Tuesday, December 3, 2024

Creating a narrative with selective sources

People continuously create narratives about their own lives relying on selective memories. This is natural because our memories are formed by imperfect perception in the first place, and then our memories are reconstructed every time we retrieve them.

Historians create narratives in a similar manner. There is a limited, finite amount of historical source material that must be carefully curated to create and present a narrative. This is why the AHA includes this passage in its Standards of Professional Conduct:

Professional integrity in the practice of history requires awareness of one’s own biases and a readiness to follow sound method and analysis wherever they may lead. Historians should document their findings and be prepared to make available their sources, evidence, and data, including any documentation they develop through interviews. Historians should not misrepresent their sources. They should report their findings as accurately as possible and not omit evidence that runs counter to their own interpretation. 

Unfortunately, in some cases historians do create narratives and then defend them by simply omitting references to historical sources that contradict their chosen narrative.

A case in point is found in a recent book by Royal Skousen.

_____

Review of Royal Skousen's methodology: Part Seven

We'll start by observing that the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding leads to a place of tranquility, peace, harmony, and happiness. 

The goal is a Zion society where there is "unity in diversity." 

Where people are "determined in one mind and in one heart, united in all things." 

Where we are "of one heart and one mind," not because we all think alike but because we see clearly, have charity for one another, and enjoy understanding different perspectives and ideas instead of demanding uniformity through compulsory means and contention.

The first step is clarity, and for that we apply the FAITH model, which explains diversity in the spirit of charity and understanding. 

When everyone has access to the relevant FACTS, everyone readily agrees about those facts. Then we can distinguish facts from our respective ASSUMPTIONS, INFERENCES and THEORIES to clearly understand how people arrive at their multiple working HYPOTHESES. 

And voila, we all "follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

It's easy to articulate the goals and methodology.

Let's see how it works in practice.
_____

In this case, we'll look at Royal Skousen's Part Seven: The Early Transmission of the Text

The charity and understanding elements are easy.

Royal Skousen is one of the most meticulous, careful, detailed and conscientious scholars in Church history. I can't think of anyone who comes close, actually. He is widely respected by both scholars and casual readers.

Stan Carmack is a perfect collaborator who uses his knowledge of linguistics and statistical analysis to enhance Royal's research.

They do phenomenal work. I rely on their exemplary research all the time.

They are both awesome people, and we can readily assume they act in good faith. 

They make their assumptions, inferences, theories and conclusions (hypotheses) clear so everyone can understand them. We can disagree with their conclusions without feeling any compulsion to have them or anyone else change their minds. We enjoy the different perspectives and seek unity in diversity. 

In my view they trip over basic assumptions and inferences, but that's fine. So long as we have access to the relevant facts, different assumptions, inferences, and theories make life interesting as we all pursue truth through clarity, charity and understanding.  

The challenge here is clarity, because clarity relies on a factual foundation.

In Part Seven, Royal has unwittingly or intentionally omitted highly relevant facts that deprive his readers of the ability to make informed decisions about his assumptions, inferences, and theories. Again, we assume he is acting in good faith, but we must build on a foundation of clarity, which means we want all the relevant facts.

_____

Here's one example from Part Seven: The Early Transmission of the Text

The specific topic is a section titled "Another Account of Mary Whitmer's Viewing of the Golden Plates," starting on page 43 and continuing through page 47. 

We will look at this in detail because the conclusion Royal presents here is a widely shared belief among many Latter-day Saints today. Actually, it's a nearly universal belief among young and new Latter-day Saints because it is conveyed in Saints, volume 1, and depicted in a famous painting.

_____

Royal writes, "For a long time we have known that Mary Whitmer was also shown the plates. These accounts are familiar and derive from David Whitmer and John C. Whitmer (the son of Jacob Whitmer)." (p. 43)

Then, on page 44, Royal gives us an excerpt of David Whitmer's 1878 account, recorded by Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith. This is all good. 

Next he gives us the John C. Whitmer 1878 account, recorded and published by Andrew Jenson. This is the infamous account in which Jenson rejects what Mary Whitmer herself said. Quoting John, Andrew writes:

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 se always called Brother Nephi. (She undoubtedly refers to Moroni, the angel who had the plates in charge.)

Royal recognizes the problem when he writes at the end of this passage on page 45, "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."

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. This omission is our first clue something is wrong here.

Next, on pages 45-47, Royal provides an extended discussion of a "third account" which amounts to mere family lore, first recorded in 1958, complete with a fabricated direct quotation of the messenger who, contrary to Mary's own account, arrives and says, "My name is Moroni." From then on, Royal refers to the messenger as Moroni.

Finally, on page 47 (reproduced at the left), Royal writes:

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 Daivds 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.

[Note: Vogel 5:31 is Vogel's Early Mormon Documents (EMD), Vol 5, page 31, shown below.] 


Quotation from Stevenson's diary, p. 47





Wait a minute. This is the "earliest record" but we don't get it until the end of this section? 

Royal had announced his own standards of evidence back on 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. [emphasis added]

Instead of starting with the earliest account, Royal dedicates three pages on a hearsay account first recorded in 1958. He saves the earliest account for last.

But worse, he omits the key part of the earliest account!

Just a few lines before the sentence Royal quoted from the Stevenson's diary (see the images from EMD below), David Whitmer explained that Joseph identified the messenger as one of the Three Nephites.

"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]

(It is significant that it was Zina who asked Stevenson to ask David about this account. She first met David Whitmer when he and his missionary companion, Hyrum Smith, baptized her family in 1832. She even remembered that she wanted Hyrum to baptize her because he was more handsome. She apparently asked Stevenson to ask David about it because she heard this account from David in 1832)

To restate the obvious, David told Stevenson that Joseph Smith himself identified the messenger as "one of the Nephites." That is highly relevant to the identity of the messenger, and by Royal's own evidentiary standard, should be considered "the most reliable." 

Yet Royal omitted this from his book.

Perhaps Royal reasoned that, well, Moroni was also a Nephite, so it could have been Moroni and Mary might have been wrong after all. But if that's his reasoning, he owes it to us to spell it out after first sharing the relevant facts. 

_____

Royal's citation to EMD also refers to Stevenson's published account, where he clarified by writing,   

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 [emphasis added]

Royal doesn't inform his readers about any of this.

To be sure, Royal isn't writing an encyclopedia. We don't expect him to include every available source. But by his own standards, "the earliest accounts are the most reliable ones." In this case, he was not unaware of the earliest account.

He even quotes part of it.

But he omits the most directly relevant part of the earliest account (Stevenson's diary) and doesn't share the more detailed account Stevenson formally published.

This practice violates the first principle of clarity and misleads readers. While we assume Royal acts in good faith, we also observe that the facts he omitted contradict his conclusion that it was Moroni who showed the plates to Mary Whitmer. 

_____

To see how obvious this manipulation of history is, let's look at the page Royal cited from Vogel's Early Mormon Documents. Royal cited Volume 5, page 31, for the quotation from Stevenson's diary.

Below are images of pages 30-31 from EMD vol. 5. The passage Royal quoted from page 31 is the passage I outlined in yellow below. 

The passage I outlined in red is where David Whitmer relates Joseph's identification of the messenger.  Royal omitted this passage from his quotation, even though it is on the same page as the part he did quote.

Whether Royal omitted the relevant passage unwittingly or deliberately, he has misinformed his readers and should correct the error to rehabilitate the credibility of his work. 

He can retain his opinion that the messenger was Moroni if he wants by rejecting what David and his mother said (the way he rejects what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation), but he owes it to his readers to explain his reasoning after providing the relevant facts here. 

Especially when the facts he censored are those that, according to his own criteria, are "are the most reliable ones."



(click to enlarge)
























(click to enlarge)


  



























Footnote 13, outlined in red above, relates a subsequent interview that Stevenson had with David Whitmer on 9 Feb 1886. On this occasion, David reiterated his statement that "they asked the Prophet to enquire of the Lord who this stranger was. Soon David said they turned around & Joseph looked pale almost trans¬ parent Se said that [he] was one of the Nephites, and he had the Plates of the Book of Mormon in the knapsac[k]"

You can read this account here:

https://archive.org/details/volume-5_202011/page/159/mode/2up 

Footnote 15 is also interesting. This refers to the interview of John C. Whitmer by Andrew Jenson and Edward Stevenson together on 11 Oct. 1888.

Here we see how Jenson inserted the parentheticals, including John's name, the name of his grandmother, and the Moroni narrative. 

(click to enlarge)

Jenson published his account in Historical Record.

A few months later, Stevenson published his version of this interview. “The Thirteenth Witness to the Plates of the Book of Mormon,” Juvenile Instructor 24 (1 January 1889): 23


(click to enlarge)


In his version of the interview, Stevenson refers to the messenger as Moroni, having adopted Jenson's "correction" of what Mary Whitmer said.

(click to enlarge)



It's easy to see that Royal may not have wanted to go down this rabbit hole to get into all these interviews. But he provided considerable detail about the much later and less credible family lore on this topic, when these earlier sources were readily available right in the references he cited.

_____

Conclusion: If everyone involved with Church history research would join in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we could apply the FAITH model and agree on the facts. Then we could all understand and appreciate the various assumptions, inferences and theories that everyone uses to reach their conclusions (hypotheses).

And everyone would understand one another with no more contention.

_____

Additional Reference:

https://www.mobom.org/moroni-and-nephi



 

Tuesday, November 12, 2024

Choose your narrative

Recently a friend told me that history is history; i.e., historical events are facts. In a narrow sense, that is true, assuming we can validate or even corroborate historical accounts with extrinsic evidence. But if the historical events are based on human accounts, they are inherently subjective.

Any lawyer knows that no one has perfect recall, that no two witnesses will have identical memory about what they've observed, and that even any one witness will recall different details at different times. Memories are constructed from sensory inputs, which are themselves filtered by subjective criteria. 


Facts are merely a starting point because history is a narrative.

A famous example is recorded in John, who reported there was a "division" among the Jews who all observed the identical events yet reached opposite conclusions.

 19 ¶ There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

 20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

 21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

(John 10:19–21)

The respective groups John identified chose their own narratives, based on their assumptions, inferences, and theories. They observed events--facts--and then adopted a narrative that confirmed their pre-existing biases. 

This is why I have proposed the FAITH model of analysis: Facts, Assumptions, Inferences, Theories, and Hypotheses.

Everyone in the world can agree to the facts. The problem arises when people conflate (or blend) facts with their own assumptions, inferences, theories, etc. The FAITH model allows us to pursue clarity, charity and understanding because it empowers us to make informed decisions.

The Jews divided into two camps based on the identical facts. Because of their respective assumptions, inferences and theories, some Jews concluded that Christ had a devil, while others concluded he could not have a devil.

_____

Among Latter-day Saints, we have similar differences based on the identical facts. I've discussed this in terms of the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon, but it applies to other aspects of history, doctrine, and practice as well.

The FAITH model allows us to separate facts from assumptions, inferences, etc. It lays bare the intellectual ancestry of the various beliefs people have and enables us to see clearly how those beliefs have been created and fortified.

One impediment to implementation of the FAITH model is censorship. When people do not have all the facts available to them, they cannot make informed decisions. They cannot distinguish between facts and assumptions, inferences, theories, and hypotheses. 

Censorship leads to the opposite of clarity, charity and understanding. 

Censorship obscures reality and invites distrust. It provokes animosity and suspicion of motives. It fosters contention and confusion.

With transparency, we can all pursue clarity, charity and understanding by using the FAITH model, thereby eliminating ignorance, confusion, mistrust, and contention.

Now, let's see if we can encourage our LDS historians to embrace the FAITH model and join in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.




Monday, September 16, 2024

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 couldn’t even write a letter, chosen by God because of a sincere prayer and his future potential.

2. Critical: Joseph Smith as clever treasure-digger trying to make money, and well-versed enough in Christian thinking to compose and dictate a religious text.

There are numerous variations of these two narratives. Advocates of each can cite historical facts that, when filtered through their assumptions, inferences and theories, support their respective hypotheses (the FAITH model of analysis).

In my book The Rational Restoration, I proposed a reframe of Joseph Smith's early years. The reframe views the events in Joseph's life as God preparing him for his future role as translator and prophet.

The reframe incorporates all the historical facts and sees Joseph Smith as a religious seeker from a young age. This is a pragmatic approach, based on historical evidence but also common human experience. Although this is a relatively naturalistic approach, it supports and does not contradict Joseph’s claim that he translated an ancient record.
_____

When asked about the Restoration, Joseph said it began when he was around six years old. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/38 

Presumably he referred to his leg surgery, which left him disabled for years. Even when the family moved to Cumorah, Joseph was still using crutches. A disabled boy would naturally occupy his time by reading.

After his leg surgery circa 1812, Joseph's uncle took him to Massachusetts to recover. Lucy Mack Smith recalled that "he now began to recover and when go he was able to travel his own he went with his uncl Jesse Smith to Salem for the benefit of his health hoping that the Sea breezes might help him in this we were not disapointed for he soon became Strong and healthy" 


Joseph explained that his parents "spared no pains to instruct<​ing​> me in <​the​> christian religion."

For the next few years Joseph was recuperating, to the point that when the family moved to Palmyra in the Winter of 1816–1817 he was still "somewhat lame."

Lucy reported, "After this I pur[s]ued my Journey but a short time untill I discovered that the man who drove the team in which we rode was an unprincipled unfeeling wretch by the manner in which he handled my Goods & money as well as his treatment to my children, especially Joseph who was Still somewhat lame <​this child was compelled by M. H to travel for miles to time <​on​> of foot​>."

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/35 

In Palmyra, Joseph frequented the  bookstore and printing shop, where he picked up the weekly newspaper for his father. A coworker there later described Joseph as a “meddling inquisitive lounger.” Orsamus Turner, History of the Pioneer Settlement (Rochester, NY 1851), p. 214. Available online at https://archive.org/details/historyofpioneer00turn/page/214.

Joseph later explained in his 1832 history that, although he had little formal education, "At about the age of twelve years my mind become seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns of for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly."

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/2

Among the books on sale at the bookstore was an 8-volume set of the works of Jonathan Edwards, the most prominent American theologian in the 1700s. Edwards was highly influential on other Christian authors and ministers, particularly in New England and New York. His work was republished in pamphlets, newspapers, magazines, and books.

The 8-volume set was published in 1808. Much, if not most, of the non-biblical language (words and phrases) in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Joseph’s personal writings can be found in the works of Jonathan Edwards and James Hervey. E.g., see the database here: https://www.mobom.‌org/‌‌‌nonbiblical-intertextuality-database and the annotated chapters from the Book of Mormon here: https://www.mobom.org/jonathan-edwards.

We can see that the Lord prepared Joseph to translate the Book of Mormon through his family's instruction in the Christian religion, together with his searching the scriptures and his intimate acquaintance with different denominations. 

_____

To itemize all the facts would take a much longer post, but we can separate a few facts that everyone can agree upon and see how assumptions, inferences and theories lead to the respective hypotheses (the FAITH model).

Any list of accepted historical facts would include these.

1. Joseph’s leg surgery and recuperation, and his reference to that event when explaining the Restoration.

2. Joseph’s proximity to Dartmouth College during his recuperation and his brother Hyrum’s attendance at a boys' preparatory school located there. (Assumptions and inferences about the extent of Hyrum’s education vary.)

3. Joseph’s early years in Palmyra, his exposure to ministers from different denominations, and the ready availability of Christian writings, including the works of Jonathan Edwards and James Hervey.

4. Joseph’s aversion to writing, as well as his abilities to exhort, preach, and narrate stories.

5. The intensity of Joseph’s religious seeking, reflected in his 1832 history and his mother’s history.

Some commonly cited “facts” about Joseph Smith are questionable. For example, many people cite Emma Smith’s 1879 “Last Testimony” as though it relates facts. We can all agree with the fact that the document exists, but whether it accurately relates historical facts is a separate question.

The “Last Testimony” is in Joseph Smith III’s handwriting. Emma died shortly after the interview and never publicly acknowledged it. The testimony was published six months after her death. The parts of the interview regarding plural marriage were directly contradicted by others who were present at the events; Eliza R. Snow suspected that Emma did not even provide the statements in the document. When Joseph Smith III later discussed the translation, he didn’t even cite the “Last Testimony.” Not only did Joseph III not mention the Last Testimony in his later writing but explicitly rejected SITH in favor of what Joseph and Oliver taught about the plates and interpreters.

These and other aspects of the “Last Testimony” undermine the credibility of the document’s truth claims, suggesting it was more of an apologetic statement and leaving its interpretation as a matter of assumption, inference, etc.

For example, Emma’s “Last Testimony” claims Joseph “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter.” But Joseph did write at least two coherent letters, one to his uncle before beginning the translation, and one to Oliver Cowdery shortly afterward. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-22-october-1829/1. The annotated version of the letter to Oliver shows a variety of influences. https://www.mobom.org/annotated-js-letter-to-oc

Although we have only a few documents in Joseph’s handwriting, the earliest known extant example is Alma 45:22 in the Original Manuscript, presumably written in April or May 1829, which shows Joseph’s cursive handwriting to be easily legible. See a close-up image here: 

https://www.mobom.org/church-history-issues

The parts of Joseph’s 1832 History that he wrote also demonstrate clear, precise penmanship that comes only with practice.

Joseph was far from an ignorant, illiterate farm boy.

_____

We should expect Joseph's early life to include evidence of God's tutoring to prepare Joseph for his future roles as translator and prophet. The available historical sources support and corroborate this narrative, which also teaches us that the Lord prepares each of us for our respective life missions.



Friday, September 6, 2024

The "embarrassed" narrative and SITH

There's a narrative among some LDS scholars that Joseph began using the term "Urim and Thummim" because he was embarrassed about the seer stones. 

That narrative contradicts the historical record. Plus, it is based purely on mind-reading and a "presentism" approach.

For example, Richard Bushman promoted the "embarrassed" narrative recently. Bushman is awesome, one of the most open-minded LDS scholars I'm aware of, as well as articulate, measured, and thoughtful.

Bushman was interviewed in a video titled "Translation with Richard Lyman Bushman" on CES Letters.

https://youtu.be/OAAKV1JDBHk?list=PLyz16Fi98u5xf53bZYEF74m6pGUtDpzTO&t=970

The interviewer asked a good question here:

20:07 What are some of the other theories when it comes to what the translation process looks like?

Bushman: Well, actually there are a number of them. There's a lot of speculation. The one that is most relevant to the seer stone is by a man named Jonathan Neville and his co-author Jim Lucas who say that over and over again, when the story is told the word Urim and Thummim is used, which for them means the breastplate and the crystals in the frames.

So we have to accept that and the sources that talk about the stone, Emma Smith and David Whitmer, have reason to be doubted. And they have some explanations of how that could get started. They're very much in the minority at this point but their scholarship has enough merit to it that at least it has to be considered.

I myself think it's quite possible the seer stone was used and I'm not at all embarrassed by it. It's not something to be embarrassed by. If that's what happened it's just history.

I fully agree with Bushman that if that's what happened--if Joseph used the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) instead of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates--it's just history. And I agree with Bushman that there is nothing to be embarrassed about if SITH was actual history.

But we all realize we cannot know what actually happened in history. 

To claim one thing or another is the "truth" or "actual history" is misleading at the outset. All we can say is that a specific historical source related a specific account. We cannot know if the account was accurate. We can only weigh the credibility of the account and compare it to other historical evidence.

FAITH model. To assess historical evidence, we can apply the FAITH model and compare multiple working hypotheses. This means we first all agree on the Facts (the the historical sources). Recognizing that the Facts about the translation are not only inconsistent but directly contradictory, we then isolate and identify the Assumptions we make about those facts and the Inferences we draw to fill the gaps, leading to our respective Theories and overall Hypothesis or worldview. People can then make informed choices for themselves about the alternative hypotheses.

Pursuant to the FAITH model, we recognize that the "embarrassed" narrative is one of multiple working hypotheses about the translation. But we also recognize it is based not on direct evidence (facts), but on assumptions and inferences.

In my view, the "embarrassed" narrative obfuscates the issue because it deflects from the core issue for believers: the credibility and reliability of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Core issue. We can all see that Joseph and Oliver presented a consistent, clear and unambiguous narrative about the translation: Joseph translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim (aka spectacles or Nephite interpreters) that came with the plates. 

We have competing narratives because other people contradicted the narrative Joseph and Oliver related.

Some people accept all of what Joseph and Oliver taught; others accept some of what they taught; others reject what they taught. Even some faithful, believing scholars have concluded that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation.

The "embarrassed" narrative amounts to an excuse for why Joseph and Oliver misled everyone.

I don't think the "embarrassed" narrative is persuasive for the reasons set out below in interlinear comments.

Original in blue, my comments in red.

14:25 Interviewer: Why is it [SITH] not ludicrous? The CES letter author says these are kind of crazy things and you're saying well they're not as ludicrous as they may seem. Why is that? 

Bushman: Well this is an old Mormon embarrassment that the seer stone was something that had to be obscured because it was degrading to think of Joseph Smith as a treasure Seeker. 

I'm unaware of any historical source that expresses embarrassment and Bushman doesn't cite any, apart from his assumptions about the sources and his gap-filling inferences.

That I think is a mistaken historical outlook. The folk magic which we're talking about here was prevalent all through the Western World. I'm talking about Europe and England now. Right up to the middle of the 18th century, about then as the enlightenment comes on, what was commonplace belief in seer Stones as a member of parliament who uses a seer stone in the 1600s, that was just part of, sort of the edges of Christian belief. 

I assume this is all accurate.

Then as science began to increase in authority and influence, that became considered blow grade, crude, raw, but it remained in the farm and lower class levels of society, especially all over England but especially in New England and Pennsylvania in the United States.

I assume this is all accurate.

So the Whitmers were into folk magic as many Germans were. 

I assume this is all accurate.

And so what we think is shameful was just part of, sort of working class culture and the Smiths absorbed it.

Here, we are veering into assumptions and inferences.

What happens is in 1834 Eber Howe, a journalist from Paynesville nearby to Kirtland, published a book in which he trotted out all the evidence he could find from the neighbors that the Smiths were practicing money digging, and this was to discredit them. 

Now we have a conceptual conflict. Howe interviewed working class people from western New York who supposedly were "into folk magic," so why would it be discrediting? Apparently the argument is that the folk magic would be discrediting among the higher classes of society, but the Smith's neighbors themselves supposedly found it discrediting, which raises the question why the Smiths would have "absorbed" it. Related to this is the questionable accuracy and reliability of the statements by the neighbors.

And I think that's the first time that the Smiths begin to feel like, well, this is something to be embarrassed about. 

Mormonism Unvailed
(click to enlarge)
The first thing to recognize is that the Howe book (Mormonism Unvailed) ridiculed both the seer stone ("peep stone") and the Urim and Thummim. 

Neither was less "embarrassing" than the other.

https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe/page/18/mode/2up?q=Urim+

The ridicule was based on the claim that regardless of whether Joseph used the peep stone or the Urim and Thummim, he didn't use the plates. Both alternatives existed "to enable Smith to translate the plates without looking at them!" 

Not looking at the plates is a running source of ridicule throughout Mormonism Unvailed. For example, after discussing Joseph's explanation that the Lord told him to "translate from the plates of Nephi, until you come to that which ye have translated, which ye have retained," Howe wrote, "how could Smith know when he came to that which he had translated, without looking at the plates, (which he could not read if he did,)..."

Later, Howe writes, "Let us ask, what use have the plates been or the spectacles, so long as they have in no sense been used? or what does the testimony of Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer amount to?" 

The claim that Joseph did not actually translate the plates is the same narrative Joseph had sought to dispel four years earlier when he wrote the Preface to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon.

To the Reader—

As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by evil designing persons to destroy me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon… thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have translated, which ye have retained…

The "false reports" that had been circulating were published by Jonathan Hadley, who claimed that Joseph produced the Book of Mormon by reading off spectacles he put in a hat. The Hadley narrative made its way into Mormonism Unvailed. Joseph refuted that narrative by explaining he "took" the translation from the Book of Lehi, not by merely reading words that appeared on spectacles (or any other instrument) in a hat. 

We've discussed this before here: 

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/10/update-on-jonathan-hadley-and-sith.html

and here

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/08/the-jonathan-hadley-account-and-sith.html

And so they begin to change the story. Instead of talking about seer stones or spectacles, they use the word Urim and Thummim because that was a biblical term. And sort of gave some dignity to this searching.

In the first place, as we just saw, the Urim and Thummim narrative was ridiculed just as much as the "peep stone" narrative, so changing the story would serve no purpose.

Furthermore, they did not "begin to change the story" in 1834. In the summer of 1832, two years before Howe's book was published, Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith gave a published interview in Boston in which they explained that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates. Unless they invented the term, which is highly unlikely, it was being taught among Joseph's followers. While there are no extant accounts prior to 1832, the fact that two missionaries in Boston were relating this account publicly strongly indicates it was a well-known narrative. 

There are also no extant faithful accounts of the seer stone prior to 1834 when Howe published his book, so there was no pre-existing faithful narrative to change.

17:17 And so ever since then we've been embarrassed by something that for the Smiths was part of everyday life. It wasn't embarrassing at all. In fact it probably played a large part of their ability to accept the gold plates as legitimate. 

There is no evidence that this was part of everyday life for the Smiths. And if it wasn't embarrassing from the outset, the neighbors wouldn't have given the statements to discredit them. 

Q: There's a lot of presentism in that, right? Of recognizing, well, we're in the 21st century so it's going to seem a little bit different than it would have in the 19th century. 

Bushman claims SITH was embarrassing as of 1834, so it's not presentism.

As part of that though I think that some people may have concerns that the history was changed or that the narrative was changed a little bit. 

Here the interviewer makes a good point because people are concerned that the history/narrative was changed. But there are two stages of change to consider.

(i) was the original history of SITH changed to U&T in 1834? Or was the original history of U&T (from Joseph and Oliver) changed to SITH (by David and Emma)?

(ii) was the original history of U&T, maintained by Joseph's contemporary and successor Church leaders, changed in the modern era by LDS historians (the New Mormon History movement) and then spread through the Church?

How would you help those people recognize the history and what is actually true and how to determine what is changed of the narrative or what is the actual truth of it?

Here the interviewer veers into a question about "what is actually true" as if that is knowable, presuming that SITH is the "actual truth" instead of merely one set of historical sources that contradicts what Joseph and Oliver said. 

Bushman: Well it was changed. The Smiths immediately began trying to bury the fact, Joseph Smith played down his treasure seeking background as just a little episode with Josiah Stowell, you know just to dismiss this as something. Lucy Mack Smith did the same. 

We've already seen that Joseph refuted SITH from the outset, in the 1830 Preface. Whether Joseph "played down his treasure seeking background" or clarified his activity for the record is debatable. Lucy Mack Smith's comment is often quoted out of context, as we've discussed before.

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2024/07/lucy-mack-smith-and-seer-stones.html

And what I think significant is they changed from the Book of Commandments to the Doctrine and Covenants, they changed one of the revelations to insert the word Urim and Thummim. 

This is in D&C 10. 

See, that's the acceptable, desirable, versus seer stone. 

But the original version did not mention a seer stone. 

So the church was trying to cover up, in that case, Joseph Smith's involvement with treasure seeking.

The change could be construed as either a "cover up" or a clarification. 

As we know from the Boston article, missionaries were explaining the Urim and Thummim even before the Book of Commandments was published. The omission from the revelation as originally published could have been an oversight in retrospect because at the time of publication, everyone knew about the U&T. In this scenario, the D&C version was a clarification (and not a cover up) to avoid the very confusion that later arose from David Whitmer and Emma Smith. 

I think that may make some people nervous that the church is trying to cover up the truth. 

Most people would be nervous if the church was trying to cover up the truth. But as we just saw, there is no evidence of a cover up. Instead, the evidence points to a clarification.

Q: How would you help them through a something that might cause dissonance like that? 

Bushman: You just have to accept the fact that they didn't want to be made to look silly.

This isn't a fact. It's an assumption on Bushman's part that contradicts the historical evidence.

Who wants to be made to look silly?

Mormonism Unvailed presented the U&T as equally silly. 

So if Joseph's past associates with the wrong class of people you do your best to make him look better. It wasn't a real lie. It was just sort of subordinating or retelling the story and who doesn't retell the stories of their lives to make them look better? Especially after the fact when you've been able to kind of process how things have gone down. You do want to make yourself look a little bit better. 

This is a fair observation about human nature, but it doesn't fit the historical evidence we have in this case because the earliest descriptions we have of the translation involved the plates and the spectacles, not the seer (or "peep") stone.  



Tuesday, August 27, 2024

Joseph Smith Papers: Intro to Vol 1

One good example of how narratives develop is the introduction to Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831, in the The Joseph Smith Papers.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-documents-volume-1-july-1828-june-1831?p=1

The introduction repeatedly converts theories into statements of fact. 

This will be evident from my interlinear comments. It's difficult to understand why professional historians would make such factual claims, especially when they omit important, relevant historical sources that contradict their claims.

Nevertheless, the narrative they create here prevails because people defer to the credentials of the authors/editors.

_____

The following excerpts start with the end of the 10th paragraph. Original in blue, my comment in red.

Examining the process by which Smith translated the Book of Mormon is essential to understand not only the book itself, but also Smith’s earliest revelations, many of which were apparently received through a similar process.

As we'll see, this examination of the process omits much of what Joseph said 

In surviving records, Joseph Smith provided very little specific information about the translation process. 

But he was very specific about what instrument he used. Contrary to reports that he read words off a stone in the hat (SITH), he responded to ongoing confusion about the translation in the Elders' Journal in 1838.

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.

(Elders’ Journal I.3:42 ¶20–43 ¶1)


He did not claim to translate the Book of Mormon through his own knowledge of ancient languages. In the Book of Mormon’s preface, he simply stated, “I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God.”20 

That excerpt is misleading because that is not all he "simply stated." He also explained the source he translated from.  

I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon.

We see here that Joseph "took" the translation from the plates, not from a stone in the hat.
Note 20 quotes from the Wentworth letter, but still omits important context that contradicts SITH.

Note 20: "In the well-known “Wentworth letter” in 1842, his most complete public account prior to the publication of his multivolume history, he affirmed, “Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.” (JS, “Church History,” Times and Seasons, 1 Mar. 1842, 3:707.) 

The preceding sentence in the Wentworth letter explains what Joseph Smith meant when he used the term Urim and Thummim. 

With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.

This context is important because it excludes the SITH theory that Joseph was referring to the seer stones when he used the term "Urim and Thummim."
 
Continuing...

Smith may have deliberately refrained from giving a detailed public account of the mechanics of translation. In an 1831 church conference, his brother  stated that “he thought best that the information of the coming forth of the book of Mormon be related by Joseph himself to the Elders present that all might know for themselves.” Rather than complying with this request, Joseph Smith responded that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c.”21

"the coming forth of the Book of Mormon" is not the same as the translation. The translation is arguably part of the "coming forth," but there are many details involving the plates that Joseph didn't disclose. For example, Brigham Young pointed out that Oliver didn't discuss the repository of plates in public, but only privately.
Furthermore, others present at that meeting later described their version of the translation process in some detail, indicating they did not understand Joseph's reluctance to pertain to the translation per se.
Joseph himself expanded on the translation in later days, in the Elders' Journal (above) and the Wentworth letter (see below).

Notwithstanding their lack of detail, records from Joseph Smith and his scribes demonstrate that he used two separate instruments to translate the Book of Mormon. 

This is misleading because it commingles Joseph and his scribes. However, Joseph and his principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, never once said, implied, or even suggested that Joseph used any instrument other than the interpreters that Joseph obtained with the plates. The only other known scribes for the text we have today, John and Christian Whitmer, never commented on the translation except that John Whitmer said Joseph used the Urim and Thummim.
The sentence refers to "his scribes" which are itemized in subsequent sentences. 

Smith stated that the first [he never said "the first" because he said this was the only instrument he used] was found with the plates and delivered to him by an angel, who explained it consisted of “two stones in silver bows . . . and that was what constituted seers in ancient or former times and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.”22 

The text of the Book of Mormon spoke of the same instrument as “interpreters” and foretold that it was to be preserved with the gold plates.23 By August 1829, Smith apparently referred to this device as “spectacles,” a term he used again in his 1832 history.24 

In January 1833, an article in the church newspaper The Evening and the Morning Star declared that he had translated the Book of Mormon “by the gift and power of God . . . through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles— (known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim).”25 Soon thereafter Smith apparently began applying the biblical term Urim and Thummim to the interpreters or spectacles.

The foregoing paragraph relates an obsolete theory; i.e., the idea that Joseph adopted the term "Urim and Thummim" from Phelps' 1833 article. The editors know perfectly well that in 1832, Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith told a minister in Boston that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim. 

The earliest known reference to the Urim and Thummim was published in the Boston Investigator on August 10, 1832. The article, titled "Questions proposed to the Mormonite Preachers," related an interview with Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith that included these questions and answers:  


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

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


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

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


One could argue that Orson and Samuel were the ones who invented the term, but that seems highly unlikely compared with the assumption that they heard about the U&T from Joseph (or Oliver) before they left on their mission. At any rate, the editors should provide this information to readers so they can make informed decisions and not be misled into thinking that Phelps was the first to coin the term Urim and Thummim. 

There are other references that Joseph himself claimed that it was Moroni who identified the interpreters as Urim and Thummim. Joseph provided specific details to Oliver for Letter IV, which relates Moroni's visit. The JSP editors forgot to include this.

He [Moroni] said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.

We saw above that the Wentworth letter specifically identified the Urim and Thummim as the instrument that came with the plates that consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim. This contradicts the claim that Joseph used the term to apply to a separate seer stone. 

In addition to the device found with the plates, Joseph Smith also translated using other individual seer stones, which he would place in a hat to limit outside light. 

This is an example of transforming a handful of disputed claims into a statement of fact. The sentence implies that Joseph and Oliver made this claim, which is false. An accurate statement would be something such as this: "Although neither Joseph nor Oliver said or implied anything of the sort, some people who claimed to be witnesses of the translation said Joseph read words that appeared on a stone he placed in a hat."

He and others apparently later referred to these seer stones as Urim and Thummim, thus making it difficult to determine in later accounts whether they were referring to the device found with the plates or a separate stone that performed the same function.26 

This is deliberately misleading because (i) Joseph explicitly stated that he translated with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates and (ii) Joseph never once referred to the stone he supposedly used in the hat as either "a" or "the" "Urim and Thummim. The only citation to support this claim (note 26) contradicts the premise.
, Smith’s principal scribe for most of the translation, explained, “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters.’”27 

This is an official declaration, canonized in Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price, that leaves no room for SITH.

Joseph Smith’s wife , who also served as a scribe for the translation, described his use of two distinct instruments: “Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of the Urim, and Thummim, and that was the part that  lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color.”28

This brief 1870 letter by Emma is vague. She doesn't explain whether she was writing from personal experience or from what she heard, but there is no record that she was ever authorized to see the Urim and Thummim. Consequently, at least that part of her statement was hearsay. The next sentence in her letter explains her uncertainty: "I cannot tell whether that account in the Times and Seasons is correct or not because someone stole all my books and I have none to refer to at present, if I can find one that has that account I will tell you what is true and what is not."

Her description of the stone shows she was not referring to the striped stone that historians now claim Joseph possessed when he produced the Book of Mormon. 

Later accounts by Joseph Smith’s close associates—either scribes or other early believers who likely learned of the process from Smith or his scribes—provide some idea of what appeared on the Urim and Thummim or seer stone during the translation process. 

Whether they "likely learned" this from Smith or his scribes, or from other sources, is pure assumption, and their testimony is all hearsay.
, a family friend, recalled that after Smith “put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes,” a sentence “would apper in Brite Roman Letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on But if it was not spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite so we see it was marvelous.”29 
 reportedly told an interviewer that her husband spelled out difficult or unfamiliar words, including “proper names he could not pronounce.” She further stated, “While I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. . . . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation.”30 

We can see from the original manuscript that there are spelling inconsistencies that contradict Emma's claim. This should be noted in the JSP.

Decades after the translation work, , one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, wrote that on the “spiritual light” of the seer stone, “a piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to , who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”31

The JSP should point out that this is obviously hearsay because David did not claim to have seen what appeared on the seer stone.

Early accounts indicate that Joseph Smith and his scribes described the process, including the use of both the Urim and Thummim and seer stones, to others outside of the circle of believers soon after the translation was complete. 

There are zero accounts of Joseph and his scribes describing the use of both the U&T and the seer stone(s). Joseph, Oliver, John Whitmer, and Martin Harris all said Joseph used the U&T. The only variation is Martin's alleged account of swapping Joseph's seer stone, which was not published until after Martin's death.

In the summer of 1829, before publication of the Book of Mormon had begun, a  newspaper printed the book’s title page with an explanation of how the plates were translated, an account likely obtained from Smith himself or one of his associates. The editor explained with considerable incredulity that “by placing the Spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least,) interpret these characters.”32

This is the Jonathan Hadley narrative, which has been grossly misrepresented to promote SITH. See 
and

 In late 1830, while traveling through the Shaker community of Union Village, Ohio,  explained the process of translation, as recorded by one of the Shakers: “The engraving being unintelligible to learned & unlearned. there is said to have been in the box with the plates two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro which the translator looked on the engraving & afterwards put his face into a hat & the interpretation then flowed into his mind. which he uttered to the amanuensis who wrote it down.”33

Although this is hearsay from a skeptic, at least the account is consistent with what Joseph and Oliver always said about translating the engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim. If accurate, it's an explanation for the origin of SITH. Because no one (other than Oliver) was permitted to see the U&T during the translation process, no one other than Oliver could have observed this process. Consequently, it is feasible that (i) those who claimed to be witnesses of SITH related hearsay based on what Joseph and Oliver told them (after studying the plates through the U&T, Joseph put the U&T in a hat to block light) and/or (ii) Joseph conducted a demonstration of the process with a seer stone to "satisfy the awful curiosity" of his followers, only for them to report the demonstration as the actual translation.

Regardless of how the translation actually occurred, it is difficult to overemphasize the importance of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith and his early followers. “They had in their possession,” wrote scholar Terryl Givens, “a recovered record whose very existence was seen as prophetic proof that the final dispensation was truly arrived.”34 

This is true, but it's a deflection, because nowhere in this introduction do the editors tell us what Joseph Smith himself said about the translation.

Its existence made the movement that Joseph Smith led unique. He considered it “the key stone of our religion.”35 

In a time of intense conflict over biblical interpretation, historian Gordon Wood noted, the Book of Mormon “cut through these controversies and brought the Bible up-to-date. It was written in plain biblical style for plain people. It answered perplexing questions of theology, clarified obscure passages of the Bible, and carried its story into the New World. And it did all this with the assurance of divine authority.”36




 

Creating a narrative with selective sources

People continuously create narratives about their own lives relying on selective memories. This is natural because our memories are formed b...