Wednesday, July 31, 2024

Lucy Mack Smith and seer stones?

The editors of the Joseph Smith Papers and the historians in the Church History Department have gone to great lengths to promote the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) narrative. In this post we'll discuss how they have edited a sentence from Lucy Mack Smith's 1845 history to convert it into support for SITH.

_____ 

All too often, our historians have been creating factual narratives instead of reporting the actual facts and setting out their assumptions, inferences and theories clearly so everyone can see.

A better approach would be the pursuit of clarity to eliminate sources of confusion and contention.

A display in the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City that opened in 2024 includes this photo and explanatory placard:

(click to enlarge)


(click to enlarge)

Transcript of the placard:

Joseph Smith used a seer stone, as well as the interpreters he received from Moroni, as aids in the process of translating the Book of Mormon. According to Joseph's mother, Lucy, this stone gave Joseph the ability to "discern things that could not be seen by the natural eye." The pouch was made by Emma Smith for the protection of the stone.

All three sentences are problematic.

1. First Sentence. The first sentence of this placard makes a factual claim that directly contradicts what Joseph and Oliver always said. There are zero accounts of Joseph Smith (or Oliver Cowdery) ever saying, writing, or even implying that Joseph Smith used a "seer stone" as an "aid" in the "process of translating the Book of Mormon." 

At best, this sentence should be reframed as an opinion or interpretation instead of a fact. Perhaps something such as "Some historians believe that Joseph Smith used a seer stone, possibly the one depicted here, as well as the interpreters he received from Moroni, as aids in the process of translating the Book of Mormon." 

The provenance of this striated seer stone is uncertain. 

Church historians claim this is the stone that Joseph gave Oliver Cowdery in the spring of 1830, that Oliver kept the stone until his death, that Oliver's widow gave the stone to Phineas Young, that Phineas gave it to his brother Brigham, that Brigham's widow Zina kept it for a few years, and that eventually John Taylor took possession. At every step of the way, there could have been confusion about which stone was transferred.

None of these parties left a known description of the stone they passed along. Yet stone depicted in the exhibit does not match the description given by Emma Smith and David Whitmer. Emma said Joseph used a stone that was "not exactly black, but rather a dark color." David reportedly said Joseph had a "dark-colored, opaque stone." On another occasion, he said Joseph had a "chocolate color" stone. 

The only known account of Joseph possessing a layered stone came from William D. Purple, who published an article in May 1877 claiming that in the 1820s, Joseph Smith exhibited a stone in a court hearing. "It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it." He didn't elaborate on what those colors were or explain why he said they were diagonal instead of linear.

One thing we know for sure: if this is the stone Oliver possessed, then it is definitely not the stone that Wilford Woodruff saw in Nauvoo in 1841. (See https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2024/07/the-gte-and-wilford-woodruff-quotation.html)

Another thing we know for sure. If Oliver possessed this (or another) seer stone when he rejoined the Church in 1846, he omitted any reference to it when he reaffirmed that Joseph "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." 


2. Second Sentence. The second sentence is misleading because it takes Lucy's statement out of context.

Anyone can read what Lucy Mack Smith actually said (as recorded in the 1845 version of her history) and see that she 

(i) did not refer to the "stone" in this picture (or any other stone), 
(ii) she did not claim that Joseph used the stone to discern things not visible by the natural eye, and
(iii) attributed the "very prevalent story" of Joseph "having been a money digger" to the ill-fated digging for a silver mine, which Joseph had tried to dissuade Josiah Stowell from doing in the first place.

Here is Lucy's original statement with the relevant passage in bold and the portion excerpted in the placard underlined.

A short time before the house was completed, a man by the name of Josiah Stoal came from Chenango County, New York, to get Joseph to assist him in digging for a silver mine. He came for Joseph from having heard, that he was in possession of certain means, by which he could discern things, that could not be seen by the natural eye. Joseph endeavered [sic] to divert him from his vain project; but he was inflexible, and offered high wages to such as would dig for him; in search of the mine; and was still very anxious to have Joseph work for him; consequently, he returned with the old gentleman; besides several others who were picked up in the neighborhood, and commenced digging. 

After laboring about a month without success, Joseph prevailed on his employer to cease his operations. It was from this circumstance, namely, working by the month at digging for a silver mine, that the very prevalent story arose, of his having been a money digger. 


In words as plain as they can be, Lucy explained that Stowell was responding to a rumor Josiah had heard about Joseph's abilities. She did not say or even imply that the rumor was factual, nor did she say what the "means" were.

Now, compare what Lucy actually said to the second sentence of this placard and see how misleading the statement of fact in that sentence is. 

The Joseph Smith Papers also used this passage from Lucy's history to promote SITH.

Here are the JSP notes to the Elders' Journal, Questions and Answers, which included this reference to the money digging rumor.

Question 10. Was not Jo Smith a money digger.
Answer. Yes,11 but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.12


The notes refer to sources that focused on the money-digging claims but omit the dismissal of these same claims in Joseph's own journal.

11. Several of JS’s contemporaries recounted his participation in treasure-seeking activities in the 1820s in locations ranging from the area of Manchester, New York, to the area of Harmony, Pennsylvania. (Trial Proceedings, Bainbridge, NY, 20 Mar. 1826, State of New York v. JS [J.P. Ct. 1826], in “The Original Prophet,” Fraser’s Magazine, Feb. 1873, 229–230; “A Document Discovered,” Utah Christian Advocate, Jan. 1886, 1; see also JS History, vol. A-1, 7–8; Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 48–52; and Vogel, “Locations of Joseph Smith’s Early Treasure Quests,” 197–231.)  

Comprehensive Works Cited

“The Original Prophet. By a Visitor to Salt Lake City.” Fraser’s Magazine 7, no. 28 (Feb. 1873): 225–235.Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. With the assistance of Jed Woodworth. New York: Knopf, 2005.Vogel, Dan. “The Locations of Joseph Smith’s Early Treasure Quests.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27, no. 3 (Fall 1994): 197–231.

In this note, the JSP edit Lucy's statement that Josiah came "having heard that he was in possession..." by replacing it with the more declarative reframing that Josiah came because "he was in possession..."

12. JS was probably referring to his employment with Josiah Stowell in 1825, which involved searching for a rumored Spanish silver mine in Harmony, Pennsylvania. JS’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recalled that Stowell sought out JS because “he was in possession of certain means, by which he could discern things, that could not be seen by the natural eye.” These “means” included seer stones. JS’s monthly wage of fourteen dollars was comparable to that of contemporary unskilled adult male laborers in the Harmony area, who earned about fifty cents a day. (JS History, vol. A-1, 7–8Agreement of Josiah Stowell and Others, 1 Nov. 1825, 1 Nov. 1825; Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, 95; Staker and Jensen, “David Hale’s Store Ledger,” 104.)  

Comprehensive Works Cited
Staker, Mark L., and Robin Scott Jensen. “David Hale’s Store Ledger: New Details about Joseph and Emma Smith, the Hale Family, and the Book of Mormon.” BYU Studies 53, no. 3 (2014): 77–112.

3. Third Sentence. The third sentence is in the placard to lend credence to the first two sentences on the rationale that if Emma made this pouch for the seer stone, then the stone belonged to Joseph Smith and was important to him. 

The claim is based on a journal entry by Franklin D. Richards, dated 9 March 1882. Richards wrote:

"Saw the seer stone that Oliver Cowdery gave Phineas Young and Phineas gave to Prest. Taylor, The pouch containing made by Emma."

You can see this journal entry here:



Richards was born in 1821. He lived in Nauvoo and joined the exodus to Utah in 1846. He was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1849. However, his only recorded experience with this stone was in 1882.

His account includes an error. Although he was visiting with President John Taylor when he saw the seer stone, he apparently misunderstood the provenance of the stone when he said Phineas gave the stone to President Taylor. Zina Young, one of Brigham's widows, possessed the stone for three years after Brigham's death in 1877. John Taylor took possession at an unknown time after that.

We infer that Taylor told Richards that Emma had made the pouch. Taylor could have known this only through a series of hearsay statements. 

It's entirely possible that Emma made the pouch for this striated stone. Maybe by 1870 she forgot what it looked like and described it as "not exactly black, but rather a dark color" to distinguish it from a white or light stone (although she didn't mention such a stone). Maybe Joseph (or Oliver, or anyone else in the chain of custody) put a different stone in the pouch for whatever reason. Maybe Emma didn't make the pouch but someone else did and a subsequent possessor assumed Emma had made it.

The point here is that the placard is creating a factual narrative instead of reporting the actual facts. 




Sunday, July 28, 2024

Two sets of plates--more evidence

An important additional evidence that Joseph Smit translated two separate sets of plates occurred to me recently.

Background

For those unaware, this scenario has Moroni putting the abridged plates in the stone box in Cumorah, consisting of three elements as described in the Title Page.

(i) abridged record of the Nephites

(ii) abridged record of the Jaredites

(iii) sealed by Moroni with his own writing (Book of Moroni)

In other words, there were no original plates in the stone box. 

Joseph didn't get the "plates of Nephi" (the unabridged small plates) until he arrived in Fayette, as implied by D&C 9 and 10. This is why the messenger to whom Joseph gave the abridged plates before leaving Harmony went to Cumorah before bringing the plates of Nephi to Fayette.

For references to the messenger (whom Joseph identified as one of the Three Nephites, not Moroni), see https://www.mobom.org/trip-to-fayette-references

This diagram summarizes it:


For a more detailed graphic, see https://www.lettervii.com/p/the-two-sets-of-plates-schematic.html

For a more detailed explanation of the evidence that supports the two sets of plates narrative, see Whatever Happened to the Golden Plates?

_____

New evidence.

Recently I was having a discussion about a related topic and it occurred to me that we should all have known about the two sets of plates as far back as 1835.

Oliver Cowdery's fourth essay on Church history, originally published as "Letter No. 4" in the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, February 1835, included the earliest detailed account of Moroni's visit.

He [Oliver separately identified the personage as Moroni] then proceeded and gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigines of this country, and said they were literal descendants of Abraham. He represented them as once being an enlightened and intelligent people, possessing a correct knowledge of the gospel, and the plan of restoration and redemption. He 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.

(Messenger and Advocate I.5:80 ¶2)

Oliver was the Assistant President of the Church when he published this. Joseph Smith had his scribes copy this and Oliver's other essays into his own journal as part of his life history, which we can read here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/69

Joseph also had his brother Don Carlos publish these essays in the Times and Seasons. Number 4 was published in the December 15, 1840 edition. 

A key point in the narrative is Moroni's explanation that "this history was written and deposited not far from that place," i.e., Joseph's family home near Palmyra, New York, about three miles from the Hill Cumorah.

Moroni's statement corroborates Mormon 6 and the Title Page, which we'll discuss below. 

The key point for purposes of this post is that Moroni's statement excludes the plates of Nephi from the stone box in Cumorah.

Nephi began writing what we call the "small plates" after he arrived in the land of promise (the New World) (2 Ne 5:31). This was about 588-559 BC. The Book of Omni was written about 323-130 BC. Thus we see that the "small plates" were written centuries before Mormon abridged the plates at Cumorah around 380 AD. The small plates were written in a variety of unspecified locations as the Nephites moved from their place of landing to the land of Nephi to the land of Zarahemla.

Wherever the plates of Nephi were written, they were not written "not far from" Joseph's home near Palmyra, New York.

Therefore, Moroni could not have been referring to the small plates of Nephi when Moroni told Joseph that the record was "written and deposited not far from" his home.

That's exactly what the Title Page explained all along; i.e., Moroni put the abridged record in the stone box, but did not include any original plates (except the sealed portion, which Moroni explained were included).

When Joseph and Oliver were working on the abridged plates in Harmony, Oliver tried to translate. When he was unsuccessful, the Lord told him 

"I would that ye should continue until you have finished this record [the abridged plates], which I have entrusted unto him. And then, behold, other records have I [the plates of Nephi], that I will give unto you power that you may assist to translate."
(Doctrine and Covenants 9:1–2)

Joseph and Oliver continued translating the abridged plates. When they finished with Moroni and the Title Page, they considered going back to the beginning to re-translate the Book of Lehi which was the 116 pages lost by Martin Harris.

In the next section of the D&C, the Lord explained that instead of retranslating what was lost, they had to translate a different record--the plates of Nephi--thereby explaining what the "other records" were that Oliver was promised he would assist to translate.

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)

Joseph and Oliver did not have the plates of Nephi in Harmony. Joseph didn't receive those plates until the messenger brought them to Fayette. Recall that the messenger had taken the abridged plates back to the repository in Cumorah, where, apparently, he picked up the plates of Nephi and took them to Fayette.  

By explaining to Joseph that the Nephite record was "written and deposited not far from" his home, Moroni told Joseph--and all of us--that what he wrote on the Title Page was correct.

The stone box contained only the abridged plates, not the plates of Nephi that Joseph translated in Fayette.
_____

This scenario raises a few questions.

1. "written and deposited." Some people reject the idea that Mormon abridged the record at Cumorah/Ramah in New York. They think he abridged the record elsewhere (Peru, Baja, Central America, Eritrea, etc.) and then Moroni brought the plates to New York. 

These people either reject Oliver's account entirely, or they say that when Moroni told Joseph "this record was written and deposited not far from Joseph's home," he did not mean the record was written not far from Joseph's home, but was merely deposited there. IOW, they say Moroni was explaining two separate things: (i) the record was written and (ii) deposited not far from Joseph's home.

Grammarians can debate the syntax of Moroni's statement, but it would be redundant for Moroni to say the "record was written" because it it was a record, it was by definition written. Thus the only reasonable interpretation of Moroni's statement is that he told Joseph the record was "written and deposited not far from" Joseph's home.

2. Written at Cumorah. Some people question whether Mormon actually abridged the entire record at Cumorah in New York.

We can all read that this is exactly what he did.

First, Mormon retrieved all the records from the hill Shim.

And now I, Mormon, seeing that the Lamanites were about to overthrow the land, therefore I did go to the hill Shim, and did take up all the records which Ammaron had hid up unto the Lord.
(Mormon 4:23)

Next, he hid up all these records in Cumorah after he abridged them.

And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, 
behold I, Mormon, began to be old; 
and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, 
and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, 
(for the Lamanites would destroy them) 
therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, 
and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, 
save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.
(Mormon 6:6)

A related question is how Mormon could have abridged the entire record while he was at Cumorah. This is a longer discussion about how much time he had during the gathering to Cumorah, how much of the abridgment Mormon wrote (editorial) vs. how much is extracts from the original plates, whether Mormon copied all of the original material himself or had a scribe(s) who copied the non-editorial material onto Mormon's plates, whether Mormon inserted original plates along with his editorial commentary, whether Mormon survived the final battle long enough to work on the abridgment while in the repository, etc. 

3. Two departments. Some people interpret Mormon 6:6 to mean that wherever Mormon's Cumorah was, it was not the same hill where Moroni deposited the plates. It's not an unreasonable assumption, because in the text, Moroni never said he deposited the abridged plates in the same hill where his father hid up the repository of Nephite records. IOW, Moroni never wrote, "I now deposit these plates in the stone box that I constructed on the hill Cumorah near the repository of Nephite records."

But he did tell Joseph that. Modern prophets have explained exactly that.

We've just seen that Moroni told Joseph the record was "written and deposited" not far from Joseph's home. We've just seen that Mormon "made this record out of the plates of Nephi," which means he had to be abridging the record by using the original sources in the repository. In Words of Mormon, Mormon explicitly states he was working in the repository.

And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.
(Words of Mormon 1:3)

When Moroni first visited Joseph, he also told him the record was in the "Hill of Cumorah." Oliver Cowdery explained that the hill in New York where Joseph obtained the plates was the very hill Cumorah/Ramah described in the text, the scene of the final battles, and the location of the repository--which he and Joseph visited multiple times.

Orson Pratt explained there were "two departments" in the Hill Cumorah.

One proponents of M2C (the Mesoamerican/two Cumorahs theory) asked me why Moroni would have constructed a stone box in the same hill where the repository was. The answer is simple: it took Joseph Smith four years of preparation to overcome the temptation of selling the plates and artifacts in the stone box. He needed another year and a half of preparation (translating the abridged plates, being baptized, receiving the Priesthood and many revelations, etc.) before he could learn about the repository, which he apparently learned about on the trip to Fayette (which is why he blanched when the messenger to whom he had given the abridged plates explained he was going to Cumorah).

4. Why Cumorah in New York? Some people wonder why Mormon chose the hill in New York to make the final stand for the Nephites. 

The answer seems obvious. Mormon knew that the Jaredites had spent four years preparing for their final battle. 

Wherefore, they were for the space of four years gathering together the people, that they might get all who were upon the face of the land, and that they might receive all the strength which it was possible that they could receive.
(Ether 15:14)

While the number of Jaredites who gathered is unknown (I think it was fewer than 10,000, others estimate far more, even into the millions), what would they be doing for four years as they gathered? 

It seems likely they would construct defensive walls, prepare weapons, etc. But it also seems likely they would construct a fortress of some kind, perhaps a bunker.

Mormon would have known this from the Jaredite record--but the Lamanites would not have known this. 

Mormon and his armies had lost a series of battles as they retreated from the Lamanites. He knew that the war was leading up to "the last struggle" of his people. It didn't matter much where they fought to the death; the situation was hopeless.

But Mormon knew he had to find a place to conceal the Nephite records. He needed a repository, but he wouldn't have time or means to create one while in hasty retreat and continuous battle.

So he thought of the Jaredite fortress and wrote to the king of the Lamanites requesting a gathering at Cumorah. The king, unaware of the Jaredite history, granted the request.

1 And now I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites. And it came to pass that we did march forth before the Lamanites.
2 And I, Mormon, wrote an epistle unto the king of the Lamanites, and desired of him that he would grant unto us that we might gather together our people unto the land of Cumorah, by a hill which was called Cumorah, and there we could give them battle.
 3 And it came to pass that the king of the Lamanites did grant unto me the thing which I desired.
4 And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites.
5 And when three hundred and eighty and four years had passed away, we had gathered in all the remainder of our people unto the land of Cumorah.
(Mormon 6:1–5)

IOW, Mormon chose Cumorah--the Jaredite Ramah--specifically for its underground bunker where he could safely hide up the Nephite records and abridge them as he had been commanded.

5. Implications of the New York Cumorah/Ramah. Most (or at least the most-funded) modern LDS scholars have come to reject the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah/Ramah. They teach instead that 

(i) the prophets were merely speculating and we know they were wrong because the New York Cumorah does not fit the scholars' own interpretation of the text (meaning their "requirements" for Cumorah exclude New York as a viable candidate).  

(ii) there must be "two Cumorahs," meaning the traditional one in New York is a false tradition while the "real Cumorah" is somewhere in southern Mexico, Peru, Baja, or anywhere else except New York;

Yet we can all read the original sources in Church history that declare and reiterate the claim that the Hill Cumorah in New York is also the hill Cumorah/Ramah in the text of the Book of Mormon. We have Apostles and members of the First Presidency teaching this in General Conference.

This leaves us with two alternatives.

1. We can choose to embrace the teachings of the scholars and reject the teachings of the prophets.
We can embrace scholarly interpretations of the text and extrinsic evidence that exclude New York from the list of possible locations of the hill Cumorah/Ramah.

2. We can choose to embrace the teachings of the prophets and reject the teachings of the scholars.
We can embrace both prophetic and scholarly interpretations of the text and extrinsic evidence that corroborate the teachings of the prophets that New York is the setting of the hill Cumorah/Ramah.
_____

SUMMARY

Obviously, if there were two sets of plates, and the plates of Nephi that Joseph translated in Fayette came directly from the repository of plates in Cumorah, then this is one more piece of evidence that corroborates the teachings of the prophets (and Moroni) about the hill Cumorah/Ramah in New York.

Therefore, we expect M2C scholars to reject the two sets of plates scenario. Maybe they will propose that while the "real" Cumorah is in southern Mexico, the repository of Nephite plates was transported to New York in an undocumented account. 

People can believe whatever they want.

We just encourage people to make informed decisions using all the available information.

I found this additional insight from Oliver's Letter IV very useful as an additional evidence to support the two sets of plates scenario, but others may not.

If you have additional thoughts or questions, email me at lostzarahemla@gmail.com.
 



Friday, July 5, 2024

The GTE and the Wilford Woodruff quotation

It amazes me that there are still discussions about the origin of the Book of Mormon (SITH vs U&T) among Latter-day Saints who don't know basic historical evidence relevant to the topic. By now, I've thought the facts are well known and everyone interested has settled on what they believe through the process of bias confirmation. 

But there continue to be podcasts on the topic, and the presentations and comments evince considerable ignorance of the facts, whether coming from LDS, former LDS, non-LDS, or anti-LDS camps. 

The basic questions: Did Joseph translate the plates by means of the Nephite interpreters, aka the Urim and Thummim, that came with the plates? Or did he instead use a seer stone he found in a well years earlier that he supposedly used to find buried treasure?

It's a core question that goes to the heart of the credibility of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and the Restoration narrative.

It's also an either/or question, which is what leads to cognitive dissonance.

Some claim it doesn't matter how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon, a classic response to cognitive dissonance (i.e., inability to reconcile the contradictions between what Joseph and Oliver said vs what others said). 

And that's fine. As we often say, people can believe whatever they want. This blog focuses on how narratives are created and promulgated, so we include narratives designed to mitigate cognitive dissonance.

Others resolve their cognitive dissonance by blurring the historical sources through wordplay. They claim that Joseph used "both" and that when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery referred to the Urim and Thummim, they actually meant the seer stone as well as the Nephite interpreters because the term "Urim and Thummim" refers to a "class of objects."

In this post, we'll look at one of the key historical sources that people used to justify the wordplay approach.

_____

This controversy began before the Book of Mormon was even published. (See, e.g., this post on the Jonathan Hadley article: https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/10/update-on-jonathan-hadley-and-sith.html)

Despite the efforts of Joseph and Oliver to resolve the controversy, people continually asked about it.

In 1838, Joseph published a response that left no room for confusion.

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

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

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

The SITH sayers reject this specific explanation. They claim Joseph and Oliver misled everyone because Joseph actually didn't use the Nephite interpreters but instead read words that appeared on a stone he put in a hat while the plates were covered up or not even in the same room. They also reject what Joseph formally published in the Wentworth letter in the 1842 Times and Seasons.

Note: For those new to this blog, SITH sayers are people who reject what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation of the Book of Mormon because they prefer the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) narrative advocated by David Whitmer in his Address to All Believers in Christ, in which he also claimed Joseph was a fallen prophet, there was no restoration of the Priesthood, etc.

The SITH sayers have developed an entire narrative around the David Whitmer claims, including imaginary artwork such as this.

SITH event as imagined by BYU professor Anthony Sweat

In this post, we'll look at a lingering factual element that continues to surface. It's even included in the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation as a way to justify the SITH sayers' wordplay.

First, though, let's discuss the FAITH model.

_____

For some time now, in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I've been promoting the FAITH model of analysis as a means to achieve "no more contention."

For those new here, the FAITH model consists of 5 steps of analysis:

FACTS. These are unambiguous, demonstrable facts, such as the existence of Lucy Mack Smith's history, Joseph Smith's 1832 history, etc. By definition, everyone can agree on the existence of facts. 

ASSUMPTIONS. People make a range of assumptions about the facts, based on their own prior beliefs, biases, agendas, ulterior motives, aspirations, etc. Frequently people treat their assumptions as facts, either deliberately or without realizing the distinction. Once we clearly distinguish between facts and assumptions, we can see where people's interpretations and opinions diverge.

INFERENCES. To fill gaps in the evidence, people make a variety of inferences.

THEORIES. To construct a narrative from the facts, assumptions, and inferences, people develop theories that, in their view, explain the facts.

HYPOTHESES. For purposes of this analysis, the hypotheses are the cumulation of theories that are united by overarching narratives that, in turn, reflect each person's worldview. Another way to look at the FAITH model is that is shows how people confirm their biases.

The FAITH model is productive because it creates clarity about what people believe. Because we assume people act in good faith (charity), it also enables a spirit of understanding instead of a compulsion to persuade, convince, or compel others.

_____

It is not surprising to me that there are still LDS scholars who promote the SITH narrative. 

Some are heavily invested in that narrative and find it difficult to change their minds for a variety of reasons. Not that they should, of course. People can believe whatever they want. If they want to agree with John Dehlin and the CES Letter that Joseph and Oliver were wrong and/or misled everyone about the translation, that's fine with me. If instead they want to accept what Joseph and Oliver taught, that's great, too.

I don't care, so long as they are clear about what they believe and enable others to make informed decisions by providing all the facts.

What is surprising is how many Latter-day Saints remain ignorant of the facts because of all the disinformation provided by our SITH scholars and their SITH-promoting collaborators such as John Dehlin and the CES letter (whose critical agenda is explicitly stated, to their credit).

In this post, we'll look at one example of how a historical fact is being treated.

_____

SITH sayers have long cited Wilford Woodruff's brief journal entry to support their SITH narrative.

Today's example, often quoted by SITH sayers, is Note 21 in the Gospel Topics Essay (GTE) on Translation of the Book of Mormon.

In my analysis of this GTE, I discussed this note.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html

For easy of reference, here's what I wrote there.

_____

Original GTE in blue, my comments in red, other original in green.

Note 21.

For example, when Joseph Smith showed a seer stone to Wilford Woodruff in late 1841, Woodruff recorded in his journal: “I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM” (Wilford Woodruff journal, Dec. 27, 1841, Church History Library, Salt Lake City). See also Doctrine and Covenants 130:10.


First, we observe that note 21 is cited to support this statement in the GTE: 


Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.


If they "often" used the term this way, we should expect to see more than one ambiguous reference. But the authors of the GTE can manage only this one reference to Wilford Woodruff's brief journal entry.


They do cite D&C 130:10, which is part of instructions given by Joseph on April 2, 1843. There, Joseph gave three separate examples of what "a" Urim and Thummim is, none of which have anything to do with the "interpreters" (the instrument that came with the plates which Joseph said he used to translate the plates). Two of the examples don't even exist at present, but will at some future time.


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

This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.

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

(Doctrine and Covenants 130:8–10)

 

This is the reference used to define "Urim and Thummim" retroactively to mean a "class of objects" such that when Joseph and Oliver said Joseph translated "by means of the Urim and Thummim," they referred to the seer stone he found in a well, thus reconciling their statements with David Whitmer's.


But as we've seen, Joseph specifically addressed this argument when he clarified that he used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.


Thus, we see that this reference does not support the claims in the sentence in the GTE that "Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters." 


This leaves the claims unsupported by any citation other than, arguably, the reference to Woodruff's journal. 


Let's be clear: Contrary to the statement in the GTE, there are no known instances in which Joseph used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone he found in a well or any stone he found anywhere else. Prior to D&C 130, Joseph used the term solely to refer to the interpreters (see Elders' Journal, Wentworth letter, D&C 10, etc.). And even in D&C 130, he did not use the term to refer to what are commonly referred to as his seer stones.


Second, contrary to the implication of the note, Joseph didn't show the seer stone to Woodruff alone. In fact, Woodruff doesn't even say Joseph showed him the seer stone. 


Here is the entirety of Woodruff's journal entry for that day.


27th The Twelve or a part of them spent the day with Joseph the seer + he unfolded unto them many glorious things of the kingdom of God the privileges + blessings of the priesthood + c. I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM


Anyone can read the original journal here:


https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/28b53d73-2ba2-418b-8ef7-dafcc935bee3/0/125?lang=eng


Third, Brigham and other Apostles present at this meeting repeatedly taught that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. Neither Woodruff nor Brigham ever taught that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by putting a stone in a hat and reading the words off of it. See https://www.mobom.org/urim-and-thummim-in-lds-general-conference


Fourth, Brigham Young recorded a more detailed account of the meeting Woodruff described. Brigham related an experience that directly contradicts the representation in the GTE. 

I met with the Twelve at brother Joseph’s. He conversed with us in a familiar manner on a variety of subjects, and explained to us the Urim and Thummim which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters. He said that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness, and most of those who do find one make an evil use of it; he showed us his seer stone.

Elden J. Watson, ed., Manuscript History of Brigham Young 1801–1844 (Salt Lake City: Smith Secretarial Service, 1968), 112a.


Thus, Joseph explained the Urim and Thummim and showed them his seer stone. Brigham made a clear distinction between the two. This is the opposite of what the GTE claims, which may explain why the authors of the GTE forgot to cite this reference.


Finally, Woodruff's brief journal entry doesn't even mention the stone. It is unclear whether he:


(i) literally "saw" the seer stone and called it "the" Urim and Thummim, contrary to Brigham Young's description;

(ii) "saw" the "Urim and Thummim" in the sense that he understood it for the first time in his life (using "see" as a synonym for "understood" or "comprehended"; 

(iii) saw the actual Urim and Thummim (the spectacles) because Joseph had retained them and revealed them during the meeting; 

(iv) heard Joseph refer to the stone as "a" Urim and Thummim and recorded "the" instead, or 

(v) merely inferred that the seer stone was a Urim and Thummim. 


Summary. Given that Brigham Young's record is more detailed and clearly distinguished between the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates, aka, the Interpreters, on one hand, and Joseph's seer stone on the other, it is impossible to tell exactly what Woodruff meant by his brief journal entry. While the authors of the GTE cite it to support their SITH narrative, we can all see that their interpretation is, at best, only one of several possible interpretations and one of the least plausible, given that it contradicts Brigham's more detailed description (as well as what Joseph and Oliver always said about the Urim and Thummim).


Professional standards for historians require them to provide all relevant sources. This is another example of the authors of the GTE ignoring professional standards by omitting Brigham Young's explanation. It appears they selected the Woodruff citation to promote the SITH agenda instead of providing a complete explanation of the historical sources that would better inform readers.


If the GTE retains this reference, the text should be edited for clarity and to address the problems identified in these comments. 


 


Joseph Smith: the early years

Two basic hypotheses (narratives) have arisen about Joseph Smith's early years. 1.  Faithful : Joseph Smith as ignorant farm boy who cou...