Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Skousen on witnesses - Part 4

This is the final part of my 4-part analysis of the preliminary version of Royal Skousen's volume on the witnesses, posted on the Interpreter here.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-update-of-the-pre-print-of-a-discussion-of-the-book-of-mormon-witnesses-by-royal-skousen/

As always, Brother Skousen shares outstanding and detailed research. However, he makes some underlying assumptions that are questionable at best.

Skousen’s conclusion is summarized in his key sentence:

“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.”

That's an appalling statement because to reach that conclusion, Brother Skousen omits key evidence, fails to consider context, and refuses to consider other plausible interpretations--especially interpretations that support what Joseph and Oliver taught. 

In my view, the historical evidence, when considered as a whole and in context, corroborates what Joseph and Oliver claimed. Their statements are neither “only partially true” nor “intentionally misleading.” They were forthright and accurate. 

Part 4

In the next section, Skousen sets out “Testable claims.” As he correctly points out, there is no evidence in the original manuscript for most of the claims by the witnesses of the translation. I think he overlooks the evidence from the manuscript that corroborates David Whitmer’s description of the demonstration (the 3 scribes taking turns as they tired, etc.) but that’s a separate topic.

 

1. Here, Skousen examines what Joseph saw using the instrument.



 

As we’ve seen, Joseph related his translation process to two witnesses that Skousen disbelieves. We’ve also seen that Skousen admitted Joseph said he translated "by means of the Urim and Thummim,” yet here he repeats his claim that Joseph “studiously avoided saying how he translated, only that he translated “by the gift and power of God.” That phrase seems to have become a mantra, subconscious or not, that misleads readers by omitting Joseph's references to the Urim and Thummim. It would be far more intellectually honest to instead repeat what Joseph actually said--even if what Joseph said contradicts one's SITH theory.

Skousen accurately explains that David’s testimony was necessarily hearsay because he did not himself look into the instrument, but Skousen says David did claim that Joseph had told him what he saw. Did he?

In the first statement, Traughber says “I now state that he [David] 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.” Despite this clear distinction, Skousen introduced this section by saying “either of which [interpreters or seer stone] could be referred to as a ‘Urim and Thummim’.”

Traughber continued by writing that “a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English: at least, so Joseph said.” That’s the only suggestion that Joseph himself related this description, but Traughber doesn’t explicitly say that David claimed he was quoting Joseph directly. The wording would be the same if David had heard someone else say Joseph said this.

Notice that here we have compound hearsay: Traughber reporting what David told him that Joseph said, and even then it’s not clear whether Joseph said this to David directly or David heard it from someone else.

Obviously, we wonder how Joseph could have known that any “line of character” was from the plates if Joseph wasn’t using the plates. This looks like a conflation of different accounts. Joseph would have seen a “line of characters from the plates” if he was looking at the plates, but not if he was merely looking at a stone in the hat.

I should point out that this sounds like an explanation of the demonstration. If Joseph used SITH to demonstrate the process without exposing the plates and U&T, then he would naturally explain that when he was actually translating, he would see a line of characters from the plates in the Urim and Thummim because he would be looking on the plates (as he and Oliver related). The interpreters would relate what the symbols meant, but then Joseph would have to translate the interpretation; i.e., he would have to render the literal interpretation into understandable English, which he would then dictate.

In all of David’s statements, he never once explained what, exactly, Joseph dictated. He did not say “Joseph dictated what we find on page 13 of the Book of Mormon” or anything close to that. There is literally zero evidence that what Joseph dictated during the SITH sessions is actually in the text of the Book of Mormon. We only assume it is.

Skousen proceeds to parse David’s statements, categorizing them by date, but it’s undeniable that David provided several variations of what he assumed Joseph saw when he looked in the stone. It’s a lot of work to sort through this hearsay, and ultimately, we’re left with speculation after all.

 


Skousen makes a good point that it is unlikely that a single characters can stand for whole sentences. But can we really say David “had it correct” only when he related what we find believable because it aligns with our own beliefs, as Skousen does here?

I agree it’s reasonable (assuming a mysterious incognito supernatural translator, or MIST) to believe that Joseph used SITH and “saw a line of characters from the plates, with it a translation into English underneath.”

But a far more plausible explanation is that Joseph saw a line of characters from the plates when he looked on the plates through the Urim and Thummim, as he and others claimed. That’s how he copied off the characters in the first place, before he ever started dictating. What form of English translation he saw is open to debate, whether it was a literal interpretation that had to be translated into understandable English, or an ironclad pre-translated text he merely had to read.

Either way, we can’t learn much from David Whitmer’s hearsay. David’s speculation is no more evidence than what anyone else speculated.

2. How many words were viewed by Joseph Smith.



Even assuming the “instances of anticipation” in the manuscript are undeniable, but that does not necessarily (or even likely) mean that “Joseph saw up to as many as twenty words at a time.” From a practical standpoint, it doesn’t make sense for the MIST to display so many words at once. With the power to cause words to appear on a stone serving as a supernatural teleprompter, the MIST would be incompetent to display more words than a scribe could reasonably record. Such a practice would naturally lead to the types of errors Skousen has identified in the text.

It would be equally incompetent for Joseph to dictate too rapidly or too many words for his scribe to record. There’s no reason for him to do so.

The examples Skousen gives are all consistent with Joseph rephrasing a translation as he dictated. Here is the first one.



Picture Joseph dictating it this way:

“yea and how is it… how great things… no, check that. Let’s go with yea and how is it that ye have forgotten how great things the Lord hath done for us.”

Joseph could have identified the characters (symbols) for “how” “great things” followed by “forgotten” and “God did.” When he translated those interpretations, he would have to make sense of them in English. What started as a somewhat literal translation didn’t make sense, so he rearranged the word order to make sense in English.

We can see the same thing going on in all of these instances of anticipation.

Such an interpretation of the manuscript evidence is consistent with another kay point. Joseph said the Title Page was a literal translation of the last leaf of the plates. He didn’t say the rest of the text was a literal translation. Thus, we can infer that he knew the difference between a literal (semantic) translation and an idiomatic or communicative translation. A literal translation would likely have the awkward word order that Joseph corrected as he translated.

It’s also possible that in some cases, Joseph initially skipped over a particular character or set of characters and corrected himself before moving on.

3. No prompting to remind Joseph where he had left off.

Emma claimed Joseph never had to be prompted about where he had left off, so he could resume the translation after a break without asking to have the previous passage read back. From this, Skousen concludes that Joseph had to read everything off the stone because it would not reappear.


This scenario is another instance of incompetence on the part of the MIST. If the MIST could make words appear on the supernatural teleprompter once, why not a second time?

Far more plausible is the explanation that Joseph simply resumed translating the engravings on the plates where he left off during the previous session. Assuming there were no visible breaks in the engravings, and that he did not translate to the end of a particular plate, Joseph could have easily marked the characters where he stopped translating so he could resume with the next character.

In this section, Skousen refers to Alma 45:22, the portion in Joseph’s handwriting, and explains his theory that Oliver was getting sleepy and so made an inexplicable error that he immediately crossed out. Then Joseph had to complete the sentence passage before it disappeared from the stone, never to return. He doesn’t explain why the MIST would be so incompetent to either let the words vanish before being fully recorded or refrain from making them reappear.

An alternative explanation has Oliver attempting to translate. He makes the inexplicable error because he’s not sure how to interpret the characters (the stupor of thought), but then he gets a burst of clarity and completes the sentence. Then Joseph says, “Now you see why I need a scribe. Let me write it.” Oliver dictates the 28 words of verse 22 that Joseph recorded, but then Oliver cannot continue. That explanation aligns with D&C 8-9.

4. The scribe read back the text to Joseph Smith.

David Whitmer claimed that the scribes had to repeat what they had written before another character with the interpretation would appear on the stone.

 


This is a common experience for anyone who has dictated a document. You always have the person recording dictation read back the material, but only partly to verify accuracy. The other purpose is to hear how it sounds.

Such reading back does not require that Joseph was matching the reading to what he was supposedly seeing in the stone. 

Skousen gives examples of scribes correcting the original writing even when the original was fine, but in each case, the revision “sounds” better, such as “even insomuch that” replacing “even so much that.” These changes are not required, but it’s easy to see why Joseph (or Oliver) thought they sounded better, even if they were not consistent throughout the text. There’s no reason to infer that the MIST required such changes.

Here, Skousen insightfully points out that errors remained in the text despite being checked by reading back. This contradicts the claims of the SITH witnesses that the MIST required ironclad accuracy. Of course, none of the SITH witnesses observed the translation with the U&T, so their testimony is ultimately irrelevant about the translation. What Skousen sees as a contradiction is actually additional evidence that what the SITH witnesses observed was not the actual translation.

In other words, because the ironclad testimony from the SITH witnesses contradicts the plain evidence from the manuscript, we can tell they were not witnessing the actual production of the text (at least that part of the text where the errors occur).

The exception would be the spelling out of Book of Mormon names, which Skousen claims the witnesses observed and then erroneously assumed that every word and phrase was controlled that way.

Skousen provides a detailed section on substantive errors in the original manuscript. These examples, including those in 1 Nephi, are further evidence that the witnesses were not observing the actual translation.

After listing examples based on scribal mistakes, Skousen claims Joseph misread the text provided by the MIST on the stone.

 


It’s a reasonable (but not mandatory) assumption that these errors were not scribal; i.e., that the script accurately wrote what Joseph dictated. But it’s not really a reasonable assumption that Joseph misread the words on the stone, both because we would expect far more such misreadings if he misread these, and because the MIST presumably would have provided words distinctly enough to be perfectly legible.

An alternative explanation is that Joseph changed his mind about how he interpreted the characters.

In order of translation, the first example from 3 Nephi is simply a dropped word that was later supplied. The second example, cleansed to changed, are similar enough words that it’s easy to see how a particular symbol or character could mean both, and Joseph simply chose a different connotation.

The third example is interesting not only because of the word choice, but because Terryl Givens makes the term “woundedness” the centerpiece of his “all things new” version of the scriptures. The term “woundedness” is not common in the literature, but it does appear in the Masonic Mirror in an article written in the “biblical style” that was a reprint from an earlier but undated newspaper that Joseph could have seen. Of course there is no evidence that Joseph read the article, but the term was obviously in his lexicon. By claiming Joseph misread it, Skousen makes the point that the MIST would not have put the word on the stone. Again, it’s plausible that the character on the plates had multiple meanings and Joseph thought of woundedness in the context of destroying seed, as the verse mentions.



This is a surprising objective, but it explains Skousen’s SITH bias. If the objective of the critical text project is to determine what Joseph was “actually viewing in his instrument,” there is no room for Skousen to consider that Joseph was instead actually translating the plates.

_____

After listing numerous examples of errors in the Original Manuscript, Skousen reaches what he seems to think is a definitive conclusion.

 


If Joseph was actually translating the engravings on the plates, we would expect exactly the types of errors Skousen notes. There was no MIST to insure ironclad accuracy, etc.

And yet, Skousen can think of only one significant possibility for the discrepancy between the SITH witnesses and the manuscript regarding ironclad control; i.e., that they observed Joseph spelling out names and inferred he spelled out everything else.

That simply makes no sense. If they didn’t hear Joseph spelling out words in addition to names, why would they claim he did so? Why wouldn’t they merely state what they observed; i.e., that Joseph spelled out a few names?

The first obvious answer is that they were relating hearsay; i.e., they related what they heard (or what someone else heard) the actual scribes say.

 

The second obvious answer is that what the SITH witnesses observed was not the actual translation; i.e., they witnessed a demonstration, but whatever Joseph dictated on the occasion(s), it did not produce the text we have today.

_____

p. 48. Skousen recognizes that while Emma and David claimed Joseph corrected spelling, neither of them gave specific examples. But he infers that the correction of Coriantummer to Coriantumr “must have been done letter by letter.” Obviously, Oliver could have made that correction on his own.

Next Skousen presents the Sariah/Sarah problem. In 1856 Emma claimed Joseph could not pronounce Sariah (although one version of her statement says Sarah). She says he had to spell it and she would pronounce it for him. Martin Harris said Joseph “could not spell the word Sarah.”

Obviously, the words are easy to confuse and neither word is that difficult to spell or pronounce. The names are not misspelled in the Original Manuscript. It seems more likely that Joseph spelled them out (if he did) simply to distinguish between the two names. And this is the only specific example of Joseph spelling a word that Emma could come up with.

After listing many examples, Skousen reaches this conclusion.

 


I don’t have any objection to this specific conclusion, which I think corroborates the demonstration scenario (because the SITH witnesses’ testimonies contradict the evidence from the manuscript). However, I don’t think the evidence necessarily means Joseph spelled out the names according to what he saw on SITH; the scribes could have made the changes on their own or in consultation with Joseph.

To the extent the SITH witnesses claimed Joseph spelled out words, it appears they either related hearsay or they witnessed dictation that did not end up in the text.

In the section on Biblical words and names, Skousen proposes that Joseph may have spelled some of them out, but the evidence is equivocal.

p. 81.

Here, Skousen points out that Joseph may have spelled out Biblical names when he dictated 2 Nephi, but left it to his scribes to spell the names later. That’s consistent with the demonstration scenario; i.e., SITH witnesses could have observed Joseph spelling these biblical names when he was reciting Isiah from memory and then extrapolated that observation to the actual translation.

 


_____

Conclusion. As I wrote at the outset, I greatly admire and respect Royal Skousen’s research. He’s meticulous and accurate when he presents the data.

However, there are multiple working hypotheses to explain the data. Skousen focuses on only one and that bias is evident throughout his analysis. I would like to see him expand his consideration to alternative explanations that may better explain the facts he presents.

The ideal outcome is having all the facts laid out for everyone to see. Everyone, regardless of bias, should be able to recognize and agree on facts. 

Any set of facts can support multiple interpretations, which I call multiple working hypotheses. 

Once the facts are known, people can develop, pursue, and embrace whatever interpretation or hypothesis they prefer. Human nature teaches us that people will seek to confirm their biases, which is fine. 

Problems arise when bias confirmation leads a proponent to omit relevant facts, as Skousen has done in his book here. This is why it's essential to first lay out all the facts, then develop an interpretation or hypothesis that best explains and reconciles the facts.

In my view, the best explanation of all the facts relating to the translation is the demonstration hypothesis. Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim, but he was prohibited from displaying either the plates or the U&T to anyone until after the translation was completed. The sole known exception was Oliver, who was specifically authorized to translate the plates. Others, such as Josiah Stowell, may have seen the plates inadvertently. Mary Whitmer saw the plates because Nephi showed them to her, but that was not Joseph's doing.

Despite knowing Joseph could not display the plates or U&T, his supporters were intensely interested and curious. Joseph could verbally explain what he was doing, but a demonstration, using the SITH method they were all familiar with, was a reasonable solution. They could all observe Joseph dictating as he looked at the seer stone in the hat, but we don't know if what he dictated ended up in the text of the Book of Mormon. If so, evidence from the Original Manuscript indicates he was dictating Isaiah passages from 2 Nephi during the demonstration(s).

Later, witnesses who believed in the Book of Mormon sought to counter the Spalding theory by relating what they observed during the demonstration(s), thereby "proving" that Joseph had nothing to read from; i.e., he could not have been reading the Spalding manuscript. And yet, people knew that Joseph dictated the text from behind a screen or curtain.

The demonstration hypothesis means Joseph and Oliver were completely accurate and honest when they said Joseph translated the plates with the U&T. It reconciles the SITH statements as honest accounts of what people observed, combined with their mistaken inferences or assumptions that they were observing the actual translation.


Friday, September 3, 2021

Skousen on Witnesses - Part 3

This is part 3 of my peer review of Royal Skousen's preliminary manuscript on the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Part 4 is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept 7th.

This part includes Skousen's 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.”

Part 3

Page 16. The next section is titled “Characteristics of the second method.” Skousen lists three characteristics, based on the SITH witnesses.

-       The plates were not directly used

-   There was no curtain or blanket between Joseph Smith and his scribe

-       There were no notes, manuscripts or books

This is a fair summary of the SITH statements. The fallacy is assuming that SITH is a second method of translating the Book of Mormon. SITH was a second method, for sure, but it was not a method of translating. It was a method of demonstrating.

These characteristics are the same points that Mormonism Unvailed made in 1834; i.e., that the SITH narrative renders the plates and Urim and Thummim superfluous. That’s why the book ridiculed the SITH narrative.

This should be as obvious now as it was in 1834.

It should also be obvious that these accounts could not possibly be relating the actual translation because Oliver and Joseph repeatedly emphasized that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim.

Later in his manuscript, Skousen spends a lot of time pointing out the discrepancy between what the witnesses said they observed and what the Original Manuscript shows (regarding Joseph spelling out words and correcting errors).

Yet, it never seems to dawn on him that the discrepancy is easily resolved once we realize Joseph conducted an open demonstration that was not the actual translation.

The demonstration explanation reconciles all the accounts and the documentary evidence.

The author(s) of Mormonism Unvailed understood this. The whole point of the book was to reveal who was behind the “vail” when Joseph was dictating. It was common knowledge at the time that Joseph dictated from behind the screen. And yet, that book was entirely premised on the widely held understanding that Joseph dictated from behind a curtain or screen.

We’ll discuss this point more when we get to the section of Skousen’s book on the discrepancies between the SITH witnesses and the Original Manuscript.

_____

Page 19. Problematic accounts. Skousen labels the following statements as "problematic" and discounts them as credible and reliable. Let’s look at why.

1. Joseph Smith, purportedly heard by Truman Coe, published 11 August 1836 as a letter to the editor, Ohio Observer.

“By putting his finger on one of the characters and imploring divine aid, then looking through the Urim and Thummim, he would see the import written in plain English on a screen placed before him. After delivering this to his emaneunsi, 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.”

At first glance, that description pretty well tracks what Joseph, Oliver and Lucy Mack Smith related. Published in 1836, it is both concurrent with the Joseph’s and Oliver’s lifetimes, and much earlier than the SITH accounts. Plus, it directly attributes the statement to Joseph Smith.

Now, let’s see why Skousen rejects this evidence.




Framing this interview as “highly unusual” is a misnomer. The only example Skousen gives of Joseph “refusing” to give this kind of detailed account is the 1831 conference that involved not the translation per se but instead “the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.” 

We’ve already seen that Joseph related some details about the translation to Nancy Towle in 1831 that is consistent with this 1836 Coe statement.

We’ve also seen that Joseph consistently said he translated “by means of the Urim and Thummim,” which Skousen omits from his justification for rejecting the Coe evidence.

Next, Skousen objects because there would have to be a blanket or curtain and the statement doesn’t mention such. However, there is no reason for Joseph to mention a screen because he was describing how he, Joseph, translated. This was not an account from an outside observer, who naturally would have mentioned the screen. 

This objection underscores the overall fallacy of assuming there was no screen during the translation of the plates just because the SITH observers emphasized there was no screen. We’re dealing with two separate topics: the translation of the plates, and the demonstration with SITH.

Skousen creates a straw man by claiming “a single character corresponding to an entire thought… seems to be impossible.” We don’t know the language, but Joseph expressly explained that he copied characters off the plates and translated some of them. To “translate” a “character” that character must have a meaning. These were not letters because you don't translate a letter by itself. Besides, an “entire thought” could consist of a noun or verb, a common enough experience in several languages.

Finally, Skousen objects that the statement has Joseph translating until he came to “a part of the plates which were sealed up, and there was commanded to desist.” Skousen claims this contradicts Joseph’s own account because he “was told in advance not to touch the sealed portion.” Skousen misreads the Coe statement. It says “there was commanded to desist;” it does not say “then was commanded to desist.” 

It may have been more grammatically precise for Coe to say “there had been commanded to desist,” but it’s not incorrect or unclear as written, and it does not contradict Joseph having been given a prior commandment not to translate the sealed portion.

Finally, Skousen objects that Coe was not a firsthand witness. But not one of the witnesses Skousen accepts was a firsthand witness, either; none of them actually saw what Joseph saw or actually translated anything. It’s all hearsay. And no one (except possibly Oliver) ever observed what took place behind the screen because no one was allowed to see the plates or the Urim and Thummim.

The witnesses Skousen accepts did testify that they observed SITH at an unspecified time and place (except for the demonstration downstairs in the Whitmer home), but as we’ve seen, we have no way of knowing whether what they observed was actually a translation, and if so, what part of the Book of Mormon text Joseph dictated on the occasion(s).

Overall, the Coe statement is the most credible regarding the actual translation because (i) it is a direct witness of what Joseph said, (ii) it is relatively near in time and published during the lifetime of Joseph and Oliver (who could have disputed it if it was wrong), and most importantly, (iii) it corroborates what Joseph, Oliver and Lucy Mack Smith related.

Really, the only justification for rejecting the Coe statement is because it contradicts the SITH narrative that Skousen has embraced. 

Let's be clear: the Coe statement does not contradict what the SITH witnesses testified about what they observed because what they observed was not the translation. The Coe statement does contradict the idea that SITH was the actual translation, which is what the witnesses inferred or assumed (and what Skousen and other SITH believers have accepted). 

Once we separate what the SITH witnesses inferred (assumed) from what they specifically observed, the difference is clear.

2. David Whitmer, Mullin interview, 1874. Skousen points out that this account is confusing and contradictory, but Mullin insists David said Joseph had the Urim and Thummim and they looked like spectacles. 

3. David Whitmer, Chicago Times. Skousen points out that this account, too, mixes up different ideas. 

I agree with Skousen's assessment of both of these David Whitmer statements, although not for exactly the same reasons, but it's not worth more discussion at this point.

4. Oliver Cowdery, interviewed by Samuel W. Richards during the winter of 1848-49, recorded in 1907. Of course, the fact that Richards wrote this in 1907 does not mean he had not written or related it previously. He remembers a lot of details about context, including the snow storm that prompted Oliver and his wife to stay with them for two weeks. Richards made corrections to the document, indicating he re-read it carefully.

The Richards statement both corroborates what Oliver, Joseph and Lucy Mack Smith reported elsewhere, and provides additional important details that only Oliver could have known.

You can see the original document here:

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/1017f387-3951-4950-87ad-1f42e45ddab6/0/2

“He represents Joseph as sitting by a table with the plates before him, and he reading the record with the Urim & Thummim. Oliver, his scribe, sits close beside to hear and write every word as translated. This is done by holding the translators over the words of the written record, and the translation appears distinctly in the instrument which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. This instrument now used fully performed its Mission. Every word was 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."

Inexplicably, though, Skousen omits the next part of Richards' statement, which makes all the difference.

"Anyone acquainted with the Book of Mormon can well see the necessity of such a provision, as the Book is full of names of Persons, Places, and names of things entirely unused in our ordinary English language. After this experience Oliver was quite satisfied to write what was given him and make the corrections required."

This account is consistent with everything Joseph, Oliver and Lucy Mack Smith reported. Oliver spent several days with Richards and had plenty of opportunity to relate these details. Richards even wrote "I was surprised to see the bright recollection he seemed to have of his early experience with the prophet Joseph, especially relating to the translation of the Book of Mormon."

Here is Skousen’s rational for rejecting the statement.

 


First, Skousen claims Oliver had not yet seen the plates, but D&C 8 and 9 explain that Oliver was permitted to translate the plates. The headings to D&C 6 and 7 indicate that Joseph and Oliver were both using the Urim and Thummim. The Richards statement explains that Oliver (i) obtained the gift to translate and (ii) learned how Joseph could correct the spelling.

With Oliver actually seeing what Joseph saw in the Urim and Thummim, there would be no need for Joseph to translate behind a screen to block Oliver’s view, but such a screen would be necessary to exclude others.

Second, Skousen claims Richards invoked an ironclad interpretation, but that's not really what he wrote. To be sure, one could understand Richards' first comments to describe an ironclad scenario, but later (in the section Skousen omitted) Richards clarified that it was proper nouns (names, places and transliterated terms) that Joseph spelled out. 

This is consistent with what Joseph said about the characters when he copied and translated them. We all understand the distinction between interpretation (the literal meaning of a character) and translation (rendering the literal meaning in understandable English). 

After all, the Nephite instrument was called "interpreters" and Joseph said he "translated" the plates. I see this as akin to the translation of the Rosetta stone, where symbols can be interpreted literally but must be put into English sentences by a translator. Joseph could spell out the proper nouns corresponding to the characters as interpreted by the interpreters, but the rest he translated and dictated from his own lexicon.

This is an important point because, as Skousen has pointed out, there are many "misspelled" words in the Original Manuscript (assuming there was only one proper spelling in 1829) as well as variable spellings of the same words. Thus, the interpreters could not have provided an "ironclad" text for Joseph to read (unless the interpreters themselves were faulty). 

However, Skousen does offer examples of proper nouns that were corrected. He points out (on p. 51) that "the scribe first wrote out the name in some phonetic fashion, then crossed it out and wrote the correct spelling." That's exactly what Richards says Oliver told him.

There are other possibilities to consider. Maybe Oliver used a separate sheet of paper to spell out proper nouns that he didn’t understand, so any corrections made there would appear as final writing on the manuscript. On page 56, Skousen explains that "the normal situation in [the Original Manuscript] was that when a Book of Mormon name occurred for the first time, the scribe must have waited for Joseph Smith to spell out the name, which then allowed the scribe to get the name down without error right from the start."

I realize the manuscript appears to be a continuous flow, but that doesn’t mean there was no preliminary discussion between Joseph and Oliver. 

Additionally, it seems likely that some misspellings were less important than others; hence the uncorrected misspellings.

Finally, Skousen objects that Oliver never translated anything, contrary to what Richards said. We do have the short passage in Alma 45:22 in Joseph’s handwriting that Oliver could have translated. (I realize Skousen thinks this was Joseph completing a thought when Oliver tired, but that is conjecture we'll discuss later in this review.) Much of the Original Manuscript is missing so we can’t know if Joseph wrote Oliver’s translation elsewhere.

D&C 9:5 indicates that Oliver did translate some, but did not continue. “And, behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you.” Even a brief experience translating would educate Oliver about how Joseph did it, just as Richards reported.

Bottom line: What Skousen claims to be “full of error” consists only of his own different interpretation of the facts. He might have adjusted his opinion had he read the next paragraph in the Richards statement. At any rate, he should address that paragraph instead of simply omitting it.

In my view, the Richards statement ought to be treated as direct evidence of what Oliver said about the translation, mitigated by the late date, the possibility of conflation with other accounts, Richards' own bias, etc. 

5. David Whitmer, Nathan Tanner interview 1886. Tanner mentioned a blanket separating Joseph from his scribe, distinguished between the U&T and the stone, and said Joseph put the "manuscript beneath the stone or Urim, and the characters would appear in English."

Skousen points out that Tanner related this interview in a letter dated 1909, 23 years after the fact, and that Tanner’s diary lacks the information in the letter. Tanner even inserted the qualifier "as I remember," a tell for a  witness' uncertainty about his recollection.

Tanner’s claim that Joseph translated and dictated one word at a time is not credible, either, for the same reasons we discussed regarding the Richards statement, unless he meant proper nouns. Tanner seems to have conflated other known accounts with whatever David told him.

_____

p. 22. In the next section, Generic Accounts from Joseph Smith and Oliver CowderySkousen claims Oliver and Joseph gave statements that were “only partially true” and appear to be “intentionally misleading.”

That's the take away from this entire document that will be cited and quoted everywhere by critics and M2C/SITH scholars alike.

This section explains why the demonstration scenario is so important. Let’s look at Skousen’s conclusions.



First, Skousen finally admits that Joseph and Oliver “both explicitly claim that Joseph made the translation using the Urim and Thummim.” That statement should replace the Gospel Topics Essay on Translation, which never once quotes what Joseph and Oliver said about the Urim and Thummim.

Skousen claims that “in no case did they give any details,” but we’ve seen already how Skousen simply rejected two witness statements who related what Joseph told them about the translation process.

Next, Skousen observes that Joseph and Oliver never mentioned the seer stone. He proceeds to assert that their statements “purposely avoid mentioning the stone in the hat.” Skousen’s bias blinds him to the obvious point that if Joseph used SITH only for demonstration purposes, neither Joseph nor Oliver would mention SITH in connection with the translation.

Skousen points out that “there is no firsthand witness who confirms their [the interpreters’] use after the loss of the 116 pages of manuscript.” Yet just a few sentences earlier, Skousen admitted that both Joseph and Oliver “explicitly” claimed Joseph used the U&T.

Finally, based on his outcome-oriented analysis of the evidence, Skousen concludes that “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.”

Naturally, many believers will have a visceral reaction to this declaration, while unbelievers will quote it repeatedly. Skousen’s conclusion will be featured triumphantly and prominently in Mormon Stories, CES Letter, etc.

But there’s no need to respond emotionally, one way or another. A calm, rational, evidence-based analysis shows that Skousen has simply overlooked the most parsimonious explanation—that Joseph did, indeed, translate the plates only with the Urim and Thummim, but separately used SITH for demonstration purposes.

_____

Skousen next provides some of the same statements from Joseph and Oliver that I quoted earlier, such as the Wentworth letter and the Elders’ Journal Q&A. He adds Oliver’s statement, recorded by Reuben Miller in 1848 when Oliver rejoined the Church, but he includes only a brief excerpt. Consequently, readers don’t understand the full context of Oliver’s statement.

When Oliver reiterated his testimony that Joseph “translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim,” he also specifically refuted the Spalding theory by declaring that neither Sidney Rigdon nor Solomon Spalding wrote the text. This is critical to understanding the context of all the testimonies about the translation, as I’ve discussed above.

The second element of context is that when Oliver made this statement, he was in possession of the seer stone. It could have even been in his pocket. Yet he did not produce the stone as evidence or even refer to it. Skousen would have us believe that Oliver was intentionally misleading his audience, but the other way to understand this is that Oliver knew Joseph never used the stone to translate.

In this section, Skousen also quoted Oliver’s Letter I, but he forgot to mention that Letter I was republished, at Joseph’s direction or with his permission, in the Times and Seasons, the Gospel Reflector, the Millennial Star, and The Prophet, and that Joseph had his scribes copy it into his journal as part of his life story. This was by far the most widely known account of the translation during Joseph’s lifetime, and remains the best-known today by virtue of its canonization in the Pearl of Great Price.

The translation by the Urim and Thummim is not only foundational, it is not contradicted at all by the SITH testimony, once we understand that SITH was used only for demonstration purposes.

_____

In the next section, Other claims, Skousen does an excellent job collating the various accounts based on themes.

1. Joseph Smith was ignorant of the walls of Jerusalem.



The first thing to notice is that Emma’s alleged observation was published in 1916, based on an interview by Briggs that took place in 1856. The earliest published account of the Jerusalem walls story was in 1875 (David Whitmer interview with the Chicago Times), which presents both the “late memory” problem and the likelihood of mixed (or collaborated) memories on the part of Emma, David, Martin, and the people who recorded their statements.

For example, there are two different versions of the Briggs interview. In one, Emma (or Briggs) comments that “He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.”

That brings up the substantive problem with this story. The question was not whether Jerusalem had walls, but whether Jerusalem had walls around 600 BC when Lehi left and his sons had to return to the city.

Does the Bible 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's nothing in the Bible about walls around Jerusalem in that year. Asking about walls around Jerusalem at this time was 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 brake down the wall of Jerusalem, but again, that was several years after Lehi left.

It's not a big deal, but I think it's a stretch to say Joseph didn't know the Bible because he didn't know if there were walls around Jerusalem when Lehi left the city. Emma’s perfunctory answer does not reflect superior knowledge of the Bible, but it does play into the narrative that Joseph was too ignorant to have composed the Book of Mormon, an apologetic narrative that developed over time.

Skousen opines that this event would have taken place in early 1828 when Joseph dictated the book of Lehi to Emma. That’s a reasonable inference even though we don’t have the 116 pages, based on the presumably parallel account in 1 Nephi. However, David Whitmer “recalls the fact that at the time Smith did not even know that Jerusalem was a walled city.” He said “they got a Bible & showed him where the fact was recorded.” For Whitmer to have remembered these details from personal experience, the event could only have happened in Fayette during the translation of 1 Nephi. In her statement, Emma also mentioned Sarah, who is mentioned only in 2 Nephi 8:2, a quotation from Isaiah that may or may not have been in the book of Lehi.

Overall, the holes and inconsistencies of the Jerusalem walls story are typical of urban legends. By waiting until after Joseph was dead to relate the story, the witnesses never gave Joseph a chance to explain or contest the story. But the accounts do demonstrate the way mythology develops in a coordinated fashion, one person’s memory building on and incorporating another’s memory.  

2. Working long periods of time. Here, Skousen assumes the 74-day translation scenario, according to Welch’s timeline. He notes Hunter’s replication of the dictation process that takes about half an hour to do one page of the 1830 edition, which works out to about 4 hours a day of dictation.

Skousen quotes only the accounts from Elizabeth Cowdery and Emma Smith. David Whitmer’s observation should be included here:

 In regard to the translation,” said Mr. Whitmer, “it was a laborious work for the weather was very warm, and the days were long and they worked from morning till night. But they were both young and strong and were soon able to complete the work.

 Obviously, David’s account is inconsistent with the rapid translation Skousen and Welch assume. That makes David’s account of the demonstration all the more significant, when he reported that Joseph dictated so fast he needed three scribes to take turns as they tired.

 Also relevant is David’s statement that it took Joseph eight months to do the translation, which is corroborated by what Joseph told his mother. All of this means the actual translation was difficult and time-consuming, while the demonstration was not.

 This section should also include Joseph’s explanation. “During the month of April [1829] I continued to translate, and he [Oliver] to write, with little cessation, during which time we received several revelations.” History of Joseph Smith,” Times and Seasons (Nauvoo, IL) 15 July 1842, vol. 3, no. 18, pp. 847–862. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-15-july-1842/7

 3. Joseph Smith had to be in the right spirit. David Whitmer gave two versions of his claim that Joseph couldn’t translate until he obtained Emma’s forgiveness for an argument. That seems like ordinary human experience, no matter what one is trying to do.

_____

Part 4 to follow