Below is the first draft of the first half of my review of Royal Skousen's Part VII that will be published within a few weeks. I post it here to elicit comments, which can be emailed to lostzarahemla@gmail.com.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
_____
Royal Skousen’s Part 7
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)
By Jonathan
Neville
December 2024
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 7 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.
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 (pages 41-131). Because
Skousen’s book is likely to be cited and quoted as the 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 7 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 meager treatment
(i)
omits critical 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
motivated reasoning.
Skousen even
truncates the references he does quote to omit portions that contradict his
theories.
In sum, this
chapter is poor 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)
Jack
Welch’s Opening the Heavens (OTH), which notoriously also omits sources
that contradict his own theories,
(ii)
Dan
Vogel’s groundbreaking Early Mormon Documents series (EMD) which
although groundbreaking years ago is incomplete and has been superseded by the
Internet and 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 instead of
looking at the original sources, that’s not a legitimate excuse. He could and should
have corrected the errors and omissions in these references instead of
perpetuating them.
This manipulative
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.” The scholars who wrote Saints,
Vol 1, likewise manipulated the historical record by omitting these statements,
along with others that Skousen omitted.
There may be
another explanation for Skousen’s cursory treatment of the witnesses. His books
are published by FARMS, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
They feature the infamous FARMS logo, which uses a Mayan logo to represent the
Book of Mormon. That overt message—that the Book of Mormon took place in
Mesoamerica and that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the Hill
Cumorah/Ramah in New York—is a sine qua non among modern LDS scholars.
Historically, it was the first step among faithful believers who sought to
elevate scholarship above the claims of Joseph and Oliver about the origin and
setting of the Book of Mormon. Once their claims about Cumorah were soundly
rejected, repudiated, and even ridiculed, it was a small step to do likewise to
their claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon.
As Skousen has
done in this book.
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’re left to wonder whether—and where—Skousen has manipulated
evidence in other aspects of his work.
It’s 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’ll discuss the Witnesses section by applying the FAITH model of analysis,
FAITH being the acronym for Facts, Assumptions, Inferences, Theories, and
Hypotheses. It may seem axiomatic that we must start with facts. To quote John
Adams (and 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
are 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 those contents. Everyone makes
assumptions and inferences about those elements, 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.
This brief
summary categorizes the major problems with Part VII. Readers who want more
details, including citations and links, will find that material starting on
page 9 in this review.
(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 between fact and assumptions, inferences and theories
(iv)
Failure
to consider alternative interpretations
Preliminary
comment on language.
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. In the chapter 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 show that
the most frequent changes from the 1830 to 1837 editions involve 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 the stone-in-the-hat (SITH), presumably by supernatural means of
unknown origin. (I refer to this as the mysterious incognito supernatural
translators, 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 don’t 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 doesn’t 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 SITH, 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) https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1
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…”
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 SITH. 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’ll 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
BofM, 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 SITH, 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 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 FAITH model applied to the Witnesses of the
Book of Mormon
As observed in
the opening paragraphs, the takeaway message of volume 7 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 and Oliver 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
this standard of evidence (p. 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.
Skousen’s
assessment of the witnesses does not follow these standards. Furthermore, the
last sentence contravenes basic investigative practices. It is more a rule than
an exception for witnesses to coordinate testimony and influence one another,
which is why police interrogate people individually and why judges don’t allow
witnesses to be present in the courtroom when other witnesses are testifying.
In fact, although
Skousen gives us a specific example of this coordination occurring with the
Book of Mormon witnesses (the walls of Jerusalem), he seems oblivious of this
common problem when describing the testimony of the witnesses about what they
claimed to be the translation.
Next, 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)
To the extent
Skousen limited his research to these three sources, 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’ll 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 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. My comments are in bold.
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 (and the Interpreters), but Skousen
never provides that statement. We infer Oliver referred 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” suggests 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. This took place near the Smith home near
Palmyra. Lucy Mack Smith said ## Each witness was allowed to hold and examine
the plates. This is another example
of witnesses coordinating their testimony because contrary to the plain
implication of the Testimony, the eight apparently did not share the same
experience. Lucy Mack Smith explained there were two separate groups.## Their
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.
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 that
Joseph Smith identified the personage as a “messenger” who was one of the Three
Nephites to whom## Skousen omitted this account from, however. She was the first witness of the golden
plates. Obviously we can’t know this. At most we can say she was the first
witness whose statement is extant. We infer that when Oliver Cowdery said he
handled the plates and the interpreters, 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 we know little about this experience.
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.
Here, Skousen
oddly devotes nearly four full pages (43-47) to the hearsay accounts related by
Mary’s descendants. And yet, he omits one of the most relevant sources, an
interview with David Whitmer in which David explicitly explains the identity of
the messenger.
First, Skousen
provides 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.”
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)
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/82199881-7613-43e6-a79e-b72609d95b23/0/22?lang=eng
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. (emphasis added) Edward Stevenson, “Visit,” Instructor 22
(1887):55
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 would place him around 72 years old.
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.
The first family
lore Skousen quotes is John C. Whitmer’s 1878 account, recorded by Andrew
Jenson and published in 1901.
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)
After the lengthy
quotation, Skousen writes
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.
Here Skousen
claims it was John C. Whitmer’s parenthetical, but people don’t speak in
parentheticals. When we look at the passage, it's 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’s
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. See https://www.mobom.org/moroni-and-nephi
The next family
lore account that Skousen quotes is from Carl Cox, who related a version that
appeared in a family history dated 1958. In this version, “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…”
Whether this
account was influenced by the account Andrew Jenson published is unknown, but
seems likely because the Cox account was related long after Jenson’s
publication and it directly contradicts what both Mary herself said and what
David Whitmer said.
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: This excerpt from Stevenson’s diary follows
by just a few lines the excerpt quoted above about the messenger being one
of the three Nephites.
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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment