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.  



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...