"Flagrant violation of basic professional standards"

Recently I saw a description of the Gospel Topics Essay (GTE) on Book of Mormon Translation that described it as a "flagrant violation of basic professional standards."

It is difficult to disagree with that assessment. 

Here is the link: 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

Anyone can read the GTE and see that it would receive a failing grade if submitted for grading in a basic History 101 class. 

It is not surprising that no historians are acknowledged by name as contributors. Instead, we read this statement at the end: "The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission."

The reputation of any historian who is associated with this GTE would be severely damaged if he/she were named.

We can only speculate why it is so poorly written from an academic perspective, but we can offer suggestions for improvement going forward.

Fixing this GTE would be easy, if anyone cared enough to do it.  

An improved GTE would greatly enhance credibility and clarity for Latter-day Saints and their friends around the world.

_____

We previously discussed the AHA Historians' Standards of Professional Conduct on this blog. (AHA is the American Historical Association.)

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/aha-historians-standards-of.html

While the GTE violates several basic standards of professional conduct, here are some of the most obvious examples. Original language from the AHA in blue, my comments in red, third party quotations in green.

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.

Throughout the GTE, the anonymous authors' bias against the teachings of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery is evident. Their bias is to strongly promote the stone-in-the-hat theory (SITH) of translation, which rejects what Joseph and Oliver said.

That bias explains the failure to follow sound method and analysis, as we'll see below. A revised essay should overcome this bias by presenting and evaluating the relevant sources instead of misquoting and censoring them.

Historians should practice their craft with integrity. 

The term "integrity" is subjective and vague, but in this context this dictionary definition applies: INTEGRITY is firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values. In the context of writing and publishing history, the AHA standards provide a code of conduct. Presumably every historian involved with writing the GTE has been trained to adhere to the AHA standards. For that reason, the "flagrant violation" of those standards is all the more disturbing.

They should honor the historical record. 

We can all see that the GTE not only does not honor the historical record, it selectively dishonors specifically the statements from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, along with those who corroborated what they said about the translation. No historian who adheres to the AHA standards would omit what the principals explained about the events in question. Yet the GTE studiously avoids what both Joseph and Oliver actually said about the translation.

They should document their sources.

A failure to document sources can be unintentional, but when the failure is deliberate--when the omission promotes a specific narrative--the failure is a blatant violation of the AHA standards.

For example, the GTE says "Joseph received the plates in September 1827" but does not provide a source. Because the GTE had previously cited Joseph Smith-History, an obvious citation would be verse 59, and the reader naturally wonders why that citation was omitted. 

But when we see the source, readers can reasonably infer that the reason no citation is given is because the source contradicts the narrative promoted by the GTE. Here is verse 59.

59 At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate. On the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven,

(Joseph Smith—History 1:59)

Contrary to the narrative in the GTE, Joseph did not merely say he received the plates. The plates were part of a package that included the Urim and Thummim and the breastplate. A proper citation to the source would have explained that obvious fact, but the GTE instead misleads readers.

The GTE appropriately documents some sources, but avoids documenting others that it purports to present to the reader. For example, the GTE says "Much can be known about the coming forth of the English text of the Book of Mormon through a careful study of statements made by Joseph Smith," but then it ignores most of Joseph's statements and omits relevant context from the few statements it does present.

Readers have no clue that the GTE is not only not offering a "careful study" of the few quotations it provides, but is also not even citing (let alone quoting) most of Joseph Smith's statements on the topic. 

Historians should not misrepresent their sources. 

The GTE misrepresents the few statements it provides from Joseph and Oliver by omitting the relevant context. Look at these examples.

1. The first paragraph includes three excerpts from Joseph Smith-History 1:33. Note 3 cites and quotes verses 33-34. But then, rather than quote or even cite verse 35, the GTE instead paraphrases that part of the narrative.

Notice the context omitted by the GTE:

35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

(Joseph Smith—History 1:35)

The omission of verse 35 becomes more significant later in the GTE when the GTE misrepresents what Joseph referred to as the Urim and Thummim.

2. The GTE says this:

Of his experience as scribe, Cowdery wrote, “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven.”7

Note 7 says this:

Joseph Smith History, ca. summer 1832, in Joseph Smith Histories, 16; Oliver Cowdery to William W. Phelps, Sept. 7, 1834, in Messenger and Advocate 1 (Oct. 1834): 14; italics in original.

In this example, both the original quotation and the citation are "flagrant violations of basic professional standards."

The GTE truncated the quotation from Cowdery to omit his reference to the Urim and Thummim:

“These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! 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,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’

(Joseph Smith—History, Note, 1)

By omitting Oliver's explanation of how Joseph translated, the GTE conveys the false impression that Joseph was merely reciting by inspiration instead of by translating.

Note 7 cites the Messenger and Advocate, an obscure reference that few people have access to, without noting that Cowdery's statement is also canonized in Joseph Smith-History as a note to verse 71. The AHA standard of documenting sources is flagrantly violated when historians cite an obscure source when an easily accessible one is readily available--especially when they already cited the easily accessible one in this very GTE.

3. The section of the GTE on "Translation Instruments" is full of "flagrant violations of basic professional standards." We've discussed those previously on this blog, such as here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/gospel-topics-essay-on-translation.html

One of the most flagrant is this statement:

Joseph found the interpreters buried in the hill with the plates.¹⁶

The statement misrepresents the source because Joseph always said he found the Urim and Thummim with the plates. He did not say he found the "interpreters" there. 

The misleading paraphrase of Joseph's actual statements is hidden by the unhelpful citation in Note 16.

Michael Hubbard MacKay, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Grand Underwood, Robert J. Woodford, and William G. Hartley, eds., Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831, vol. 1 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, Richard Lyman Bushman, and Matthew J. Grow (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2013), xxix. 

As we saw above, Joseph explained exactly what he found in the hill, right in Joseph Smith-History. But instead of providing that easily accessible reference (available in many languages as part of the scriptures), the GTE provides an obscure citation to a source few people would have access to. 

They should report their findings as accurately as possible and not omit evidence that runs counter to their own interpretation.

Among the obvious problems, the GTE studiously omits every statement by Joseph and Oliver regarding the Urim and Thummim. The obvious reason is that what Joseph and Oliver said directly "runs counter" to the narrative promoted by the GTE.

_____

The GTE is not broken beyond repair. The "flagrant violations" of basic professional standards could be easily fixed by simply reporting the actual historical record.

The authors of the GTE have demonstrated a determination to prefer decades-old statements by David Whitmer and Emma Bidamon over the specific, unambiguous statements of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. 

And that's fine, if that's what they want to do.

But they should do so explicitly by accurately informing readers what Joseph and Oliver actually said so that readers can make informed decisions about the way the GTE promotes the SITH agenda.