From Darkness Unto Light?

In 1834-5, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote a series of essays on Church history and doctrine (the first "gospel topics essays") to refute an 1834 anti-Mormon book titled Mormonism Unvailed.

Now some LDS historians are instead using Mormonism Unvailed to refute Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. 

This is most evident in a book titled From Darkness unto Light.

Among other things, the authors claim that Joseph Smith didn't really use the plates when he translated. Instead, according to these historians, the plates were left covered by a cloth throughout the translation process and Joseph merely read the words of a seer stone in the bottom of a hat.

In my view, this revisionist narrative of history is a grave mistake.

While it's fine for people to believe and teach whatever they want, at a minimum historians have an ethical and professional responsibility to provide all the relevant historical sources so people can make informed decisions. 

But as a result of this revisionist history, Latter-day Saints are being taught the stone-in-the-hat narrative (SITH) instead of what Joseph and Oliver taught. Even missionaries are instructed to teach people about SITH. This is causing confusion and uncertainty.

One argument in favor of SITH that people make is that it doesn't matter how Joseph produced the Book of Mormon because people gain a testimony of its truthfulness when they read the book and pray about it. The shorthand version of this argument is that "it doesn't matter which stone(s) Joseph used because either way, he translated by the "gift and power of God."

I get that argument, which many Latter-day Saints have accepted. But SITH has led many Latter-day Saints to question their faith. 

The historical record is clear and unambiguous that Joseph and Oliver repeatedly emphasized that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates to "translate the engravings" on the plates, as instructed by the Lord. (D&C 10:41)

The conflict between what Joseph and Oliver taught and the various SITH statements has led one prominent LDS scholar, Royal Skousen, to conclude that "Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true [regarding the lost 116 pages]; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading."

Brother Skousen may be the first LDS scholar to articulate the inevitable conclusion of the SITH narrative, but many Latter-day Saints (and especially former LDS and never LDS) have reached the same conclusion.

That is why I think SITH is a disaster, and it is exactly the the same reason why Oliver and Joseph responded to the claims of Mormonism Unvailed in the first place, all the way back in 1834 and 1835.

I emphasize that these are merely my personal conclusions, based on my own research and careful reading of this book and the sources they cite and omit. None of this is personal, of course; we're merely dealing with words on pages, not people. The revisionist historians are faithful LDS, careful scholars, and nice people. 

I just hope people who read this book don't defer to the authors' opinions, but instead continue their study to include material the authors omitted--especially what Joseph and Oliver and their contemporary and successor Church leaders said. 

[BTW, by promoting the narrative that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the origin of the Book of Mormon, the book lends credence to another narrative that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the setting of the Book of Mormon, known as M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory).
_____

In October 1834, Oliver Cowdery published the first of a series of eight essays he wrote with the assistance of Joseph Smith, labeling them as "letters." An excerpt from Letter 1 is canonized in JS-History, note 1.

I call these eight essays the first "gospel topics essays" because they address important issues involving Church history and doctrine that remain relevant today. They were originally published as letters to W.W. Phelps in the Church's newspaper in Kirtland, Ohio, titled the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate.

For example, essay (letter) IV (1835) explains that 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."

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

This not only corroborates what Joseph and Oliver said elsewhere, but it leaves no room for the notion that Joseph had the privilege of "translating" the record with a stone he found in a well without even looking at the plates.

And yet, few modern Latter-day Saints have ever read Oliver's essays, or even know about them. 

Letter IV in the Messenger and Advocate is available online here:
https://archive.org/stream/latterdaysaintsm01unse#page/76/mode/2up/search/Letter+IV

Soon after the eighth essay was published, President Frederick G. Williams, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, began copying them into Joseph's personal history. You can see them in the Joseph Smith Papers today, such as essay IV here:
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/64

Also in October 1834, the anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed was published in nearby Painesville, Ohio. You can see it here:
https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe

Here is the passage that describes SITH, which is quoted nearly verbatim by modern LDS scholars who promote SITH. 

The translation finally commenced. They were found to contain a language not now known upon the earth which they termed "reformed Egyptian characters." The plates, therefore, which had been so much talked of, were found to be of no manner of use. After all, the Lord showed and communicated to him every word and letter of the Book. Instead of looking at the characters inscribed upon the plates, the prophet was obliged to resort to the old "peep stone," which he formerly used in money-digging. This he placed in a hat, or box, into which he also thrust his face. Through the stone he could then discover a single word at a time, which he repeated aloud to his amanuensis, who committed it to paper, when another word would immediately appear, and thus the performance continued to the end of the book.

https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe/page/18

The influence of Mormonism Unvailed persisted for years. (Actually, with the book From Darkness Unto Light its influence has been rejuvenated.)

During Joseph's lifetime, President Cowdery's essays were republished in Church newspapers for everyone to read and re-read them. This includes the Times and Seasons, the Millennial Star, the Gospel Reflector, and The Prophet. The essays were cited by Church leaders. An excerpt from Letter I is canonized in Joseph Smith-History. The essays were published again in Utah in the Improvement Era when Joseph F. Smith was the editor.

Yet these essays have never been published in the Ensign or Liahona. They have been essentially forgotten and overlooked. Worse, they have been specifically repudiated by some well known LDS scholars who disagree with what Joseph and Oliver said about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

Today, it seems the revisionist historians rely more on Mormonism Unvailed than on President Cowdery's letters.
_____

Richard L. Bushman's Foreword foreshadows some of the problems I found in this book. Original in blue.

p. v. “Books like this one will bring Latter-day Saint readers up to date on the results of the latest historical research. While, like all histories, From Darkness unto Light is necessarily an interpretation, the authors base their story firmly on the original sources. They get down to what historians consider to be the bedrock of historical constructions.”

I found the historical references in this book very helpful. But, as we'll see, there is a lot of interpretation in this book. I mean, a lot. The authors tell us what Joseph was thinking, what motivated him, etc. That's fine when it is acknowledged, but several important and relevant original sources are omitted in the book. Why? The only reason I can think of is because these original sources contradict the authors' interpretations. This is problematic.

“Joseph probably first used the stones set in spectacles that came with the plates, and then, for most of the translation period, substituted one of the stones he had found. Joseph put the seer stone in a hat to exclude the light and read off the translated text by looking in the stone. All the while, the plates lay wrapped in a cloth on the table. Apparently Joseph did not look at the plates through most of the translation.”

To persuade readers of this conclusion, the authors simply omit contrary evidence. That makes their conclusion appear obvious, but there's another way to interpret the same evidence that is consistent with both the evidence they consider and the evidence they omit. From my perspective, all the evidence, when considered together, is consistent with the traditional narrative that Joseph did actually use the plates and sometimes used the hat during the final part of the translation process when he read what appeared on the stone. I disagree with the authors' interpretation because I think Joseph actually translated the engravings on the plates, as the scriptures state. 

“Failure to acknowledge these factual accounts, almost all of them in friendly sources, can devastate Latter-day Saints who run across them. Feeling that the Church has covered up the truth, they become disillusioned and even angry. This book is an attempt to repair the misconceptions so that the next generation of Latter-day Saints will be better informed.”

I agree with this concept, but in my view, the book covers up critical original sources that contradict the authors' conclusions. Consequently, the book creates more misconceptions that will have far-reaching consequences now that the Church History Department has essentially adopted the authors' conclusions.

“For years Mormon scholars simply disregarded critical sources, such as the affidavits concerning the Smith family in E..D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed… Everything has to be examined and evaluated. MacKay and Dirkmaat work on the principle that bias must be taken into account in analyzing any historical sources. The art of the historian is to extract useful information from original sources whether negative or positive.”

President Cowdery considered Mormonism Unvailed as soon as it was published. That's why he emphasized he was using facts when he wrote the eight essays. Yet the authors ignore much of what President Cowdery wrote and instead rely more on Mormonism Unvailed, as I indicated at the outset of this post.

_____

Here are more examples from the book. 

The book From Darkness unto Light sets out the theory that when Joseph referred to the "Urim and Thummim" he really meant both the seer stone he found in a well and the interpreters that came with the plates. Let's call this the "expansive U&T definition."

"By at least 1833, Joseph Smith and members of the Church began using the biblical term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to any seer stone, including seer stones Joseph Smith found before 1827."

[see discussion below for citation]

Readers who rely on the authors' references and citations might be persuaded to accept their theory. But their theory would be more persuasive if they presented all the evidence instead of omitting key sources.

This post about From Darkness Unto Light is intended to provide the background information that the authors apparently overlooked or forgot to include in their book for unexplained reasons.

Maybe after considering all the evidence, readers would still accept the expansive U&T definition. Such readers would at least be making an informed decision.

Here's a problem. The 1835 book Mormonism Unvailed set out a sharp distinction between the "peep stone" that Joseph put in the hat, and the alternative explanation that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim. It sets forth the two alternatives on the very same page.

https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe/page/18/mode/2up

The authors mention the book Mormonism Unvailed 32 times (see below), but they forgot to include this passage that contradicts their theory.

Or maybe they omitted that passage intentionally because they knew it contradicted their theory.

You decide.

If, as the authors want us to believe, Joseph Smith began using the the "expansive U&T definition" in 1833, it makes no sense for Mormonism Unvailed to explain in 1835 that the seer (peep) stone theory (SITH, for stone-in-the-hat) is an alternative to the Urim and Thummim. 

Instead, as we'll discuss below, after the publication of Mormonism Unvailed, Joseph and Oliver consistently used the term Urim and Thummim to refer to the Nephite interpreters. I think they did so specifically to refute the SITH claims of Mormonism Unvailed, a book they denounced as I discussed here: http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/04/mormonism-unvailed-then-and-now.html

_____

In the chapter "Learning to Translate," the authors of From Darkness unto Light propose that 

"By at least 1833, Joseph Smith and members of the Church began using the biblical term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to any seer stone, including seer stones Joseph Smith found before 1827. 14

14.  See "The Book of Mormon," The Evening and the Morning Star, January 1833, 2. 

Why do they write "at least 1833" here? 

Footnote 14 refers to W.W. Phelps' 1833 explanation of the Urim and Thummim. For a while, historians thought this was the first usage of the term, so they assumed Phelps was the first to apply it. 

However, the 1833 theory has been discredited by the discovery of an earlier use of the term Urim and Thummim to refer to the Nephite interpreters which was published on August 5, 1832, when Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith told an audience in Boston that the translation “was made known by the spirit of the Lord through the medium of the Urim and Thummim." For a discussion, see 

https://www.mobom.org/urim-and-thummim-in-1832.

Even the Joseph Smith Papers include a citation to this source in a note, although in other areas the Phelps quotation is claimed to be the first usage of the term.

See note 5, here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/urim-and-thummim

Now, look at the Phelps reference. It appears in a long article titled "The Book of Mormon" that sought to explain the book to the general public. Here's the excerpt:

It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles—(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim) and while it unfolds the history of the first inhabitants that settled this continent, it, at the same time, brings a oneness to scripture, like the days of the apostles;

(Evening and Morning Star I.8:58 ¶6)

Notice two things here. 

First, Phelps’ article was not inconsistent with prior use of the term Urim and Thummim, such as the way Orson and Samuel used the term, because Phelps was merely explaining the term using biblical terminology. 

Second, Phelps obviously used the term to apply specifically to the "pair of Interpreters, or spectacles." He neither said nor implied that the term would encompass a stone found in a well or any other object found before 1827. 

Thus, the only evidence cited by the authors directly contradicts their claim!

_____

This leaves us with the way Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith used the term. They neither said nor implied that Joseph used a seer stone. In that article, Samuel Smith and Orson Hyde are quoted in this Q&A session:

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.

Obviously, these answers are another refutation of SITH. They even specifically explain what they mean by "Urim and Thummim."

You can decide whether Orson and Samuel invented the term, or whether they heard that from someone else—presumably Joseph or Oliver.

Letter IV describes Moroni telling Joseph that it was his privilege “to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.” Moroni did not tell Joseph he had the privilege to translate the record "by any means he could or would discover." Moroni did not refer to any seer stone as a Urim and Thummim. 

When Oliver introduced these historical essays, he explained he was using original documents then in his possession. Perhaps he referred to the notebook he kept during the translation process, in which he recorded the things Joseph told him starting in April 1828. Maybe there were other documents, such as journal entries or letters. 

_____

While scholars have assumed or inferred that Moroni did not use the term, the evidence supports an alternative working hypothesis; i.e., the idea that it was Moroni who first used the term, that it was common understanding among Joseph's contemporaries, and that Phelps merely explained the use of the term to readers who were familiar with the Bible.

Related to this is the well-known insertion of the term "Urim and Thummim" into what is now D&C 10. 

As originally published in the 1833 Book of Commandments as Chapter IX, the passage read:

NOW, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them,

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-commandments-1833/26

In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, the passage was changed to read this way:

1 Now, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them;

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/171

Which is how it reads today except for one comma:

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

(Doctrine and Covenants 10:1)

Some have suggested that this change was prompted by Phelps' coining the term in 1833. However, as we've seen, the term was used at least as early as 1832 in Boston.

What else happened between the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants?

One event that may have prompted this change was the publication of Mormonism Unvailed, which, as we've seen, set forth SITH as an alternative to the use of the U&T.  

In my view, Joseph and Oliver added the term "Urim and Thummim" to the published revelation (i) to clarify the meaning of the passage, which was well known at the time but would not be in the future, and (ii) to refute the SITH claims of Mormonism Unvailed.

In fact, when Joseph described the translation, he made it perfectly clear, to the point of emphasis, that he used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates, thereby precluding any reference to a seer stone he found in a well or anywhere else. It's difficult to imagine how he could have been any more clear and precise.

Joseph Smith's explanation in the Elders' Journal:

[Moroni] 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

He re-emphasized this point in the Wentworth letter:

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. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/2

Notice, Joseph said the Urim and Thummim was with the records and that "the ancients" called the interpreters "Urim and Thummim." Moroni was an ancient, and his claim here is consistent with his claims in Joseph Smith-History. There is no room in this passage for a seer stone Joseph found in a well. 

Nevertheless, some LDS historians have rejected Joseph's claims and instead embraced the SITH narrative from Mormonism Unvailed. Informed readers can make their own informed decisions.

_____

BTW, the claim that the term Urim and Thummim was applied to the seer (peep) stones has been often repeated, even in a 2021 BYU Studies article I discussed here: 

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2021/11/byu-studies-strikes-again-part-3.html

_____

Continuing with the text of From Darkness Unto Light, "Learning to Translate:" 

The name was apparently adopted to reflect the Old Testament's use of the Urim and Thummim that the high priest of Israel used for revelatory guidance. 15 

However, the Book of Mormon explains that the spectacles were handed down to Joseph Smith from ancient American prophets, and though the term was used in the early 1830s, they were not originally called the Urim and Thummim. 16. [emphasis added]

15 [citing Old Testament verses]

16. Joseph Smith, History, 1832, 6.

To claim as the authors do here that the interpreters "were not originally called the Urim and Thummim" defies what Joseph himself reported. 

34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

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 1:34–35)

 42 Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. 

(Joseph Smith—History 1:42)

To be clear and accurate, the authors could have written "there is no extant document referring to the interpreters as the Urim and Thummim prior to 1832." But that is a far cry from their claim that the interpreters "were not originally called the Urim and Thummim." Obviously, we have no recording of what people said during those years, and scant records of what was reported about what they said.

Furthermore, the authors simply slide over the obvious problem with their theory; i.e., although we do have records of Joseph and Oliver specifically referring to the Nephite interpreters as the Urim and Thummim, we have no record of Joseph or Oliver ever using the term "seer stone" in connection with the translation.

Years later, in the Nauvoo era, Joseph did use the term Urim and Thummim in a broader context (D&C 130:10), but the only confusing aspect of this is the effort by modern SITH scholars to retroactively conflate the terms by claiming that, in 1835 and 1838, Joseph meant his seer stone when he referred to the Urim and Thummim.

_____

The first mention of Mormonism Unvailed appears in the Foreword. Richard Bushman sets out the underlying methodology of From Darkness unto Light.

For years Mormon scholars simply disregarded critical sources, such as the affidavits concerning the Smith family in E.D. Howe's Mormonism Unvailed. They felt the critical writings were too biased to be of any use. But in recent years, automatic exclusion of negative reports is no longer the practice. Everything has to be examined and evaluated. MacKay and Dirkmaat work on the principle that bias must be taken into account in analyzing any historical source. The art of the historian is to extract useful information from original sources whether negative or positive. The notes of From Darkness unto Light show the authors ranging through sources all across the spectrum. The result is a much enriched and compelling narrative, one that will hold up under critical scrutiny.

I like the way Richard explained "the art of historian" here, but he left a loophole. He should have written "extract useful information from all the original sources."  

Everyone can see that MacKay and Dirkmaat used original sources, but all historians (and polemicists) do that. The problem is that they simply omitted original sources that contradict their theory about the translation, including the sources most directly on point; i.e., the teachings of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, as we discussed here: https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/07/from-darkness-unto-light-omitting.html

On the scale of historian mistakes, omitting the statements of the principals is near or at the top. 

Such omissions are obvious to informed readers, who easily recognize the historians' mistake.

The problem is much worse when historians deliberately omit statements from frequently cited sources solely because those statements contradict the historian's pet theory.

_____

It's not that the authors were unaware of Mormonism Unvailed. They cited the following pages of Mormonism Unvailed: 13-15, 236, 240-248, 252, 257-58, 260-261, 270, and 273.

The references to Mormonism Unvailed are listed below.

Retrieving the Plates. 

Note 30 E.D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, OH: 1834), 240-48. [The note refers to this mindreading statement in the text "Chase likely refused [to make a case to hold the plates] because he doubted that Joseph could repay him for the materials and labor."]

Note 34. See Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 240-48. [This note referred to Lawrence's involvement with Joseph Smith and mentioned that Lorenzo Saunders, who gave a similar account, "was likely dependent upon Chase's printed testimony in Mormonism Unvailed, but he likely also spoke with Chase."]

Note 36. If Chase's account is correct, which claimed that Samuel Lawrence went to the hill with Joseph Smith, the spectacles were revealed to him....Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 240-48.

Note 49. Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, MS 65; Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 245-46. [relating to a conjurer Chase hired to find the plates.]

Note 75. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 240-48.

Note 76. Chase claimed that Joseph had previously deceived Lawerence, convincing the latter to pay his way to Harmony, Pennsylvania by claiming that JOseph knew about a silver mine that never materialized. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 240-48.

Note 77. Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, MS 65; Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 240-48. 

Escaping Palmyra and Copying Characters from the Gold Plates

Note 4. see also Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 257-58.

Note 21. Lucy Smith wrote that the plates were "severely nailed up in a box and the box put into a strong cask made for the purpose the cask was then filled with beans and headed up as soon as it was ascertained." Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, book 6-7. See also Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 13-15.

Note 31. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 257-58.

Note 38. Martin showed the characters he had copied from the plates to individuals throughout his lifetime.... See Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 260-61.

Harris's Trip to the East

"He [Charles Anthon] wrote a letter to E.D. Howe in 1834 as Howe prepared his book Mormonism Unvailed, an expose criticizing the origins of the Church."

Note 6. See W.W. Phelps to E.D. Howe, 15 January 1831, in Mormonism Unvailed, 273. [discussing Martin Harris' stop in Utica where he "may have" gathered information about filing a copyright.]

Note 49. [Quoting Anthon's letter to Howe] E.D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 270. 

Note 50. E.D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 270

Learning to Translate

Note 28. [quoting Chase's claim that Harris said that Emma would have a son who could read the "Gold Bible" when two years old] E.D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 248.

Note 29. [Quoting Anthon's letter to Howe] E.D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 270-72. 

Translation and the Lost Book of Lehi

Note 2 [regarding Martin Harris as a Universalist and a Methodist] See Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 260-61.

Note 11. [referring to Abigail Harris' claim that Martin sought to make money] Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 253-54.

Note 16. [regarding Harris giving Joseph $50] Joseph Smith, History, vol. A-1, 9. See also Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 254. 

Note 27. [supporting "early accounts only describe Joseph setting the breastplate aside."] See Joseph Smith, History, vol. A-1, 5; Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 246-7, 253, 267. 

Note 35. Charles Anthon stated from his interaction with Harris in Febraury 1828 that Joseph Smith "was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles." Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 270-72. 

Note 37. ... Eber D. Howe wrote that Martin Harris explained that "he never saw the wonderful plates but once, although he and Smith were engaged for months in deciphering their contents." Mormonism Unvailed, 13.

Returning to the Translation

Note 8. [referencing "This need for a great witness may have been the result of a lawsuit threatened by his wife."] See Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 264.

Note 13. Compare Peter Ingersoll statement in Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 236.

Note 17. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 264.

Note 21. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 265.

Oliver Cowdery and the Translation of the Book of Mormon

Note 26. Brigham Young explained that Smith's first seer stone ws found fifteen feet underground and that "He saw it while looking in another seers stone which a person had. He went right to the spot & dug & found it." Kenny, Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 5:382-83. It is unclear who this other seer was, but Joseph Smith Sr. apparently said the other seer used "a dark stone." Fayette Lapham, "The Mormons Part II," Historical Magazine, May 1870, 306. Ashurst -Mcgee suggests that Luman Walters (Reflector, 12 June 1830, 37), William Stafford (Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 238), and Samuel Lawrence (Naked Truths About Mormonism, 2) may have been the seer Smith Sr. was referencing... In an affidavit accusing Joseph Smith of theft, Willard Chase testified that he had hired Alvin and Hyrum Smith to dig a well for him and that Chase found the brown stone at that time, but Hyrum took and kept it without his permission. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 240.

Note 36. Charles Anthon to E. D. Howe, 17 February 1834, in Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 270-71.

Paying for the Book of Mormon

Note 7. ... In 1833, Ingersoll swore in an affidavit that Joseph Smith had told him his "frock" allegedly containing the plates was filled with sand. See Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 235-36.

The Publication of the Book of Mormon

Note 46. [regarding the sales price of the Book of Mormon] Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 252.

The job of historians

It's not difficult to understand the job of historians. 

In an article discussing a controversial film about the Carthage jail murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Jana Reiss observed:

Actual historians do not demand that their interpretation of an event be unique or iconoclastic. Sometimes their views will support the conventional wisdom and sometimes they won’t. Much of their job is to present the primary sources and allow readers and viewers to draw their own conclusions...

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/01/21/jana-riess-who-killed/

That is an excellent job description that many historians aspire to but often don't implement. 

It's no easy task to present primary sources because the sources have to be excerpted and contextualized to be useful, but both of those editorial activities involve choices that reflect the historian's priorities, interpretations, and even conclusions. Too often, historians state their conclusions as facts, as I've discussed here:

https://www.mobom.org/rsr-review

Ideally, we would have a system that allowed interested people to see all the facts, in context, accompanied by multiple working hypotheses with their respective inferences, interpretations and biases spelled out. That way people could make informed choices.

But we're a long way from that system.

Instead, historians settle on what they want to believe, arrange the historical evidence accordingly, and then present it as fact in an article, book or video. A competing idea does the same. But the two alternatives are rarely if ever presented side-by-side. Readers of one or the other are naturally persuaded, just as any jury would be in a court case if they heard only one side.

I gave a recent example of that here:

https://www.academia.edu/67756647/Agenda_driven_editorial_content_in_the_Joseph_Smith_Papers

_____

Reiss also quoted the filmmaker before wishing he had followed his own advice.

“If you want to prove a certain narrative, then you’ll only see the evidence that proves that certain narrative,” he says near the end of this interminable documentary.

If only he had followed his own advice.

I couldn't agree more.

Plus, "Reading is exercise, which is why most watch or listen."

June 1835: foolish reports in circulation

An important explanation of the translation of the Book of Mormon took place on June 6, 1835, when around 20 elders "representing several little branches of the church" assembled at New Portage (now Baberton, Ohio, southwest of Akron) for a conference. 

During the conference, John Whitmer "gave a short relation of the facts connected with the translation of the book of Mormon." No further details were given in the report, but the reporter (presumably Warren Cowdery) made this observation:

On reflecting how many foolish reports are in circulation on this subject, and how many there are who are vain enough to believe them, I could not but wish that such were present, while Elder [John] Whitmer was delivering his address. 

We can all wish we were present when John Whitmer delivered his address. Presumably he corroborated what Oliver Cowdery said about the translation, which Joseph Smith himself also later corroborated multiple times. Oliver was the presiding officer at the meeting and spoke before and after John Whitmer did. 

In the context of the times, the "foolish reports" undoubtedly referred to those published in October 1834 in Mormonism Unvailed, which related the stone-in-the-hat theory (SITH) and a garbled version of the Urim and Thummim account that, like SITH, portrayed Joseph as not even referring to the plates. Mormonism Unvailed added the observation that any testimony from witnesses of the plates was pointless if Joseph didn't use the plates.

The gist of Mormonism Unvailed was speculating what was behind the "vail" when Joseph dictated the text. It was common knowledge that Joseph had not shown the plates or U&T during the translation. He dictated from behind a curtain or screen. Mormonism Unvailed proposed that Joseph was reading from a manuscript originally written by Solomon Spalding.

The book set up a Catch 22 problem. If Joseph was dictating from behind a "vail" or curtain, it was anyone's guess what he was reading from. But if Joseph was dictating within the view of others by reading from a stone (or the U&T) that he put in a hat, then he wasn't actually translating the plates and the plates were not evidence of what he was dictating.

To counter the arguments in Mormonism Unvailed, Oliver Cowdery published his unambiguous account the same month Mormonism Unvailed was published. 

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)

The plates themselves constituted the "history or record." Oliver related that when Moroni first met Joseph, he said that "this history was written and deposited not far from that place [Joseph's home], 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."  

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

When read in historical context, Oliver's account expressly repudiated both prongs of the Mormonism Unvailed Catch 22. While Joseph did dictate the text from behind a "vail" (and did not merely read words off a stone in a hat), he was using both the plates and the Urim and Thummim; i.e., he did not read the Solomon Spalding manuscript.

Although the report of the New Portage conference did not detail what John Whitmer said--did not itemize his "short relation of the fact connected with the translation of the book of Mormon" there--John was one of the Eight Witnesses and, in later years, John testified that Joseph used the U&T and breastplate while translating the plates of Nephi in Fayette.

Zenas Gurley reported that John Whitmer told him “When the work of translation was going on he [John] sat at one table with his writing material and Joseph at another with the breast-plate and Urim and Thummim. The latter were attached to the breast-plate and were two crystals or glasses, into which he looked and saw the words of the book. The words remained in sight till correctly written, and mistakes of the scribe in spelling the names were corrected by the seer without diverting his gaze from the Urim and Thummim.” In S. F. Walker, "Synopsis of a Discourse by Zenas H. Gurley," The Saints Herald (December 15, 1879, vol 26, issue 24), pp. 369 – 371, at p. 370, available at https://archive.org/details/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n369/mode/2up .

Unfortunately, this is not a verbatim transcript of Gurley's discourse, so we have to look carefully at what the account says.

Joseph and his scribe sat at two separate tables (contrary to the demonstration David Whitmer described that took place at the large table downstairs in the Whitmer home). Also contrary to David Whitmer's account, John relates that Joseph used the breastplate and the Urim and Thummim, which he describes much as other witnesses of the Urim and Thummim did. 

IOW, according to John Whitmer, Joseph did not use SITH while translating the plates at the Whitmer home. This is another indication that what David described was a demonstration, not a translation.

The statement is an interesting example of hearsay combined with direct observation. John could not see what Joseph's saw in the U&T. When he claimed that "the words remained in sight till correctly written," he made an inference or related what Joseph told him (hearsay). Because he didn't specify how he knew, it's also possible he related hearsay from someone else. 

In the same sentence, John related his direct observation that the seer corrected his spelling "without diverting his gaze from the Urim and Thummim." That would be a direct observation that enhances John's credibility. 

Of course, it's possible this, too, was hearsay or assumption; i.e., Joseph could have been dictating from behind a screen and John merely assumed Joseph didn't divert his gaze. Perhaps he could observe the top of Joseph's head. Or maybe he could observe Joseph looking into the U&T, but could not see what Joseph was looking at because the screen protected the plates. 

At any rate, John's account to Gurley corroborates Oliver's testimony, which is exactly what we would expect at a conference presided over by Oliver. Thus, the only two scribes whose handwriting is on the Original Manuscript directly explained that Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim and not with a stone in a hat.  

_____

Here is the report of the conference that was published in the Messenger and Advocate, June 1835, Vol. 1, 9:142, available on WordCruncher and at this website: http://www.latterdaytruth.org/pdf/100110.pdf

Excerpts from the report:

NEW PORTAGE CONFERENCE.

Oliver Cowdery “New Portage Conference,” M&A 1 (Jun 1835)

This meeting of the elders and brethren was a joyous one—the number of elders I do not recollect, but there were some eighteen or twenty, representing several little branches of the church.   The brethren from a distance were in good spirits, and manifested an unshaken confidence in the gospel which they had embraced. The church at New Portage numbers one hundred and more, many, or the most of whom, were present at the meeting on the Sabbath. ...

On Saturday the 6th, the elders assembled in conference, in a large and convenient room, furnished by elder A. Palmer, the presiding elder of that church. Elder O. [Oliver] Cowdery was unanimously called to preside, and elder W. [Warren] A. COWDERY, from Freedom, N. Y. chosen Secretary. ...

After an able and fervent address to the throne of grace, elder O. [Oliver] Cowdery delivered an interesting discourse upon the plan and order of heaven in the salvation of the human family, followed by elders P. [Phineas] H. Young, Z. [Zebedee] Coltrin, & A. [Andrew] J. Squiers; after which Elder [Ambrose] Palmer gave an invitation to those who desired, to be baptized, when three came forward and were buried in the liquid grave. This was an interesting season, and many of the by- standers were, apparently, touched with a sense of the importance of that moment when an individual steps forward, in the presence of this world and the heavenly hosts, and covenants to follow the Lamb of God who takes away his sins.

Elder John Whitmer took the lead in the services of the afternoon, and gave a short relation of the facts connected with the translation of the book of Mormon. On reflecting how many foolish reports are in circulation on this subject, and how many there are who are vain enough to believe them, I could not but wish that such were present, while Elder [John] Whitmer was delivering his address. 

A thousand things may be conjectured, but when a man declares openly, candidly, and seriously, of what he has seen, hefted and handled with his own hands, and that in the presence of a God who sees and knows the secrets of the heart, no man possessed of common reason and common sense, can doubt, or will be so vain as to dispute. 

Such is the fact that a record of that description does exist, for it has been seen, and such is the fact, that the Lord himself bears witness of it, for thousands testify of the same—there is neither lack of human or divine testimony: Then who so blind as not to see? And who so deaf as not to hear?

Elder [John] Whitmer was followed by several elders, and the meeting closed with a few remarks from elder O. [Oliver] Cowdery upon the further truth of the book of Mormon. The meeting was continued till quite late, after which one more came forward and was baptized.

(Messenger and Advocate I.9:142-3 )

Translating ancient texts

Because I believe Joseph Smith translated the ancient Nephite plates, I've been curious how he could or would have done it. 

Joseph wrote that he had an "intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations." He also once said that the Restoration began about the time he had leg surgery at age 6 or 7. I think his three years of recuperation enabled him to read Christian publications at a young age, a practice he continued throughout his life. The text of the Book of Mormon reflects his "intimate acquaintance" with these writers. The narrative of Joseph as an ignorant, illiterate "blank slate" was created after the fact to bolster they supernatural origin of the Book of Mormon.

His history reports that "By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following." (Joseph Smith—History 1:62)

The specifics in that statement lend credibility and reliability to its veracity. By contrast, those who spoke or wrote about SITH (the stone-in-the-hat) were usually vague or ambiguous, except for David Whitmer's description of the demonstration in the Whitmer family room downstairs.

_____

Joseph said the Title Page was a literal translation from the last leaf of the plates, but he never said the rest of the text was a literal translation. That leads me to infer that the bulk of the translation was not literal, nor was it word-for-word.

Anyone who has studied ancient languages knows there are lots of ways to translate any given passage. Experts have translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into numerous different English editions, even when they use early English translations as a guide for some degree of consistency and continuity.

I have studied Latin and Greek, as well as modern languages. The older the language, the more primitive it is. By that I mean, older languages have smaller vocabularies so they are less descriptive. They communicate by suggesting information rather than by explaining things in detail. This requires active readers who must infer what the text means from the context.

One example familiar to every reader of the King James Bible is the use of italics to indicate words that are not in the original texts.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)

Hebrew presumably would have provided an original text as specific at the Bible, but Mormon and Moroni didn't write in Hebrew because they didn't have enough space and the metal plates were difficult to create. This means the text was even more basic than a Hebrew text would have been. 

When he abridged the plates, Mormon undoubtedly didn't spend a lot of time and space to elaborate on each topic. Consequently, Joseph had to render the ancient words into understandable English. I assume he  had to expand the text, which is what we learn from Ether 3: "these stones shall magnify to the eyes of men these things which ye shall write." (Ether 3:24)

Joseph didn't specify which things he dictated were literal and which were inferences, but we can see several times when he offered an alternative translation or an explanation, such as when he dictated "or in other words." That nonbiblical phrase appears 13 times in the Book of Mormon, 23 times in the D&C, and once in the Book of Abraham. 

Here is an example of a "different view" of a translation. Joseph wrote "Now, the nature of this ordinance consists in the power of the priesthood, by the revelation of Jesus Christ, wherein it is granted that whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Or, in other words, taking a different view of the translation, whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven, and whatsoever you do not record on earth shall not be recorded in heaven; 

(Doctrine and Covenants 128:8)

Here is an example of an explanation. "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." (Doctrine and Covenants 93:36)

We could infer that it was Nephi who chose an alternative explanation of what he initially wrote, but it is consistent with his other work to infer it was Joseph who provided "a different view" of the translation, such as here:

"And it came to pass that while my father tarried in the wilderness he spake unto us, saying: Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision." (1 Nephi 8:2)

There are many other indicia of translation in the text of the Book of Mormon.

_____

Another good example of the challenges of translating ancient languages is the Rosetta stone.

The link below shows the Rosetta stone in detail. It has just the type of primitive, vague language that I think the plates had, where you have to make a lot of inferences to convey it in English.

http://rosettastone.hieroglyphic-texts.net/

Go to the image and it will highlight the corresponding passages from each of the 3 languages.

Here's a good example:

http://rosettastone.hieroglyphic-texts.net/sections/section-58/

[Update: the website has some problems so here are screen captures to show what it looks like. Click to enlarge them.]

Harper vs Vogel on historians' biases

Steven Harper, currently editor of BYU Studies, had a significant interview with Gospel Tangents in which he discussed the way a historian's worldview affects his/her interpretation of the evidence.

Here's a portion of the transcript from the website:

https://gospeltangents.com/2021/04/were-revivals-in-palmyra-in-1820/#comment-704

The conversation involved the way different people interpret the identical facts differently. Original in blue, my comments in red.

GT: So, that’s your biggest issue: you’re a believer. They’re not. We’re going to look at facts differently, just based on our point of view. Is that right?

Steven: Yeah. I wouldn’t call it an issue. That’s just the way it is. 

I infer he means it's not an issue (i.e., an important topic or problem for debate or discussion) because the differences cannot be resolved. People rarely change their points of view. Our mental filters determine the way we perceive the truth, and it's very difficult to change filters. We can and should recognize the different points of view, but there's nothing to debate in the sense of seeking agreement.

The question might be asked, “Well, why do to people who know the same facts and study the same historical records come to such dramatically different conclusions? It’s because historians aren’t endowed with some godlike capability of knowing. They only know the same facts that anyone else can know. Then, they just interpret the facts. 

Here, Harper seems to assume an objective reality about facts, but there is a subjective element to history that goes beyond just interpretation. Whether everyone can know the same facts is not the same as everyone agreeing on what the facts are. The adage that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence always comes into play, as it does here.   

Their interpretations are necessarily dependent on their biases and prejudices and choices, faith commitments, or lack thereof. Some people are under the impression that it’s the facts of the matter that turn the tide. No, it isn’t. 

Here, Harper recognizes the subjective nature of facts. We all see facts through our mental filters.

The editors of the Joseph Smith Papers are believers. They know all the facts. Dan Vogel, Sandra Tanner, they know the facts. Everybody invested in this knows the facts. [We are all] reading the same documents and the same evidence. I’ve had really wonderful exchanges with Ann Taves, who knows the facts well. She studies them really carefully and arrives at different interpretations than I do. 

It’s not that one of us knows the evidence better than the other. It’s that we just make different choices about what the evidence means.

If everyone agreed to all the evidence as a starting point, there would still be different choices about what the evidence means. But as the brief exchange in this comment thread shows, even if Vogel and Harper know the identical facts, they talk past one another. 

In the interview, Harper emphasized that we can't know there was no revival in Palmyra in 1820, only that we have no known record of it. 

Vogel says, "I recognize that Walters was right about the revival." The term "recognize" connotes acknowledging an objective truth, like the speed of light, but that's not the type of fact we're dealing with here. At most, Vogel can only choose to agree with Walters' interpretation of the known facts, but he frames it as "recognizing" to confer a sense of objectivity to his subjective interpretation.  

_____

This brief example illustrates why faith is simply a choice.

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

(2 Nephi 2:27)

4 Behold, here is wisdom, and let every man choose for himself until I come. Even so. Amen.

(Doctrine and Covenants 37:4)

2 And as for the perils which I am called to pass through, they seem but a small thing to me, as the envy and wrath of man have been my common lot all the days of my life; and for what cause it seems mysterious, unless I was ordained from before the foundation of the world for some good end, or bad, as you may choose to call it. Judge ye for yourselves. God knoweth all these things, whether it be good or bad.

(Doctrine and Covenants 127:2)

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(Moses 3:17)

33 Say unto this people: Choose ye this day, to serve the Lord God who made you.

(Moses 6:33)

33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

(Moses 7:33)