positions.
Skousen presumably would cite this as more evidence of the “embarrassment”
narrative, but he should have included it in his list of sources because it
corroborates what Joseph and Oliver always said.
Letter IV, like
the other seven essays Oliver wrote, were originally published in the Messenger
and Advocate, then copied into Joseph’s own history as part of his life story,
and later republished (with Joseph Smith’s encouragement) in 1841 in the Gospel
Reflector and Times and Seasons. They were republished in the Millennial
Star (1841) and The Prophet (1844) (and later in the Improvement
Era). In 1842 they were published together in a pamphlet in England that
sold thousands of copies.
Other than
scriptural passages, Oliver’s eight letters were the most frequently published
content during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. Whether these letters were part of an
intentional deception as Skousen claims, or a legitimate account of early
Church history that Joseph helped write and fully endorsed, readers can decide.
3. D&C 10. There is a bit of controversy about
D&C 10 because the earliest extant version, published in the Book of
Commandments as Chapter IX, reads differently from the current version.
Chapter IX
(1832):
NOW,
behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which
you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them,
and you also lost your gift at the same time, nevertheless it has been
restored unto you again:
D&C 10 (1835
Doctrine and Covenants)
1
Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings
which you had power given unto you to translate by the
means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have
lost them.
2
And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became
darkened.
3
Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again;
The change looks
like a clarification of the original version. Presumably when the original
revelation was given, everyone involved knew that Joseph was translating with
the Urim and Thummim, but that was not known by those outside Joseph's close
associates. The 1835 change also corresponds with the account of Moroni's visit
published by Oliver Cowdery in Letter IV, based on Joseph's "own
description" as we saw above.
Nevertheless,
some scholars (both critical and faithful) argue that Joseph and Oliver made
this change to the revelation because Joseph was "embarrassed" about
having used the seer stone in the hat instead of the Nephite interpreters.
Presumably Skousen
views this change as more evidence that Oliver deliberately misled everyone
about the translation process.
Everyone can read
the accounts and make informed decisions for themselves.[28]
But there is more
in D&C 10 about the translation that Skousen should have considered.
When Joseph and
Oliver finished translating the abridged plates in Harmony, they considered
going back to the beginning to re-translate the book of Lehi.
But the Lord
instructed Joseph otherwise.
38
And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have
written, which have gone out of your hands, is engraven upon the plates of
Nephi;
39
Yea, and you remember it was said in those writings that a more particular
account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi.
40
And now, because the account which is engraven upon the plates of Nephi is more
particular concerning the things which, in my wisdom, I would bring to the
knowledge of the people in this account—
41
Therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of
Nephi, down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin, or until you
come to that which you have translated, which you have retained;
42
And behold, you shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will
confound those who have altered my words. (Doctrine and Covenants 10:38–42)
None of this
makes sense if Joseph was simply reading words off a stone in the hat, as
Skousen claims. According to the stone-in-the-hat narrative, it was the stone
that provided the words, not the engravings on the plates. According to that
theory, Joseph did not even use the plates and would have had no idea what part
of the physical plates corresponded to what he was reading on the stone.
The first 26
verses of D&C 10 are superfluous if Joseph was not actually translating the
engravings on the plates. For that matter, Joseph could not have intentionally
obeyed or disobeyed the commandment in verse 41; the stone in the hat was doing
all the work.
4. D&C 17. Another revelation that would be
superfluous in part is D&C 17:1.
1
Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with
full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the
breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given
to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to
face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the
wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea. (Doctrine and Covenants 17:1)
In 1834, Mormonism
Unvailed pointed out the futility of the Three Witnesses seeing the Urim
and Thummim if Joseph did not even use that instrument to translate the plates.
As an artifact it would be useful to corroborate the historicity of the
narrative in the Book of Mormon, but its utility as a translation device is
zero according to the SITH theory. It is also significant that in D&C 17:1
it is the Lord who names the instrument. This corroborates the narrative that
it was Moroni who used the term in the first place.
Presumably
Skousen would argue that D&C 17:1 is part of the scheme by Joseph and
Oliver to intentionally mislead everyone, but he should make his position
explicit instead of avoiding it by simply not mentioning these important
sources from the Scriptures regarding the translation.
_____
Other claims (page 63). In this section Skousen notes
“additional claims the witnesses of the translation made.” Skousen discusses
how long it took to translate, how Joseph had to be in the right spirit to
translate, what Joseph saw in the instrument, etc. I will comment only on the
first claim.
1. Joseph
Smith was ignorant of the walls of Jerusalem.
Emma famously
claimed that Joseph did not know Jerusalem had walls, presumably when she was
scribing the book of Lehi in early 1828 (part of the lost 116 pages). Skousen
notes that both Martin Harris and David Whitmer made the same claim, “but this
remembrance of David’s is probably based on what he had heard from Emma Smith
about Joseph’s translation of the book of Lehi.” I agree with Skousen on this
point. And it is a perfect example of coordinating stories about the
translation, where a non-witness to the event nevertheless testifies about it.
The walls of
Jerusalem anecdote leads Skousen to this conclusion: “This incident regarding
the walls of Jerusalem shows that Joseph Smith was not the author of the Book
of Mormon text. He just did not know enough about the Bible, for one thing.”
Another view is
that Joseph had a legitimate question. The Bible does not say there were walls
around Jerusalem when Lehi left Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon refers to the
"first year of the reign of Zedekiah." This is in 2 Kings 24. There is
nothing in the Bible about walls around Jerusalem in that year. Asking about
walls around Jerusalem at this time seems like a reasonable question. 2 Kings
25:1 skips to the ninth year of Zedekiah's reign, after Lehi had left. That
chapter does discuss walls, but not when they were built. The 2 Chronicles
36:19 version of the history says the Chaldeans broke down the wall of
Jerusalem, but again, that was several years after Lehi left. This is not a
critical issue, but it is a stretch to say Joseph did not know the Bible
because he did not know if there were walls around Jerusalem when Lehi left the
city.
_____
Overall
conclusion. I spent the
time to go through Skousen’s book because of the significance of his conclusion
that Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone about the translation.
In my view,
Skousen did a cursory, outcome-determined analysis of the witness statements to
support his conclusion. He also omitted relevant sources that contradict his
conclusion.
The FAITH model
requires a careful, consistent consideration of all the Facts, distinguished
from Assumptions, Inferences, and Theories that lead to the overall
Hypotheses. My analysis leads me to the
conclusion that Joseph and Oliver told the truth about these events, and that
others who disagreed with them had various motives to do so (both apologetic
and critical), relied on hearsay, mingled assumptions and inferences with
facts, and for these reasons reached unreliable conclusions about the
translation of the Book of Mormon.
Hopefully other
scholars will avoid the outcome-driven approach that Skousen used in his book
and instead adopt the principles of the FAITH model of analysis.
_____
Appendix A.
1829 Jonathan
Hadley article.
Although Skousen
did not mention the article Jonathan Hadley published in Palmyra in August
1829, other scholars cite that article as the earliest account of the
stone-in-the-hat narrative. For an article length discussion, see https://www.academia.edu/108674225/The_1829_Jonathan_Hadley_account_of_the_translation_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
_____
Appendix B.
1834
“Mormonism” article.
An article titled
“Mormonism” was published in Pennsylvania in May 1834, several months before the
publication of Mormonism Unvailed. The article is important context for
assessing the bias, reliability and credibility of the statements by members of
those families that Skousen included in Part Seven because he considers them
highly trustworthy.
“Mormonism”
describes the stone-in-the-hat narrative and reflects strong antipathy toward
Joseph Smith by Isaac Hale and the Lewis and McKune families. It was prompted
by a letter that E.D. Howe (the publisher of Mormonism Unvailed) sent to
Isaac Hale, Emma’s father.
Below is a transcript
of “Mormonism.” Susquehanna Register (Montrose, Pennsylvania) 9, no. 21
(1 May 1834).[29]
MORMONISM.
Mr.
WARD, SIR,—The Sect calling themselves Mormons, which started a few years since
in Harmony in this County, have, you are aware brought themselves into public
notice in many parts of our country. A gentleman in the state of Ohio, applied
to Mr. ISAAC HALE, of Harmony, for a history of facts relating to the character
of JOSEPH SMITH jun., author of the Book of Mormon, called by some, the Golden
Bible. Mr. HALE sent the facts in a letter, and the Mormons pronounced the
letter a forgery; and said that ISAAC HALE was blind, and could not write his
name,—which was the cause of the taking the accompanying affidavits.
Some
of your subscribers, and particularly those at a distance, might feel obliged
by your inserting the affidavits, then all might judge for themselves, as to
the authenticity of the Revelation claimed to have been made to JOSEPH SMITH
jun’r. A SUBSCRIBER.
Great
Bend 21, March 1834.
_____
PAINESVILLE,
OHIO FEB. 4, 1834.
Mr.
ISAAC HALE,
—Dear
Sir,—I have a letter with your signature, post-marked Dec. 22, 1833—addressed
to D. P. HURLBUT, on the subject of Mormonism. I have taken all the letters and
documents from Mr. HURLBUT, with a view to their publication. An astonishing
mass has been collected by him and others, who have determined to lay open the
imposition to the world. And as the design is to present FACTS, and those well
authenticated, and beyond dispute, it is very desirable, that your testimony,
whatever it may be, should come authenticated before a magistrate.
Your
letter has already been pronounced a forgery by the Mormons, who say you are
blind and cannot write, even your name. I hope no one has attempted to deceive
us: deception and falsehood in the business will do no good in the end, but
will help build up the monstrous delusion. We look upon your connexion with
Smith, and your knowledge of facts, as very important, in the chain of
events,—and if it be your desire to contribute what facts you have, in so
desirable an undertaking, I hope you will without delay, have drawn up a full
narrative of every transaction wherein SMITH, jun’r. is concerned and attest
them before a magistrate—This is our plan.
E.
D. HOWE.
_____
Statement of Mr. Hale.
I
first became acquainted with JOSEPH SMITH, Jr. in November, 1825. He was at
that time in the employ of a set of men who were called “money-diggers;” and
his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by means of a stone
placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face. In this way he pretended
to discover minerals and hidden treasure. His appearance at this time, was that
of a careless young man—not very well educated, and very saucy and insolent to
his father. Smith, and his father, with several other ‘money-diggers’ boarded
at my house while they were employed in digging for a mine that they supposed
had been opened and worked by the Spaniards, many years since. Young Smith gave
the ‘money-diggers’ great encouragement, at first, but when they had arrived in
digging, to near the place where he had stated an immense treasure would be
found—he said the enchantment was so powerful that he could not see. They then
became discouraged, and soon after dispersed. This took place about the 17th of
November, 1825; and one of the company gave me his note for $12.68 for his
board, which is still unpaid.
After
these occurrences, young Smith made several visits at my house, and at length
asked my consent to his marrying my daughter Emma. This I refused, and gave my
reasons for so doing; some of which were, that he was a stranger, and followed
a business that I could not approve: he then left the place. Not long after
this, he returned, and while I was absent from home, carried off my daughter,
into the state of New York, where they were married without my approbation or
consent. After they had arrived at Palmyra N. Y., Emma wrote to me enquiring
whether she could have her property, consisting of clothing, furniture, cows,
&c. I replied that her property was safe, and at her disposal. In a short
time they returned, bringing with them a Peter Ingersol, and subsequently came
to the conclusion that they would move out, and reside upon a place near my
residence.
Smith
stated to me, that he had given up what he called “glass-looking,” and that he
expected to work hard for a living, and was willing to do so. He also made
arrangements with my son Alva Hale, to go up to Palmyra, and move his (Smith’s)
furniture &c. to this place. He then returned to Palmyra, and soon after,
Alva, agreeable to the arrangement, went up and returned with Smith and his
family. Soon after this, I was informed they had brought a wonderful book of
Plates down with them. I was shown a box in which it is said they were
contained, which had to all appearances, been used as a glass box of the common
sized window-glass. I was allowed to feel the weight of the box, and they gave
me to understand, that the book of plates was then in the box—into which,
however, I was not allowed to look.
I
inquired of Joseph Smith Jr., who was to be the first who would be allowed to
see the Book of Plates? He said it was a young child. After this, I became
dissatisfied, and informed him that if there was any thing in my house of that
description, which I could not be allowed to see, he must take it away; if he
did not, I was determined to see it. After that, the Plates were said to be hid
in the woods.
About
this time, Martin Harris made his appearance upon the stage; and Smith began to
interpret the characters or hieroglyphics which he said were engraven upon the
plates, while Harris wrote down the interpretation. It was said, that Harris
wrote down one hundred and sixteen pages, and lost them. Soon after this
happened, Martin Harris informed me that he must have a greater witness, and
said that he had talked with Joseph about it—Joseph informed him that he could
not, or durst not show him the plates, but that he (Joseph) would go into the
woods where the Book of Plates was, and that after he came back, Harris should
follow his track in the snow, and find the Book, and examine it for himself.
Harris informed me afterwards, that he followed Smith’s directions, and could
not find the Plates, and was still dissatisfied.
The
next day after this happened, I went to the house where Joseph Smith Jr.,
lived, and where he and Harris were engaged in their translation of the Book.
Each of them had a written piece of paper which they were comparing, and some
of the words were “my servant seeketh a greater witness, but no greater witness
can be given him.” There was also something said about “three that were to see
the thing”—meaning I supposed, the Book of Plates, and that “if the three did
not go exactly according to orders, the thing would be taken from them.” I
enquired whose words they were, and was informed by Joseph or Emma, (I rather
think it was the former) that they were the words of Jesus Christ. I told them
then, that I considered the whole of it a delusion, and advised them to abandon
it. The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as
when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat
over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!
After
this, Martin Harris went away, and Oliver Cowdry came and wrote for Smith,
while he interpreted as above described. This is the same Oliver Cowdry, whose
name may be found in the Book of Mormon. Cowdry continued a scribe for Smith
until the Book of Mormon was completed as I supposed, and understood.
Joseph
Smith Jr. resided near me for some time after this, and I had a good
opportunity of becoming acquainted with him, and somewhat acquainted with his
associates, and I conscientiously believe from the facts I have detailed, and
from many other circumstances, which I do not deem it necessary to relate, that
the whole “Book of Mormon” (so called) is a silly fabrication of falsehood and
wickedness, got up for speculation, and with a design to dupe the credulous and
unwary—and in order that its fabricators might live upon the spoils of those
who swallow the deception. ISAAC HALE.
Affirmed
to and subscribed before me, March 20th, 1834.
CHARLES
DIMON, J. Peace.
State
of Pennsylvania,
Susquehanna
County, ss.
We,
the subscribers, associate Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, in and for said
county, do certify that we have been for many years personally acquainted with
Isaac Hale, of Harmony township in this county, who has attested the foregoing
statement; and that he is a man of excellent moral character, and of undoubted
veracity. Witness our hands.
WILLIAM
THOMPSON.
DAVIS
DIMOCK.
March
21st, 1834.
I
have been acquainted with Isaac Hale for fifty years, and have never known him
guilty of wilfully, or deliberately telling a falsehood. His character for
truth and veracity has never been questioned. He has been Supervisor, Assessor
and Collector, in this town—has kept his own accounts, and made his returns, to
the satisfaction of all concerned. But he is now old, and his arms are somewhat
palsied, so that when he desires any thing written, he usually employs one of
his sons, although he retains his sight, and is still capable of writing.
NATHANIEL
LEWIS.
Affirmed
and subscribed before me,
March
20, 1834.
CHARLES
DIMON, J. Peace.
_____
State
of Pennsylvania,
Susquehanna
County, ss.
I
do hereby certify, that I have been acquainted with Nathaniel Lewis, who
affirmed to, and subscribed the above certificate, for these twenty-seven
years, last past, and during the whole of that time he has been a respectable
minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a man of veracity, and good moral
character. Witness my hand, March 21st, 1834. WM. THOMPSON,
Associate Judge.
_____
Elder
Lewis also certifies and affirms in relation to Smith as follows:
“I
have been acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. for some time: being a relation of
his wife, and residing near him, I have had frequent opportunities of
conversation with him, and of knowing his opinions and pursuits. From my
standing in the Methodist Episcopal Church, I suppose he was careful how he
conducted or expressed himself before me. At one time, however, he came to my
house, and asked my advice, whether he should proceed to translate the Book of
Plates (referred to by Mr. Hale) or not. He said that God had commanded him to
translate it, but he was afraid of the people: he remarked, that he was to
exhibit the plates to the world, at a certain time, which was then about
eighteen months distant. I told him I was not qualified to give advice in such
cases. Smith frequently said to me that I should see the plates at the time
appointed.
“After
the time stipulated, had passed away, Smith being at my house was asked why he
did not fulfil his promise, show the Golden Plates and prove himself an honest
man? He replied that he, himself was deceived, but that a-should see them if I
were where they were. I reminded him then, that I stated at the time he made
the promise, I was fearful “the enchantment would be so powerful” as to remove
the plates, when the time came in which they were to be revealed. “These
circumstances and many others of a similar tenor, embolden me to say that
Joseph Smith Jr. is not a man of truth and veracity; and that his general
character in this part of the country, is that of an impostor, hypocrite and
liar.
NATHANIEL
C. LEWIS.”
Affirmed
and subscribed, before me, March 20th 1834.
CHARLES
DIMON, J. Peace.
_____
We
subjoin the substance of several affidavits, all taken and made before CHARLES
DIMON Esq. by credible individuals, who have resided near to, and been well
acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr.—Illustrative of his character and conduct,
while in this region.
_____
JOSHUA
M’KUNE states, that he “was acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. and Martin Harris,
during their residence in Harmony, Penn’a., and knew them to be artful
seducers;”—That they informed him that “Smith had found a sword, breast-plate,
and a pair of spectacles, at the time he found the gold plates”—that “these
were to be shown to all the world as evidence of the truth of what was
contained in those plates,” and that “he (M’Kune) and others should see them at
a specified time.” He also states that “the time for the exhibition of the
Plates, &c. has gone by, and he has not seen them.” “Joseph Smith, Jr. told
him that his (Smith’s) first-born child was to translate the characters, and
hieroglyphics, upon the Plates into our language at the age of three years; but
this child was not permitted to live to verify the prediction.” He also states,
that “he has been intimately acquainted with Isaac Hale twenty-four years, and
has always found him to be a man of truth, and good morals.”
_____
HEZEKIAH
M’KUNE states, that “in conversation with Joseph Smith Jr., he (Smith) said he
was nearly equal to Jesus Christ; that he was a prophet sent by God to bring in
the Jews, and that he was the greatest prophet that had ever arisen.”
_____
ALVA
HALE son of Isaac Hale, states, that Joseph Smith Jr. told him that his
(Smith’s) gift in seeing with a stone and hat, was a gift from God,” but also
states “that Smith told him at another time that this “peeping” was all d——d
nonsense. He (Smith) was deceived himself but did not intend to deceive
others;—that he intended to quit the business, (of peeping) and labor for his
livelihood.” That afterwards, Smith told him, he should see the Plates from
which he translated the book of Mormon,” and accordingly at the time specified
by Smith, he (Hale) “called to see the plates, but Smith did not show them, but
appeared angry.” He further states, that he knows Joseph Smith Jr. to be an
impostor, and a liar, and knows Martin Harris to be a liar likewise. That his
father (Isaac Hale) can both see and write, the declarations of the Mormons to
the contrary notwithstanding; and that the letter sent by his father, Isaac
Hale, to Dr. P. Hurlbut was written by Jesse Hale, his (I. Hale’s) son, and was
correct and true.”
LEVI
LEWIS states, that he has “been acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. and Martin
Harris, and that he has heard them both say, adultery was no crime. Harris said
he did not blame Smith for his (Smith’s) attempt to seduce Eliza Winters
&c.;”—Mr. Lewis says that he “knows Smith to be a liar;—that he saw him
(Smith) intoxicated at three different times while he was composing the Book of
Mormon, and also that he has heard Smith when driving oxen, use language of the
greatest profanity. Mr. Lewis also testifies that he heard Smith say that he
(Smith) was as good as Jesus Christ;—that it was as bad to injure him as it was
to injure Jesus Christ.” “With regard to the plates, Smith said God had
deceived him—which was the reason he (Smith) did not show the plates.”
_____
NATHANIEL
C. LEWIS states “he has always resided in the same neighborhood with Isaac
Hale, and knows him to be a man of truth, and good judgment.” He further
states, that “he has been acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. and Martin Harris,
and knows them to be lying impostors.”
_____
SOPHIA
LEWIS, certifies that she “heard a conversation between Joseph Smith Jr., and
the Rev. James B. Roach, in which Smith called Mr. R. a d——d fool. Smith also
said in the same conversation that he (Smith) was as good as Jesus Christ;” and
that she “has frequently heard Smith use profane language. She states that she
heard Smith say “the Book of Plates could not be opened under penalty of death
by any other person but his (Smith’s) first-born, which was to be a male.” She
says she “was present at the birth of this child, and that it was still-born
and very much deformed.”
_____
We
certify that we have long been acquainted with Joshua M’Kune, Hezekiah M’Kune,
Alva Hale, Levi Lewis, Nathaniel C. Lewis and Sophia Lewis, [the individuals
furnishing the several statements above referred to] and that they are all
persons of good moral character, and undoubted truth and veracity.
ABRAHAM
DUBOIS, J. Peace.
JASON
WILSON, Post Master.
HERBERT
LEACH.
Great
Bend, Susquehanna Co. Penn’a.
March
20th, 1834.
Appendix C.
Comment on the English language in the Book of Mormon.
Much of the work
of Skousen and Carmack in this and other volumes in the Critical Text series
has focused on the source of the language in the text of the Book of Mormon. In
the chapter on the 1837 Kirtland Edition, they classify the 3,168 textual
changes using the following types of language usage (p. 491):
E
Early Modern English: English language dating from before 1700
O
Original Book of Mormon Language: language characteristic of the Book of Mormon
K
King James Biblical Language: language identifiable with the King James Bible
S
Standard English: English language dating from after 1700
N
Nonstandard English: dialectal or ungrammatical language
M
Misreading: language that represents an obvious error in the transmission.
They mark the
most frequent changes from the 1830 to 1837 editions as changes from Early
Modern English to Standard English. This reflects their long-held conclusion
that the text consists largely of Early Modern English grammar, vocabulary and
syntax that Joseph Smith could not have known, and thus had to be provided by supernatural
means through a seer stone that Joseph put in a hat. Joseph allegedly found
this stone while digging a well. The gist of stone-in-the-hat theory is that
Joseph did not actually translate the plates, but instead read words that
appeared on the stone by supernatural means of unknown origin. (For ease of
reference, this can be summarized as the mysterious incognito supernatural
translator, or MIST.)
In my view,
Skousen and Carmack relied on assumptions and methodology that led them to
hypotheses that, while arguably supported by the evidence, are not required
by the evidence. For example, they simply assume that King James Biblical
language came from the King James Bible instead of from sources that quoted
(and paraphrased) the Bible. They also focused on databases of published
material, which by its nature was carefully written and edited prior to
publication, and ignored the real-world language spoken by Joseph’s
contemporaries in Vermont and New York. Even in our day, people do not usually
speak the way they write, and apart from artistic expressions, published
material does not reflect common speech patterns.
This is why
others look at the same evidence as Skousen and reach different conclusions.
For example, I have proposed that Joseph Smith actually translated the plates,
as he claimed, and that he used his own mental language bank to do so, drawing
(as we all do) on the vocabulary, syntax, and usage he had previously heard and
read. D&C 1:24 explains it this way:
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. (emphasis added)
Ironically, a
good example arises in Skousen’s Foreword.
p. 6. “Since its inception, numerous individuals have “provided
ways and means” ) a phrase actually used twice in the original text of the Book
of Mormon—not only financial…”
Technically the quoted
phrase does not actually appear in the text. Instead, the text has “provide
means” and “ways and means,” both of which are nonbiblical phrases.
And
if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God he doth
nourish them, and strengthen them, and provide means whereby they can
accomplish the thing which he has commanded them; wherefore, he did provide
means for us while we did sojourn in the wilderness. (1 Nephi 17:3) (1830 1
Nephi V, page 42, lines 20-22)
A similar phrase
also appears in the D&C:
34
Yea, for this cause I have said: Stop, and stand still until I command thee,
and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which
I have commanded thee. (Doctrine and Covenants 5:34)
As a nonbiblical
phrase, the phrase could have come directly from the stone, as Skousen advocates.
Alternatively, if Joseph was the translator as he claimed, the phrase was part
of his “mental language bank.” He explained both that he was born of “goodly
Parents who spared no pains to instruct me in the
Christian religion” and that he had “intimate acquaintance with those of different
denominations.” (spelling corrected).[30]
Joseph’s familiarity with Christian teachings is apparent from the language in
the text.
Among the sources
of Joseph’s mental language bank may have been the 8-volume, 1808 edition of
Jonathan Edwards’ works that was available in the Palmyra printing shop and
bookstore that he regularly frequented. The following examples relevant to
Skousen’s phrase are from the Kindle version of the 1808 edition.
I
pray God to pity you, and take care of you, and provide for you the best
means for the good of your souls… Kindle 2146.
the
giving Christ and providing means of salvation in him…
Kindle 42301
How
much hath God done to provide you with suitable means and
advantages… Kindle 63550
Or Joseph might
have read one of Edwards’ sermons, in which he wrote, “also to provide means
for a proportionable sense of his terribleness…”[31]
The nonbiblical
phrase “ways and means” is found once in the Book of Mormon text:
29
And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for
there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.
(Mosiah 4:29) (1830 Mosiah II, page 165, line 30)
Again, as a
nonbiblical phrase, the phrase could have come directly from the seer stone.
Alternatively, Joseph could have read it in the 1808 edition of Jonathan
Edwards’ works.
I
used to be continually examining myself, and studying and contriving for likely
ways and means, how I should live holily, with far greater diligence and
earnestness… Kindle 564
There
are so many ways and means whereby the lives of men come to an end…
Kindle 64158
The
unseen, unthought of ways and means of persons’ going suddenly out of
the world are innumerable and inconceivable. Kindle 61087
_____
In his chapter
“On the Importance of the Original Manuscript,” Skousen explains there are 216
original readings of the text in the Original Manuscript that have appeared in
printed editions. On page 16, he observes that “at least 102 of these new
readings affect the meaning (that is, they would show up as differences in
foreign-language translation of the English-language Book of Mormon).” He gives
several examples, of which we will look at three.
1 Nephi 8:31
-
Multitudes
pressing their way towards… (OM)
-
Multitudes
feeling their way towards… (PM)
That
feeling is an error is evident not only from the OM but from the use of pressing
throughout the text. Pressing is a nonbiblical term used 3 times in the
Book of Mormon, all in 1 Nephi 8 and always with “forward.”
many
of whom were pressing forward, (1 Nephi 8:21)
I
beheld others pressing forward (1 Nephi 8:24)
he
saw other multitudes pressing forward (1 Nephi 8:30)
The
word press appears with this frequency in the scriptures: OT (2) NT (7)
BM (6) DC (1). In the KJV, the word is always a noun except here:
Master,
the multitude throng thee and press thee (Luke 8:45)
I
press toward the mark (Philippians 3:14)
In
the Book of Mormon, the term is always used as a verb, usually with forward.
they
did press forward through the mist of darkness (1 Nephi 8:24)
they
did press their way forward (1 Nephi 8:30)
ye
must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ… if ye shall press
forward (2 Nephi 31:20)
army
of Coriantumr did press forward upon Lib (Ether 14:12)
the
armies of Coriantumr did press upon the armies of Shiz (Ether 15:10)
Joseph Smith used the term as a verb in
his canonized 1842 letter.
that
subject seems to occupy my mind, and press itself upon my feelings
(D&C 128:1)
As
a nonbiblical phrase, the phrase could have come directly from the stone, as
Skousen believes. Alternatively, if Joseph was the translator as he claimed,
the phrase was part of his “mental language bank.” Again, he could have added
the phrase to his mental language bank by reading Jonathan Edwards.
There
are 18 examples in the 1808 edition alone (pressing/press forward), and many
more in other sermons and writings that may have circulated in pamphlets,
newspapers, magazines, etc.
The
following examples are from the Kindle version of the 1808 edition.
He
continues pressing forward in a constant manner… Kindle 26076
running
the race set before him, continually pressing forwards through all
manner of difficulties and sufferings… Kindle 27032
makes
them more eager to press forwards… Kindle 31682
reaching
forth unto those things that were before, pressing towards
"the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus"
(paraphrasing Philippians)
putting
on the whole armor of God, and standing, having done all to stand, pressing
forward, reaching forth… Kindle 31737 (paraphrasing Ephesians 6)
they
desire not to rest satisfied with past attainments, but to be pressing
forward… Kindle 31744
the
life of a Christian… strives and presses forward… Kindle 33238
We
should be engaged and resolved to press forward… Kindle 5688
While
others press forward in the strait and narrow way to life… Kindle 56926
The
only way to seek salvation is to press forward with all your might…
Kindle 60661
The
consideration of this should stir you up effectually to escape, and in your
escape to press forward, still to press forward, and to resolve
to press forward for ever, let what will be in the way… Kindle 60680
1 Ne. 12:18
-
Yea
even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God
-
Yea
even the word of the justice of the Eternal God.
Sword combined with justice is a
nonbiblical Book of Mormon usage.
why
did he not let the sword of his justice fall upon us, and doom us to
eternal despair? (Alma 26:19)
I
would tell you somewhat concerning the justice of God, and the sword
of his almighty wrath (Alma 54:6)
the
sword of justice doth hang over you (Alma 60:29)
he
hath put it into my heart to say unto this people that the sword of justice
hangeth over this people; and four hundred years pass not away save the sword
of justice falleth upon this people. (Helaman 13:5)
And
it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that the sword of my justice
shall hang over them at that day; (3 Nephi 20:20)
even
the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your
overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be. (Ether 8:23)
Again,
as a nonbiblical phrase, the phrase could have come directly from the stone. SITH.
Or, if Joseph was the translator, maybe it was part of his “mental language
bank” from reading the 1808 edition of Jonathan Edwards’ works.
The
sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads…
Kindle 61051
In
his writings, Jonathan Edwards used variations of the concept:
And
he stood between God and the people of Jerusalem when he saw the sword of
justice drawn against it to destroy it (2 Samuel 24:17–25). So the Messiah
is spoken of, as in like manner, the mediator, being himself peculiarly God's
elect and beloved, is given for a covenant of the people
Therefore
vindictive justice was as a flaming sword that turned every way
to keep the way of the tree of life… It was the sword of God's dreadful wrath,
the sword of divine justice wielded by his infinite power,
There
are many that, notwithstanding the flaming sword of God's justice and
vindictive wrath that turns every [way], are endeavoring to find out ways to
come at the tree of life.
The
sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and
'tis nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God's mere will, that holds
it back.
The
princes and rulers, spoken of in the Ezekiel 11:1–3, had multiplied the slain
in the city, not only those whom they by the sword of justice had
unjustly put to death under color of law
wicked
men are more sottish even than the brute creatures in rushing on upon the point
of the sword of divine justice.
Alma 43:14
-
Now
those dissenters were as numerous
-
Now
those descendants were as numerous
“Dissenters”
is a nonbiblical Book of Mormon term that appears 20 times in the text. It is
also found in the works of Jonathan Edwards.
Edwards
is everyday rising in esteem among dissenters, so that his works sell
very fast. Kindle 69
Arminianism
has greatly prevailed among the Dissenters… Kindle 14644
Greatly
prevails there, both in the Church of England and among dissenters…
Kindle 14647
Two
divines, of no inconsiderable note among the dissenters in England…
Kindle 52153
These example
suggest that the work of Skousen and Carmack would be enhanced by expanding
their focus to sources known to be available to Joseph Smith prior to his
translation of the plates.
More importantly,
these examples suggest that Joseph himself was fully capable of producing the
text as a translation in his own language.
_____
The End
[1] The practice
of separating witnesses during police interrogations is grounded in both
psychological research and standard investigative procedures. E.g., the U.S.
Department of Justice’s guide, "Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law
Enforcement" online at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf.
[2] https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/desnews3/id/2218503
and
https://bhroberts.org/records/uthtQb-0EchI1/poulson_reports_john_whitmers_final_testimony_of_the_bom
[3]
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/82199881-7613-43e6-a79e-b72609d95b23/0/23?lang=eng,
also at https://www.mobom.org/trip-to-fayette-references
[4] https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/82199881-7613-43e6-a79e-b72609d95b23/0/22?lang=eng (emphasis
added)
[5] Edward
Stevenson, “Visit,” Instructor 22 (1887):55 (emphasis added)
[9]
See Note 33, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-revelations-and-translations-volume-5?p=1#108368103164379468.
(emphasis added)
[11] https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/opening-the-heavens/documents-of-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon
[13]
This version was published in the 1902 History of the Prophet Joseph Smith
by his mother Lucy Mack Smith. https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheProphetJosephSmithByHisMotherLucyMackSmith/page/n139/mode/2up
[15]
A full transcript is available at https://www.mobom.org/emma-smith-to-emma-pilgrim.
[16] Zenas
H. Gurley, Jr., “The Book of
Mormon,” Autumn Leaves (1892), Vol. 5, quote at pp. 452-3, available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433075797161&seq=485
[17]
“Mormonism.” Susquehanna Register (Montrose, Pennsylvania) 9, no. 21 (1
May 1834). See the transcript in Appendix B to this review.
[18] Salt
Lake City: Digital Legends, 2023, chapter 2(B). Also see https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/08/credibility-of-emma-smiths-last.html
[19] The
full article is available at https://archive.org/details/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n189/mode/2up
[20]
The Saints’ Herald, March 3, 1888, page 129. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Saints_Herald/vJD0EOEmJyYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22saints+herald%22+%22march+3,+1888%22&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover
[23]
See the discussion here: https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2024/09/the-embarrassed-narrative-and-stone-in-the-hat.html.
[24]
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/82199881-7613-43e6-a79e-b72609d95b23/0/20?lang=eng
[26] The
original Reuben Miller journal entries are available here: https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=22222322-f4fe-41e3-aa86-bfc54b94df92&crate=0&index=14. See
also https://www.mobom.org/oliver-returning-to-the-church
[28] For more
analysis, see https://www.mobom.org/urim-and-thummim-in-1832.
