Agenda-driven content in the Joseph Smith Papers

Agenda-driven editorial content in the Joseph Smith Papers

Review of The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 5: Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, eds. Royal Skousen and Robin Scott Jensen (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2021), 755 pages.

Abstract: This volume is a monumental achievement. The eagerly awaited publication of high-resolution images of the extant pages of the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, with detailed transcripts, enables students of the Book of Mormon to explore the earliest text for themselves. The volume editors, Royal Skousen and Robin Scott Jensen, also edited the equally impressive Volume 3, parts 1 and 2, which contained the Printer’s Manuscript. The bulk of Volume 5 consists of the documents and transcripts, which speak for themselves. Appendixes (226 pages) provide additional images and information. All of this is excellent. The 16-page Volume 5 Introduction provides historical context about the discovery, translation, and usage of the material. However, the editorial content in several instances impedes an objective analysis because the editors have manipulated the historical record to reflect their own editorial positions on controversial topics, specifically the manner of translation and the historicity of the narrative of the Book of Mormon. This paper points out numerous specific examples. Like other volumes in the Joseph Smith Papers, the editors here have gone to extraordinary measures to avoid mentioning the hill Cumorah, consistent with the editorial effort throughout the Joseph Smith Papers to accommodate the prevailing academic theory that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, aka M2C). The editors also skew their quotations and citations toward the academic theory that Joseph Smith didn’t really translate the plates but instead merely read words off the stone in the hat (the SITH theory). Because the Joseph Smith Papers are published by the Church Historian’s Press and should be held to a high standard of scholarship and objectivity, agenda-driven editorial manipulation of historical sources is inappropriate. A future addendum, or perhaps revisions in the digital version of this volume, could alleviate these problems by providing a more comprehensive and accurate historical context for understanding the Original Manuscript.  

_____

Students of the Book of Mormon have long anticipated Volume 5 of Revelations and Translations, the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon. The volume expertly fulfills its principal objective, as set out on the website:

“The Joseph Smith Papers Project is an effort to gather together all extant Joseph Smith documents and to publish complete and accurate transcripts of those documents with both textual and contextual annotation.”[1]

The transcripts of the outstanding facsimile reproductions of the extant pages of the Original Manuscript are clear and easy to follow. The captions at the upper right of each page enable readers to rapidly locate the passages according to the current LDS versification, but oddly do not indicate the page number in the 1830 edition. Adding the RLDS (CofC) versification would have been helpful for students from that tradition.  

As expected, the Volume contains an introduction and footnotes, pursuant to the policy set forth in the Joseph Smith Papers website

“The print volumes include rich annotation, including series and volume introductions, a full source note and historical introduction for each document, and textual and contextual footnotes.”[2]

Such annotation is appropriate because the historical context for these documents is somewhat complex and obscure to modern readers. As a publication of the Church Historian’s Press, readers understandably assume that the editorial content will present, or at least accommodate, faithful Church narratives.

But there are multiple faithful Church narratives. Favoring one over another does a disservice to readers, particularly where alternative faithful narratives are suppressed by manipulating the historical record.

This volume, like several other volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers, is impaired by unstated but obvious editorial agendas. One would expect a review process to compensate for editorial bias, but that has not been the case, perhaps because the reviewers share the same agendas.

The volume editors, Royal Skousen and Robin Scott Jensen, also edited Volume 3, parts 1 and 2, which contained the Printer’s Manuscript.

Royal Skousen has been widely recognized as the preeminent scholar of the text of the Book of Mormon. For decades he has studied the text in both the Original and Printer’s Manuscripts, offering numerous insights in a series of books and articles. His factual research and presentations are exemplary.

However, he has blended his factual presentations with controversial opinions and theories based on his subjective interpretations of the facts. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, and Skousen is free to express his opinions however he wants in his own publications, the Joseph Smith Papers are published by the Church Historian’s Press and should be held to a higher standard of scholarship and objectivity. Promoting one’s opinion by manipulating historical sources is unworthy of scholarly work such as the Joseph Smith Papers—especially when the bias is not clearly articulated for readers’ consideration.   

Skousen’s views as they affect Volume 5 impact two separate topics: Book of Mormon historicity and the source of the words Joseph Smith dictated.

Skousen has separately written a comprehensive scholarly series titled The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, including several parts, published by BYU Studies and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS).[3]

FARMS and BYU Studies have long promoted the “limited geography” Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs (M2C) theory of Book of Mormon geography. As of this writing (January 2022), BYU Studies still features study aids that promote M2C, including “Ten Essential Features of Book of Mormon Geography”[4] that present Mesoamerica as the only possible setting, and maps showing Cumorah in southern Mexico[5] and Book of Mormon sites in Mesoamerica.[6]

John (Jack) Welch, one of the founders of FARMS, was the Editor-in-Chief of BYU Studies from 1991 to 2018. In 2016 he co-founded Book of Mormon Central (BMC), which heavily promotes M2C.

One manifestation of the BMC agenda is its adoption of the FARMS Logo. The logo depicts the four languages of the scriptures: Hebrew for the Old Testament, Greek for the New Testament, Egyptian for the Book of Abraham, and Mayan for the Book of Mormon.

The FARMS logo is printed on the title page of each volume of Skousen’s History of the Text of the Book of Mormon.

FARMS publications, like BMC publications, promote M2C to the exclusion of other possible settings for the Book of Mormon—particularly settings that incorporate the New York Cumorah as described in Church history documents. As will become apparent in this paper, the editors of Volume 5 resorted to unusual editorial methodology to accommodate M2C in the face of historical documents that establish the New York Cumorah. The editors of other volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers have also accommodated M2C by employing terminology that is not in the historical record and by avoiding quotations of (or even citations to) historical records that contradict M2C.

Regarding the second topic—the source of the words Joseph dictated—Skousen has explained that, in his opinion, Joseph Smith did not translate the plates. For example, in Part 5, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon, page 6, he wrote, “Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith.” As linguistic evidence, Skousen cites what he considers evidence of Early Modern English in the text and then claims that Joseph could not or would not have known or used such language. Consequently, according to Skousen Joseph merely read words off a seer stone (the stone-in-the-hat theory, or SITH), the words being provided supernaturally by the unknown “English-language translator.”

More recently, Skousen has explained that he not only rejects the claim that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to produce the text we have today [i.e., he may have used that instrument for the lost 116 pages but stopped after those pages were lost], but he believes Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled the world about the translation.

“Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading.”[7]

At a minimum, the editors of Volume 5 should alert readers to their biases in favor of M2C and SITH. Ideally, they would do so while acknowledging alternative interpretations of the same historical facts, including interpretations that corroborate instead of repudiate what Joseph and Oliver claimed.

These editorial biases are not limited to Volume 5. Examples can be found in the editorial annotations, notes and commentary throughout the Joseph Smith Papers, both in the printed versions and the online material.

Unless and until the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers address this pervasive problem of editorial bias, readers will continue to be deprived of the full range of information they need to make their own informed decisions.

The rest of this paper gives examples of the editorial bias in Volume 5, citing original material by page number in bold typeface, followed by analysis. This article quotes only the parts of the Introduction that for which commentary is provided; omissions are indicated by ellipses. Original page numbers are shown.

The notes do not preserve the original numbering, but original notes are prefaced by “JSP” for identification.

The Introduction cites the printed versions of the JSP. In some cases, this article provides links to the online version which are underlined.

The first two examples provide a detailed analysis. After that, the analysis is abbreviated.

Page xi

In the earliest hours of 22 September 1827, Joseph Smith left his parents' home in Manchester, New York, with his wife Emma and traveled a few miles to a nearby hill.[8]

The footnote refers to this page in Lucy's History: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/112.

The earlier version of Lucy's History is here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/60.

This part of Lucy’s History says nothing about where Joseph and Emma went that night, let alone that they "traveled a few miles to a nearby hill." An accurate footnote would be placed after "Emma" in this sentence because that’s all the cited reference tells us. Instead, the editors misleadingly put it after "nearby hill."

Why would careful editors commit such an obvious error? Perhaps the answer has to do with where we get the information about the "nearby hill" this sentence refers to.

The phrase "nearby hill" appears nowhere in Lucy's histories, but she did explain that (i) the hill was 3 miles from their home and (ii) between their home and Manchester. Her explanation supports the idea that the "hill" was "nearby," but the JSP editors never quote or cite these passages because in both of them, Lucy explicitly identified the hill as Cumorah.

Lucy described the proximity of the hill in the following passage that the JSP editors omitted, in which she related what Moroni told Joseph during his first visit:

the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the record under it laying on 4 pillars <​of cement​>— then the angel left him

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41

We see from Lucy's account that Cumorah was only 3 miles from the Smith home, which can reasonably be described as "nearby." But others might think "nearby" connotes a distance much less than 3 miles. Why use the ambiguous term "nearby" when we have an actual historical account of the distance? And why not cite Lucy's specific statement instead of citing a passage that doesn't even mention the hill?

Furthermore, in the transcript of Lucy’s history on that page, the JSP editors have lined through this passage, even though it is not lined out on the original manuscript. An accurate transcript could show the blue marks that the editors apparently assumed were equivalent to a line-out. Instead, they imposed their own editorial line-out.

Another passage from Lucy about the "hill" shows its proximity to the home, but the JSP editors never quote or cite this one, either.

Lucy related that one day in early 1827, Joseph went to Manchester on an errand. He was late coming home. He explained that he had received a severe chastisement. His father became angry and wanted to know which of the neighbors was involved. Joseph replied (and Lucy put this in quotations):

“Stop, father, Stop.” said Joseph, “it was the angel of the Lord— as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me and said, that I had not been engaged enough in the work of the Lord; that the time had come for the record to <​be​> brought forth...

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/111

We see from Lucy's account that Joseph and his family already knew the name of the hill before he even translated the plates, and that the hill was located between Manchester and the family home. This account corroborates what Moroni told Joseph; i.e., that the hill Cumorah was 3 miles from the Smith home.

Because this Introduction alone cites Lucy Mack Smith’s History twenty-two times, these omissions cannot be justified on the ground that Lucy’s work is unreliable or untrustworthy. The omissions are ideologically driven.

The editors omitted a third source for the proximity of the hill. Moroni told Joseph that “this history was written and deposited not far from that place [Joseph’s home].” This passage contradicts the M2C theory that the plates were written in Mesoamerica and transported to New York, but manipulating historical sources to accommodate a theory about geography is unbecoming of a legitimate historical reference volume.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/68 

The JSP editors should cite, not omit, these informative, relevant and authentic historical accounts to give readers the historical context. Their failure to do so is part of a pattern throughout the JSP as they present a historical narrative that accommodates M2C, thereby presenting their own theories about Book of Mormon geography as fact.

He later recounted that while at the hill, he unearthed a set of “plates of gold,” whose existence had been revealed to him four years earlier by an angel.

A search of the Joseph Smith Papers for the phrase "plates of gold," produces 12 results.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/search?query=%22plates%20of%20gold%22&sort=relevance&page=1&perpage=10&startdate=&enddate=&transcripts=false&issuggestion=false&types=documents-papers|documents-papers-histories|documents-papers-revelations-and-translations|documents-papers-documents|documents-papers-introductions|documents-papers-administrative|documents-papers-journals|related-materials|biographical-directory|geographical-directory|glossary|event

Not one of these mentions a hill:

He told me also of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold. I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited.

After being warned several times, he went to the spot and found the record engraved on leaves or plates of gold fastened together by rings passing through one edge of all the leaves

he revealed unto me that in the Town of Manchester Ontario County N. Y. there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni his fathers the servants of the living God

he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham

He told me also of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold. I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited. He said to me the Indians were the literal decendants of Abraham.

To learn the plates were deposited in a hill, we have to go to Lucy Mack Smith, but the JSP editors don’t cite those passages because in those statements Lucy explained the hill was called Cumorah by Moroni himself. Instead, they refer to the hill and quote "plates of gold" as if the same source provided both elements.

To be sure, Lucy's 1845 history includes an insertion from the 1842 Times and Seasons that refers to a hill of considerable size "Convenient to the village of Manchester..." But "convenient" does not mean "nearby." We rely on Lucy's accounts, as well as Letter VII, to learn that the hill was actually nearby. But the JSP editors won't explain their sources to their readers.

Readers should also know that the 1842 Times and Seasons account was composed by Joseph's scribes several years after Letter VII had already established that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is the same hill where Joseph found the plates. Letter VII was republished in the 1841 Times and Seasons as well so that readers of the 1842 Times and Seasons already knew the hill that was "convenient to the village of Manchester" was named Cumorah anciently.

Because of this misdirection by the JSP editors, even "engaged learners" who read this volume 5 of the Joseph Smith Papers are kept in the dark about all of this actual history.

During his first encounter with the angel, Smith saw in a vision the location of the plates and was told that they contained an ancient record that God intended to bring forth to the world.

An important element of the vision was that Joseph was already familiar with the location. The editors inexplicably avoided a citation here, such as a citation to Letter IV that would have led readers to this passage:

While describing the place where the record was deposited, he gave a minute relation of it, and the vision of his mind being opened at the same time, he was permitted to view it critically; and previously being acquainted with the place, he was able to follow the direction of the vision, afterward, according to the voice of the angel, and obtain the book.

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

This passage also contains an important element of the narrative that the editors chose not to explain; i.e., that it was Joseph’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.”

This editorial omission becomes more significant later in the Introduction.

When Smith attempted to acquire the plates after the angel's first visit, the angel informed him that he must wait to receive them and should return to the same spot annually for further instruction. Finally, in 1827, Joseph Smith was allowed to take possession of the plates.[9] Within two and a half years of obtaining them, he had produced a manuscript and published the Book of Mormon, an account of ancient inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere.

This revisionist history should have no place in a historical volume. Editors who insist on editorializing instead of presenting accurate history should clearly explain what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Notice that the editors claim Joseph “had produced a manuscript,” instead of presenting the historical documents that told Joseph he would translate the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim. The reasons for their word choice become apparent later in the Introduction, but readers deserve an accurate presentation of the history here.

The term "Western Hemisphere" is a modern construct. It has been applied to Church history to obfuscate the actual accounts and to accommodate the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.

If you search the Joseph Smith Papers for the term "western hemisphere," you'll see that there are zero historical documents related to the Book of Mormon that use this term.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/search?query=%22western%20hemisphere%22&sort=relevance&page=1&perpage=10&startdate=&enddate=&transcripts=false&issuggestion=false&types=documents-papers|documents-papers-histories|documents-papers-documents|related-materials|biographical-directory|geographical-directory|glossary|event

Instead, we find the JSP editors using the term to editorialize in their commentary:

Moroni, Smith was to learn, was the last in a long line of prophets in the Western Hemisphere who had written their story, just as the prophets in Palestine had written the Bible.

In his description of the Book of Mormon, Orson Pratt superimposed his understanding of Book of Mormon geography onto the Western Hemisphere by placing the Nephites in South America and the Jaredites in North America.

The actual history, which the JSP editors never quote or cite out of deference to M2C, is far more specific:

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came... The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

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

See also https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/latter-day-saints-1844/3

He then proceeded and gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigenes of this country, and said they were literal descendants of Abraham.... He said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/68

Using the term “Western Hemisphere” as if it was a historical term discredits the credibility of the editorial content throughout the Joseph Smith Papers.

[The next part of the Introduction explains what happened to the Original Manuscript and its current condition.]

The transcripts and annotation in this volume rely upon years of earlier work by volume editor Royal Skousen as part of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project.[10] …

Page xii

The statement of editorial method on page xxvii herein provides a description of the differences between the transcription approach used in this volume and the approach followed in Skousen's earlier work.

This allusion to Skousen’s work published by FARMS and BYU Studies is helpful but inadequate. The discussion in Volume 5 focuses on simplification of presentation and encourages readers who seek a more detailed and literal transcription to consult Skousen’s FARMS publications. While many readers of Skousen’s FARMS publications are familiar with M2C and SITH editorial biases, others are not. Volume 5 should explain that those biases are carried over from Skousen’s FARMS publications.

Joseph Smith and his contemporaries often spoke of his work dictating the Book of Mormon text from the plates as a divine or miraculous “translation.”

The use of scare quotes here tells readers not to read the term literally or in its ordinary sense. The editors share an opinion that Joseph didn’t translate the plates in any normal sense of the word; i.e., he read words that appeared on the stone in the hat (SITH). Scare quotes alone are inadequate to alert readers to this editorial bias in favor of SITH.

Smith and his supporters testified that his ability to translate was a gift from God, which allowed him to dictate in English the text of an ancient history written in a forgotten language, even though he had no scholarly training.[11]

When mentioning the translation process, Joseph Smith stated on several occasions that he had translated the Book of Mormon “by the gift and power of God."[12]

While technically accurate, the quoted phrase is incomplete and thus misleading because omits Joseph’s references to the Urim and Thummim such as “Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God.” and “being translated by the gift and power of God by the use of the Urim and Thummim.”

Even in the source cited in the footnote, Joseph said “the Urim and Thumim, was hid up with the record, and that God would give me power to translate it, with the assistance of this instrument.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/26

The editors don’t explain why they omit the Urim and Thummim when they mention the translation process, but the omission the widespread belief among modern LDS scholars that Joseph did not use the Urim and Thummim. As we saw earlier in this review, Royal Skousen has declared that “Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading.”

Skousen’s bias permeates the editorial content of this volume of the Joseph Smith Papers.

If anyone directly involved in the translation described it in a contemporaneous diary, letter, or other record, that documentation has not been discovered. Though in this same period Joseph Smith dictated revelations that addressed the translation process, he presented those texts as containing the thoughts and words of God on the Book of Mormon translation, rather than his own.[13]

The note cites D&C 3 and D&C 9, but not D&C 10. D&C 10:41 addresses the translation process by telling Joseph “you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi,” a direct declaration that he was translating the engravings, and that it made a difference which plates he was working with. The revelation also told Joseph which part of the engravings to translate: “it is wisdom in me that you should translate this first part of the engravings of Nephi, and send forth in this work.” (D&C 10:45) This revelation would make no sense if Joseph was merely reading words off a stone without referring to the plates.  

Smith himself never gave a detailed account of the translation,

This sentence makes the logical fallacy that the absence of any record of a detailed account means Joseph never gave such an account, which of course does not follow.

Joseph did explain that “immediately after my arrival there [in Harmony, Pennsylvania] 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. (Joseph Smith—History 1:62).

This explanation obviates the need for further explanation. Joseph said he translated the characters after he copied them off the plates. Joseph started that learning process, which every translator must begin with, before Martin Harris arrived in Harmony to take dictation. While the learning process was short compared with normal language-learning, Joseph explained he accomplished this by the gift and power of God; i.e., the gift of tongues. That Joseph learned the characters well enough to translate is evidenced by the Lord telling him to translate the engravings on specific plates.

While more detail would be helpful and interesting, such detail is not necessary to understand the process—if we accept what Joseph did leave us.

and all the available historical sources describing the process are imperfect

This is axiomatic because no historical source can be perfect

—some are later recollections of those who participated in or observed the process, others are rumors that were reported shortly after the translation, and still others are secondhand accounts, preserved either in documents from the time period or in later reminiscences.

Even people who claimed to be eyewitnesses did not distinguish between what they actually saw, what they assumed they saw, what they inferred, and what they heard from others.

Such sources are incomplete in part because Smith was assisted by at least seven scribes, meaning that he himself was the only person present for the entire translation.[14] Because elements of the process—including the use of an instrument, the location of translation work, and the scribe assisting Smith—evidently changed over time, a witness who observed the translation only at a certain point in the process would be unable to describe what the process looked like at other stages. Nevertheless, the contours of Joseph Smith’s translation process can be discerned by studying the accounts of Smith and his associates and by comparing their assertions against one another's and against the evidence in the original manuscript itself.

This is a fair summary but doesn’t mention critical considerations such as the external context and other factors that may have motivated the witness testimony.

p. xiii

Translation Begins

Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recorded that her son acquired the plates in the early morning of 22 September 1827.[15] Joseph Knight, a friend and early supporter, reported that Joseph Smith spoke that same morning of plates “writen in Caracters" and of his desire that they be translated. Knight also remembered the troubles that arose after Smith obtained the plates: "He (Smith) was Commanded not to let no one see those things [the plates].... But many insisted and oferd money and Property to see them [.] But for keeping them from the Peopel they persecuted and abused them (the Smith family) and they ware obliged to hide them."[16] Many people in rural New York in Joseph Smith's time believed they could exercise supernatural power—to find buried treasure, for instance through the use of seer stones or divining rods or through prescribed rituals.[17] Joseph Smith spent time in his youth digging for treasure with neighbors and friends, and many of his former treasure-digging associates felt they had a claim to the plates.[18]

Notice the changed editorial treatment that reflects editorial bias. In this paragraph, Lucy “recorded” and Knight “reported” and “remembered,” thereby acknowledging the normal human filter on whatever actually happened.

But the last two sentences are reported as fact. An accurate, unbiased narrative would observe that some sources reported that Joseph dug for treasure.

Neighbors in Manchester and nearby Palmyra, New York, made “the most strenious exertions" to steal the plates from Joseph Smith.[19]

Throughout this introduction and the Joseph Smith Papers themselves, the editors accept Lucy Mack Smith’s account as accurate and factual except whenever Lucy’s account contradicts the editors’ M2C and SITH opinions and theories. The Cumorah example is particularly notorious.

[this section of the narrative relates this history in Palmyra before Joseph moved to Harmony.]

Once in Harmony, Joseph Smith began studying the plates closely. He recalled in 1832 that his Palmyra neighbor Martin Harris arrived in Harmony and said that God "had shown him that he must go to new York City with some of the characters” from the plates. Smith and Harris “proceeded to coppy some of them and he [Harris) took his Journy to the Eastern Cittys.”[20]

This is an inference. Joseph’s history says “we proceeded to copy,” which could have referred to he and Harris but alternatively could refer to Joseph and someone else, such as Emma. Presumably Harris was not copying characters directly off the plates.

Smith recalled years later that when he arrived in Harmony, he “copyed a considerable number” of characters, along with translations of some of the characters, and Harris then arrived and took them to New York City.[21]

This sentence is out of order chronologically and again omits the key role of the Urim and Thummim. As we saw above, Joseph was not vague about the details of timing and his use of the Urim and Thummim. “immediately after my arrival there [in Pennsylvania] 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 wording in this sentence seems designed to downplay the significance of Joseph’s explanation. The phrase “recalled years later” suggests an impaired or imperfect memory, yet the account was created in 1838, just six years after the 1832 history (which was only 4 years after the events). The accounts are not inconsistent; Joseph naturally studied the plates and characters once he found safety in Harmony. By the time Harris arrived, Joseph had copied and translated “some of them.” He likely copied his copies for Harris to take to New York.

The editors claim that Joseph copied “characters, along with translations of some of the characters,” without explaining the source of the translations. Readers would never learn from this Introduction that Joseph said he translated those characters with the Urim and Thummim.

While in New York City, Harris visited scholars who were skilled with languages. He

p. xiv

met with Samuel Mitchill, a linguist who had studied several Native American languages, and Mitchill referred him to Charles Anthon, a specialist in Latin and Greek.[22]

Anthon and Harris gave differing accounts of their encounter. Harris recalled that Anthon told him that the “translation was correct," affirmed that the characters were “true characters,” and supplied a written certificate attesting to that. But when Harris told Anthon about the characters' origin, Anthon retrieved the note he had just written and tore it up, “saying that there was no such thing now as ministring of angels.”[23] Anthon's accounts,

More accurately, “accounts attributed to Anthon” because these are republications of Anthon’s work, not letters in Anthon’s handwriting.

however, suggest that he questioned the document and its origin story from the beginning and feared Smith was defrauding Harris of his money.[24]

…

Translation in Harmony

…

Emma Smith and Martin Harris both stated that Joseph Smith used an object or instrument to assist in translation: he would place the instrument into a hat and, burying his face in the hat, would peer into the instrument.[25]

The two citations here differ substantially, such that combining them is misleading. They were 50 years apart. Emma’s purported “Last Testimony” was published after her death, lacked her acknowledgment, supported the positions of her son who produced it, and was strongly repudiated with respect to the polygamy portions, to the point that witnesses in Salt Lake suggested Emma didn’t say what the testimony claims. The “Golden Bible” citation is a brief newspaper summary that appears to amalgamate rumors, possibly including what Martin said, but postdates the translation in Fayette for which Martin was not a scribe. Thus, even if Martin was the source, he could have been only a hearsay witness for the translation events he did not participate in. 

One of the instruments Smith used was apparently a set of two stones, at times called “spectacles" in early sources, that he said were recovered from the hill along with the plates.[26] These spectacles were thought to be the “interpreters” that the Book of Mormon text says would be preserved

p. xv.

with the plates.[27]

The term “apparently” here casts doubt on the explicit statements by Joseph and Oliver that he translated by means of the Urim and Thummim. Use of the passive voice (“thought to be”) suggests this was merely a tradition instead of the express teaching of Joseph and Oliver. The citations to Alma are misleading because in the Original Manuscript and 1830 editions, Alma referred to directors, not interpreters. That wording was changed in later editions. 

Decades later, Harris described these objects: "Two stones set in a bow of silver were about two inches in diameter, perfectly round. ... The stones were white, like polished marble, with a few gray streaks.”[28]

These are not Harris’ descriptions; they are second-hand accounts that the author claimed Martin approved, a claim that is impossible to verify. It is also impossible to assess the credibility of second-hand historical accounts, but elements of these accounts raise more questions than they answer. While Harris is famously quoted as claiming that Joseph translated with a seer stone, here he claims the plates were translated “by means of” the “two stones set in a bow of silver.”

For example, the Tiffany Monthly account has Harris stating that the plates contained “the Book of Life” “recorded in Arabic, Chaldaic, Syriac, and Egyptian,” that Joseph found the plates by using the stone he found in the Chase well, twenty-four feet down, and that “the two stones set in a bow of silver by means of which the plates were translated were found underneath the plates.” According to this account, Harris claimed only he, Joseph, David and Oliver ever saw the plates. https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/history/martin-harris-1859-interview-with-joel-tiffany-on-early-events-in-mormonism/

Joseph Smith himself described the instrument as consisting of "two transparent stones.”[29]

The note cites the Wentworth letter in which Joseph referred to the instrument as the Urim and Thummim.

Lucy Mack Smith, who remembered seeing the spectacles before her son's move to Harmony, gave a description of the instrument that is similar to Harris's: "2 smooth 3 cornered diamonds set in glass and the glass was set in silver bows conected with each other in the same way that old fashioned spectacles are made.”[30]

Lucy’s description of “diamonds set in glass” is quite different from the Harris account of white stones “like polished marble, with a few gray streaks.” Lucy dictated her own history; Harris’ account was published by an interviewer with no known endorsement or approval by Harris.

The glaring omission here is Joseph Smith’s own description: “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)

This omission is consistent with the editors’ bias against including statements about Joseph translating with the Urim and Thummim, but it is a disservice to readers to deprive them of directly relevant, authoritative information such as this.

In the course of the translation, Smith also used a seer stone that was in his possession before he obtained the plates.

Here is an example of stating an opinion as fact instead of accurately reporting what witnesses said and letting readers decide for themselves.

Both the spectacles and the seer stone were at times called interpreters, and the biblical term Urim and Thummim was later used to refer to both instruments as well.[31]

This is another example of stating an opinion as fact instead of accurately reporting what witnesses said and letting readers decide for themselves. This one is especially egregious because it is based not on contemporary historical accounts but on later speculation by modern scholars, such as the cited paper by Mark Ashurst-McGee who is the Senior Research and Review Editor of the Joseph Smith Papers (an example of the citation cartel). The note cites Oliver Cowdery’s Letter 1, in which he explicitly connects the Urim and Thummim to the Nephite interpreters. The note doesn’t cite Joseph Smith’s explicit statement that Moroni identified the interpreters that accompanied the plates as Urim and Thummim. This issue deserves more discussion, but it is inexcusable for these scholars to present their own theories as fact.

Before Joseph Smith switched to using primarily the seer stone for translation, Martin Harris recalled that Smith often used the stone instead of the spectacles “for convenience.”

It’s difficult to tell whether this sentence was merely written poorly or is intentionally misleading. The Martin Harris recollection came decades after Joseph died, not before Joseph “switched” to the seer stone. And the claim that Joseph “switched” to the seer stone is thinking past the sale. Emma claimed Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the 116 pages, directly contradicting the Harris recollection. Joseph and Oliver always said Joseph translated by means of the Urim and Thummim. If they are correct, then that whatever Joseph did with the seer stone, it was not translating. Yet the editors of Volume 5 here glide right over these problems by presenting their theories as fact.

Harris also remembered that only the specific stone Smith used would work for translating.

That’s not what Harris said, even if his account recorded over 50 years after the fact is credible and reliable. Harris himself is quoted as saying Joseph used the Urim and Thummim behind a blanket and that he never dared look to see what Joseph used. Joseph always said he used the Urim and Thummim, not the “specific stone” the editors refer to here.

An interviewer later recorded Harris's account of a time when he tested Smith by replacing the instrument Smith ordinarily used with a similar-looking stone. During a break in the translation work, Harris “found a stone very much resembling the one used for translating, and on resuming their labor of translation, Martin put in place the stone that he had found.” When they resumed translating, Smith was silent for some time and then exclaimed, “Martin! What is the matter? All is as dark as Egypt.” Harris confessed to switching the stones and explained that "he had done so ... to stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them.”[32]

There are several problems with this account that I have discussed elsewhere, including its late date and posthumous publication. See A Man That Can Translate, Chapter 19. It’s astonishing that the editors would quote this account in full without once (so far) quoting what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation.

Some accounts discuss the mechanics of this earliest translation work. Emma Smith told her son Joseph Smith III later in her life, “I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.”

This is the same “Testimony” attributed to Emma that she never authenticated, that was recorded shortly before she died, and that JSIII published after her death and 50 years after the events. JSIII had begun the interview by specifically seeking to refute the Spalding theory. Emma’s comments, even if authentic, explicitly refuted the Spalding theory.

She continued, “When acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him.”[33]

JSIII failed to ask obvious follow-up questions to test reliability and credibility, such as “Which parts of the Book of Mormon did you write?” and “When and where did you write?” Her statement here is consistent with Joseph translating the plates; i.e., he could end a session at the bottom of a plate and resume at the top of the next plate.

In another interview, she added more details: “When he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing

p. xvi.

them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling though it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time.”

A note below explains that there are misspelled words throughout the manuscript. While none of the extant Original Manuscript is in Emma’s handwriting, claims that Joseph corrected spelling before the translation could continue are disproven by the manuscript, even if we infer that Joseph did spell out some names.

A particular memory remained with Emma throughout her life: “One time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, 'Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?' When I answered 'Yes', he replied, 'Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived.""[34]

Emma reportedly related this incident in 1856, 27 or 28 years after the events. David Whitmer also related this incident, suggesting he heard it from Emma (or Joseph). But it’s also possible that Emma conflated an incident from Fayette with her own experiences as a scribe.

An 1881 article based on Martin Harris's reminiscences recounted what he had observed and inferred of the translation process: “By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.”[35]

Here again, we don’t have the 116 pages, but the extant Original Manuscript contains numerous errors. Plus, Joseph made thousands of editorial changes in subsequent editions. No one thought to ask Harris obvious follow-up questions, such as asking for specific examples from the text or time and place of these events.

Both Harris and Emma Smith testified the translation was given to Joseph Smith by divine means.

This is an important point not only for apologetic reasons, but because it goes to possible motivation. The Solomon Spalding theory was the predominant explanation for the Book of Mormon in the 1800s. That premise for that theory was that Joseph dictated from behind a screen or curtain. Knowing this, Harris, Emma, David, and other witnesses who sought to support the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon would naturally emphasize a scenario in which Joseph had nothing to read from.

Several accounts from other observers suggest that a partition separated Smith from his scribes during an early phase of the translation process but that later they worked with nothing separating them. Sallie McKune, a neighbor to the Hale and Smith families in Harmony, recalled “nails used for hooks to hang blankets on during the translation of the golden bible.”[36]

The entire premise of the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed was that Joseph dictated from behind a screen, curtain, blanket—a “vail” of some sort. The existence of the screen was widely known; that’s why the Spalding theory prevailed. The book also ridiculed the idea of the stone-in-the-hat and, separately, the Urim and Thummim, to the extent that those methods did not require Joseph to use the plates. If Joseph didn’t use the plates at all, the book pointed out, then the testimony of the witnesses of the plates was irrelevant.

Sources that relate Harris's experiences also mention a sheet dividing the translator from the scribe. “Harris declares," reported one local newspaper, “that when he acted as amanuenses, and wrote the translation, as Smith dictated, such was his fear of the Divine displeasure, that a screen (sheet) was suspended between the prophet and himself."[37] It is possible that these accounts refer to the time Smith spent copying characters from the plates before the actual translation began.

Anything is possible, but the quoted statement referred to Harris as scribe. Besides, Joseph said he copied and translated the characters before Harris arrived in Harmony.

He took care that no one else saw the plates, as he said the angel commanded.[38]

Instead of citing Joseph’s own teachings, the footnote cites the book by MacKay and Dirkmaat that sets out some of the scholarly theories this Introduction repeats.

Accounts from Emma Smith either do not mention or specifically refute the presence of a sheet or other barrier between translator and scribe.[39]

Emma was refuting the Spalding theory, as was David Whitmer.

While Joseph Smith appears to have ceased separating himself from his scribes at some point in the process, there are no accounts that report the plates being visible to the scribe during translation; indeed, one account states that the plates themselves were wrapped in a cloth when there was no barrier present.[40]

The way this is written, the reader might conclude there were several accounts relating different details, but the authors keep citing Emma’s problematic “Last Testimony.”

[The next section of the Introduction reviews the narrative of the lost 116 pages.]

p. xvii.

Following the loss of the manuscript in the summer of 1828, Joseph Smith recalled, “The Plates was taken from me by the power of God and I was not able to obtain them for a season.”[41] He also recalled that the interpreters he had unearthed with the plates were taken from him at this time.[42] It was apparent to Smith's family and friends that his ability to translate was tied not just to his obedience but also to his possession of the plates and the interpreters.[43]

The editors use the term “interpreters” here, but if readers look up the citation in the note, they will see that Lucy Mack Smith actually referred to the Urim and Thummim three times in this passage (although it’s unknown when the interlinear insertions were made).

on the 22 of september I had the Joy and satisfaction of again receiving the record <​urim and Thummin​> into my possession and I have commenced translating and Emma writes for me now but the angel said that if I got the plates again that the Lord woul[d] send some one to write for me and I trust that if it will be so. he also said that the <​he​> angel seemed <​was​> rejoiced when he gave him <​me​> back the plates <​urim and Thummim​> and said that he <​God​> was pleased with his <​my​> faithfulness and humility also that the Lord was pleased with him and loved him <​me​> for his <​my​> penitence and dilligence in prayer in the which he <​I​> had performed his duty so well as to receive the record <​urim and Thummin​> and be <​was​> able to enter upon the work of translation again—[44]

Lucy’s 1845 version, which the editors don’t cite here, also uses the term “Urim and Thummim” when relating these events. The heading to chapter 27 reads “Urim and Thummim is taken from Joseph – he receives them again.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/142

Lucy’s account proceeds:

And when I entered his house [in Harmony] the first thing that attracted my attention was a red morocco trunk, that set on Emma’s bureau; which trunk Joseph shortly informed me, contained the Urim and Thummim and the plates.

Next, Lucy quoted what Joseph told her:

as I had ventured to become responsible for his faithfulness, I would of necessity have to suffer the consequences of his indiscretion; and must now give up the Urim and Thummim into his (the angels) hands. This I did as I was directed. As I handed them to him, he said, ‘If you are very humble and penitent, it may be you will receive them again; if so, it will be on the 22d. of next September.’”…

on the 22d of September, I had the joy and satisfaction of again receiving the Urim and Thummim; and have commenced translating again, and Emma writes for me; but the angel said that the Lord would send me a scribe, and <​I​> trust his promise will be verified. The angel He also seemed pleased with me, when he gave me back the Urim and Thummim; and he told me that the Lord loved me, for my faithfulness and humility.[45]

Lucy’s account corroborates what Joseph and Oliver always said; i.e., that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim, the name by which Moroni identified the interpreters.

Nevertheless, the editors persist in using the term “interpreters.”

The period following the loss of the manuscript was a time of mourning the lost text but also, as Smith reported later, a time of repentance and divine forgiveness. He stated that shortly after the manuscript was lost, an angel, whom he identified in later records as Moroni, came to him, temporarily returning the interpreters so that he could seek divine guidance by revelation.[46] The resulting communication told Smith that while he was “chosen to do the work of the Lord,” it was possible that he could fall. His responsibility was to “repent of that which thou hast done & he (God) will only cause thee to be afflicted for a season & thou art still chosen & will again be called to the work.”[47] The angel then took the interpreters back, according to Smith's

p. xviii

account, and later returned both the interpreters and the plates after a period humility and affliction of Soul.”[48]

Lucy Mack Smith did not learn that her son had received the plates again until she and her husband, Joseph Smith Sr., visited Harmony in early September 1828.[49]

This explanation of the timing of these events contradicts what Lucy dictated, as shown in the cited reference. The alternative explanation is that their child was treated before they want to Harmony. In her history, Lucy said she and her husband visited Joseph after the 22 of September because he told her about obtaining them on the 22 when they visited. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/89

Immediately upon seeing her son, she sensed his easy and relaxed manner, which she interpreted to mean that “something agreeable" had occurred. Indeed, Smith told his mother that he had been “humble and penitent” and had received the ability and opportunity to translate again. Lucy Mack Smith recorded that it was with delight that her son stated he had “commenced translating,” with Emma's assistance.[50]

As shown above, the editors artfully quote selections from Lucy’s history to avoid informing readers about her repeated use of the term “Urim and Thummim.” See also https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/91.

[The next omitted paragraphs review events during winter 1828-1829.]

It is impossible to tell from what remains of the manuscript how much was translated during the fall of 1828 and the ensuing winter. Textual evidence suggests that

p. xix

when work resumed after the loss of the initial portion of the manuscript, Joseph Smith and scribes Emma and Samuel Smith began in the book of Mosiah, roughly a third of the way into what was later published as the Book of Mormon.[51] Unfortunately, the original manuscript for the book of Mosiah is no longer extant, making it impossible to determine who was serving as scribe when work resumed.

There is evidence in the Printer’s Manuscript indicating that when Oliver copied Mosiah, he was copying someone else’s handwriting, presumably Emma’s. For example, he copied “Helaman” instead of “Helam” and had to correct his error by crossing off the last two letters. This is significant because it affects the pace of the translation; i.e., if Oliver started with the book of Alma, the translation was slower than many modern scholars assume.

By the next point in the surviving manuscript—the tenth chapter of the book of Alma, which immediately follows Mosiah—the text is in the handwriting of an individual whom Joseph Smith would meet in early April 1829: Oliver Cowdery.

Translating with Oliver Cowdery in Harmony

[The next two paragraphs discuss Cowdery’s experience in Palmyra and his arrival in Harmony.]

Cowdery journeyed to Harmony beginning in late March 1829, arriving there on Sunday, 5 April 1829. Though Cowdery and Joseph Smith had never met, Cowdery explained to Smith his interest in the plates and was quickly taken into Smith's confidence—on 6 April, he helped Smith with the paperwork to complete the purchase of a home, and on 7 April, he began assisting with the translation of the Book of Mormon.[52]

In an 1834 letter to church leader William W. Phelps, Cowdery recalled his experience with the translating process: "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!” Besides affirming that the translation was done under divine

p. xx

influence, Cowdery added a brief description of the process: “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites whould have said, 'Interpreters,' the history, or record, called ‘The book of Mormon.’”[53]

Although the editors underplay this passage as merely “an 1834 letter” to Phelps, Oliver’s testimony here has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. As such it is the most authoritative statement about the translation in the scriptures.

The editors inexplicably omitted two probative citations for this passage: (i) the canonized version in Joseph Smith—History 1:71, note, in the Pearl of Great Price, and (ii) the version that Joseph’s scribes copied into his history, which Joseph described as “part of my life history.” See https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/49. Oliver’s letters were also republished, with Joseph’s express approval, in Benjamin Winchester’s Gospel Reflector (1841) and the Times and Seasons (1841), as well as by Parley P. Pratt in the Millennial Star (1841) and by William Smith in The Prophet (1844).

Sometime in April, at a time when Smith and Cowdery were working “with little cessation,” Cowdery “became exceedingly anxious to have the power to translate bestowed upon him.”[54] He believed that such a power was acquired not through study but through the bestowal of a gift from God.

This mind-reading about Cowdery’s belief fits the editors’ theory of translation but historical documentation supports alternative interpretations.

In response to Cowdery's desire, Smith dictated a revelation that promised Cowdery that he could “translate all those ancient Records which have been hid up which are Sacred.”[55] Smith dictated another revelation in April that explained to Cowdery that translation was not what he had first supposed. “Behold I say unto you, my son, that, because you did not translate according to that which you desired of me, and did commence again to write for my servant Joseph, even so I would that you should continue until you have finished this record.” The revelation informed Cowdery that God removed the gift of translation from Cowdery because "you did not continue as you commenced," or he supposed that God “would give it unto you, when you took no thought, save it was to ask me.” The revelation continued, “You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right, I will cause that your bosom shall burn."[56]

This requirement of study is consistent with Joseph as translator. Translation is a mental process; all translators necessarily work out the translation in their minds. The spiritual element here is asking for confirmation. Consequently, these passages corroborate the ordinary definition of translation, as opposed to SITH. 

The days of Smith and Cowdery working in Harmony with few interruptions were productive but short-lived. Cowdery remembered that after about five weeks, Smith had completed the books of Mosiah, Alma, and Helaman, plus some of 3 Nephi.[57]

This is not what Cowdery wrote, and this point matters because it affects the speed of the translation. Cowdery wrote, “After writing the account given of the savior’s ministry to the remnant of the seed of Jacob, upon this continent,” which presumably refers to 3 Nephi 11-27. See https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/50. Nowhere does Cowdery state or imply what had been already translated and written by the time he arrived in April, but documentary evidence suggests that Mosiah had been finished before Oliver arrived, which indicates that the translation took longer than most estimates suggest.

The productivity would not last. Lucy Mack Smith stated later that “evil designing people were seeking to take away Joseph's life in order to prevent the work of God from going forth among the world.”[58]

This appears to be another case of deliberate misinformation to avoid yet another reference to the Urim and Thummim. The editors want readers to believe that Oliver wrote a letter to David because of the evil designing people, but Lucy explained otherwise. She said Joseph was commanded through the Urim and Thummim to contact David. Notice what she says about how Joseph looked on the plates after applying the Urim and Thummim to his eyes.

Referring to the Lucy Harris lawsuit in Palmyra, Lucy Mack Smith wrote,

In the mean time Joseph was 150 miles distant and knew naught of the matter e[x]cept an intimation that was given through the urim and thumim for as he one morning applied the<​m​> latter to his eyes to look upon the record instead of the words of the book being given him he was commanded to write a letter to one David Whitmore [Whitmer] this man Joseph had never seen but he was instructed to say him that he must come with his team immediately in order to convey Joseph and his family <​Oliver [Cowdery]​> back to his house which was 135 miles that they might remain with him there untill the translation should be completed for that an evil designing people were seeking to take away Joseph’s life in order to prevent the work of God from going forth among the world.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/100.

This statement is especially important because Joseph and Oliver were near the end of the translation of the abridged plates. Joseph was not looking at a stone in a hat; he was applying the Urim and Thummim to his eyes and looking on the record, meaning the plates.

People can argue that Lucy Mack Smith merely assumed this is what happened, but the details could only have originated with Joseph (or Oliver). Readers can decide for themselves why the Joseph Smith Papers editors don’t quote or cite this specific usage of the Urim and Thummim, which contradicts their stone-in-the-hat narrative.

Cowdery, who had previously written to his friend David Whitmer regarding his involvement in the work, wrote again, this time asking Whitmer for a place where he and Smith could translate. Whitmer arrived in Harmony shortly after he received the letter and offered to allow Smith and Cowdery to translate in his parents' home, free of charge. Leaving Emma Smith, who would join them at some later time, the three men journeyed about one hundred miles north to Fayette, New York, arriving about 1 June 1829.[59]

The editors omitted another important sequence here. Before leaving Harmony, Joseph gave the abridged plates to an angel, as Lucy Mack Smith reported here:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/158

On the road to Fayette, Joseph, Oliver and David encountered the angel, or messenger. David asked if he’d like a ride to Fayette, but the messenger declined, saying he was going to Cumorah. David remembered that this was the first time he heard the word “Cumorah” and he asked Joseph about it. Joseph explained that the messenger had the plates and that he was one of the Nephites.

This sequence explains the enigma of D&C 10. There, the Lord instructed Joseph and Oliver to not retranslate the first part of the plates that had been lost (the Book of Lehi that was in the 116 pages), but instead Joseph would have to “translate the engravings on the plates of Nephi.” We can tell from Moroni’s Title Page that the abridged plates did not include the plates of Nephi because no original plates are mentioned in the Title Page. The revelation raises the question, how did Joseph get the plates of Nephi?

Because the messenger who had the abridged plates said he was taking them to Cumorah, we can infer that the messenger would leave those plates in the repository and pick up the plates of Nephi, which he then brought to Fayette. That’s why Joseph translated the plates of Nephi in Fayette.

The sequence informs us that Joseph was actually translating the engravings on the plates, so he needed the correct plates to translate. If he was merely reading words that appeared on a stone, without referring to the plates, it wouldn’t have mattered which plates he had.  

Translating in Fayette

The Whitmers welcomed Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. David Whitmer remembered that Emma Smith arrived in Fayette “a short time after Joseph and Oliver came.”[60]

This explains why Emma’s writing is not found in 1 Nephi. David said she was a scribe, though, which suggests she wrote part of 2 Nephi through Words of Mormon.

The Whitmers' early belief and support were important to Joseph Smith, and they provided connections to neighbors who were “friendly, and disposed to enquire in

p. xxi

to the truth of these strange matters, which now began to be noised abroad.” In fact, Smith recalled that many opened their houses to us, in order that we might have an opportunity of meeting with their friends for the purpose of instruction, and explanation.”[61]

At least two additional scribes, David Whitmer's older brothers Christian and John, assisted Joseph Smith with translation in Fayette.[62] Because so many leaves of the manuscript have been lost or severely damaged, it is unclear where Smith and Cowdery were in their translation work at the time they moved to Fayette.

This is another reason why the encounter with the messenger going to Cumorah is important. D&C 10 tells Joseph not to retranslate the first part of the abridged plates, a commandment that made sense if Joseph and Oliver we considering such a project after finishing with the abridged plates. The messenger who had the abridged plates went to Cumorah.

Analysis of the original manuscript suggests that after completing the translation through the book of Moroni, Smith returned to the beginning of the story, translating what are now the books of 1 Nephi through the Words of Mormon. The portion of the manuscript now called 1 Nephi includes the first text with handwriting from any Whitmer scribe. [Thus, this part was dictated in Fayette.]

Hosting the Book of Mormon translation efforts proved challenging to the Whitmers. Supporting two or three additional individuals was not without expense and added to the domestic burdens of the matriarch, Mary Musselman Whitmer. Her grandson John C. Whitmer said that she once encountered a stranger while doing her chores. This man, who she later concluded was an angel, “explain[ed] to her the nature of the work which was going on in her house," whereupon “she was filled with unexpressible joy and satisfaction."[63]

The note cites the Historical Record, a compilation by Andrew Jenson. Jenson visited the grandson, John C. Whitmer, and provided Whitmer’s statement in quotation marks, but Jenson also inserted his editorial comments in parenthesis. Whitmer explained that his grandmother was shown the plates “by an holy angel, whom she always called Brother Nephi.” Jenson, however, concluded this was an error. He inserted his own comment in parentheses. “(She undoubtedly refers to Moroni, the angel who had the plates in charge.)”

Jenson’s bizarre insertion, unsupported by any other evidence, directly contradicts what David Whitmer said, as well as what David reported that Joseph said. David explained that he had face-to-face conversation with both the messenger on the road to Fayette and the angel who showed the plates to him, Oliver Cowdery, and Joseph Smith (presumably Moroni). David knew they were different people. He also said the messenger his mother saw was, based on her description, the same one he met on the road to Fayette, which makes sense. See the Joseph F. Smith reference in the note.

David also reported that Joseph said the messenger was “one of the Nephites” which is consistent with what Mary Whitmer called him, as John C. Whitmer said. Andrew Jenson simply made up his Moroni story, yet that’s what our historians have gone with, putting it in the Saints book and other publications. There is no principle of historical analysis that would justify such a preference for the speculation of an author nearly 60 years after the fact which contradicts the statements of eyewitnesses, but that’s what they have done. The only justification for such an approach is to delegitimize the evidence about the New York Cumorah.

David recalled that his mother told him the words of the angel served as recompense for her sacrifices: "You have been very faithful and diligent in your labors, but you are tried because of the increase of your toil,” she was told. “It is propper therefore that you should receive a witness that your faith may be strengthened.”[64] The messenger then showed her the gold plates containing the text of the Book of Mormon.[65]

This poorly written sentence is an editorial modification of the historical accounts. The “text of the Book of Mormon” is what Joseph dictated in English; the plates contained engravings, as the witnesses made clear. John C. Whitmer said “I have heard my grandmother say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by an holy angel…. This strange person turned the leaves of the book of plates over, leaf after leaf, and also showed her the engravings on them.” That description fits whether she saw the abridged plates or the plates of Nephi.

The work of translation at Fayette was observed by several members of the Whitmer family. Elizabeth Whitmer, who was present in the family home and was later married to Oliver Cowdery, recalled that she was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith's translating the book of Mormon. ... I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light," and then read the words “as they appeared before him.”[66]

Elizabeth was 14 years old when Joseph and Oliver were translating in the Whitmer home. It’s misleading to say Elizabeth recalled as though she wrote this statement. The only source of this statement from Elizabeth is William E. McLellin’s copy of an alleged affidavit that Elizabeth gave. By 1870, McLellin had spent decades opposing Joseph Smith’s role as a prophet, but at the same time he sought to establish the divinity of the Book of Mormon. He said he did not believe Joseph ever had the Urim and Thummim, and Elizabeth’s statement corroborates his claim (while contradicting what Joseph and Oliver always said). Although Elizabeth died in 1892, there are no records that she ever authenticated the McLellin copy or made another similar statement.

Assuming McLellin copied Elizabeth’s statement accurately, we turn to its credibility and reliability. We just read how the messenger showed the plates to her mother, Mary, because she was overburdened with so much extra work. Is it credible that Mary’s fourteen-year-old daughter nevertheless “often” had “hours” to spend sitting and watching Joseph and Oliver translate? It seems unlikely. More likely, she was one of those sitting around the table during the demonstration that David reported.

Certainly Elizabeth could not see whatever Joseph saw in the hat; at least for that detail, she necessarily repeated hearsay or inference as fact.

It’s also interesting that she refers to a “director” in the hat, apparently an allusion to the passage in Alma, using a term other witnesses did not use.

David Whitmer, who was frequently interviewed later in his life, was fairly consistent in his description of the translation as he observed it: “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat,” Whitmer wrote, “and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the

p. xxii

spiritual light would shine.”[67] What Smith saw in the stone, of course, was not obseryable by Whitmer, but Smith may have explained the process to him.[68] “A piece of something resembling parchment would appear,” Whitmer continued, “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 Oliver Cowdery, 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.”[69] Like other believers, Whitmer understood this process as divine, concluding, “Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”[70]

As the paragraph recognizes, David related hearsay regarding what Joseph allegedly saw in the stone. David also admitted he was not present for most of the translation, and his most detailed description involved a group of people sitting around a table as Joseph dictated to three scribes, who took turns writing. None of the witnesses related what, exactly, Joseph dictated during the occasion, so it’s impossible to know which part of the text Joseph was involved—or even if he was dictating the text. We can only assume that whatever Joseph dictated on these occasions is present in the current Book of Mormon.

Like Emma’s, David’s statements are often prefaced with his rejection of the Spalding theory, which explains why he emphasized this dictation process that took place in the open, with witnesses, instead of the ordinary process that took place upstairs with Joseph and his scribes.

[The next paragraph relates the experience of the Three and Eight Witnesses.]

About a month after Smith and Cowdery moved from Harmony to Fayette, they completed the translation. A month later, in early August 1829, Smith asked Cowdery to begin making a complete copy of the Book of Mormon text.[71] It was mostly from

p. xxiii

this second manuscript—often called the printer's manuscript—that printers set type for the published Book of Mormon in late 1829 and early 1830.[72]

Use and Legacy of the Manuscript

[Several paragraphs describe the impact of the manuscript on the early believers and what became of the manuscript.]

The original manuscript of the Book of Mormon is the only surviving firsthand, contemporaneous testament to events of the translation. The manuscript offers invaluable

p. xxv

evidence that can be compared with secondhand accounts and later reminiscences or suppositions about the translation process. For instance, several individuals recalled Smith correcting the spelling of the scribes during the dictation process.[73] David Whitmer, who observed the translation process in his home, stated that Smith was able to discern mistakes scribes made while taking dictation.[74]

David Whitmer clarified that he was not present for most of the translation, which took place upstairs. He described a session downstairs when family members surrounded the table as Joseph dictated with his face in the hat.

Certainly some spelling was corrected at the time of dictation; for instance, in the book of Alma, “Zenock" was changed to “Zenoch” by Oliver Cowdery.[75] But analysis of the manuscript itself suggests that such corrections were rare; moreover, not all errors and inconsistencies were corrected. For instance, the name “Amalickiah” in the book of Alma was not consistently spelled the same way.[76] As another example of the value of the original manuscript, lengthy quotations from the Bible in the Book of Mormon text raise the question of whether Joseph Smith's scribes copied some passages directly from the Bible. Close study of the manuscript indicates that the Bible passages that appear in the extant pages were dictated, not copied.[77]

This textual evidence raises questions about the reliability and credibility of witnesses who claimed Joseph corrected spelling even while staring at the stone in the hat. Inconsistencies and misspellings are consistent with Joseph having translated the engravings, as is the fact that Joseph made later changes to the text for future editions.

The manuscript also confirms or supports numerous details from accounts of the translation. Textual evidence in the manuscript shows that Cowdery acted as scribe for the majority of the extant manuscript, which matches his own description of the process.[78]

The note quotes part of Cowdery’s message when he rejoined the Church in 1848, but omits his declaration that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon “by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, ‘holy Interpreters.’ I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the ‘holy interpreters.’” https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/joseph-smith-translates-the-gold-plates?lang=eng.

Cowdery’s testimony on this occasion is particularly relevant to the translation because while he was making this declaration, he still possessed the brown seer stone mentioned by Emma, David and Martin. Cowdery did not display it or refer to it, which indicates he knew it was not used for the translation. Unless, as Skousen claims, Cowdery was intentionally misleading people.  

David Whitmer recalled years later that his brother John served as scribe for Joseph Smith as well, and John Whitmer's handwriting does in fact appear in what is now the book of 1 Nephi.[79]

Zenas Gurley reported that he interviewed John Whitmer. He summarized the interview by reporting that “When the work of translation was going on he 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 original manuscript of the Book of Mormon offered a touchstone to a nascent faith community, and what remains of the manuscript continues to provide an irreplaceable witness to Joseph Smith's most consequential work of translation.

While that conclusion is undoubtedly true, the presentation in Volume 5 is unfortunately tainted by the editors’ efforts to manipulate the historical sources to accommodate their personal theories about Book of Mormon geography (M2C) and the manner of translation (SITH).

Hopefully this analysis will alert readers to the problems with the Introduction to Volume 5 and encourage the editors at the Joseph Smith Papers to avoid such editorial intrusion in future work. Perhaps they will consider revisions in future editions and in the online content as well.

[1] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/about-the-project

[2] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/editorial-method

[3] See overview here: https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-history-of-the-book-of-mormon-text-parts-5-and-6-of-volume-3-of-the-critical-text/

[4] https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/149-ten-essential-features-of-book-of-mormon-geography/

[5] https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/159-plausible-locations-of-the-final-battles/

[6] https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/160-plausible-locations-in-mesoamerica-for-book-of-mormon-places/

[7] https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-update-of-the-pre-print-of-a-discussion-of-the-book-of-

mormon-witnesses-by-royal-skousen/

[8] JSP-Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, 105.

[9] JSP-JS History, ca. Summer 1832, 4-5, in JSP, HI:14-15; JS History, vol. A-1, 4-8, in JSP, H1:220-222, 226, 232 234, 236 (Draft 2).

[10] JSP-Much of this earlier work has been published as Royal Skousen, ed., The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, 2001); Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon. 60 (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, 2004-2009); and Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 20, the publication of Skousen's transcript in 2001 and the publication of this volume, Skousen made a number of corrections to the transcript. A list of those corrections can be found in Appendix 3: Transcript Updates since 2001, p. 741 herein.

[11] JSP-Revelation, July 1828, in JSP, DI:8 [D&C 3]; Preface to Book of Mormon, ca. Aug. 1829, in JSP, D1:93; Testimony of Three Witnesses, in Book of Mormon, Printer's Manuscript, ca, Aug. 1829-ca. Jan. 1830, in JSP, R3, Part 2, p. 407; Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., 538 [Mormon 9:32–34).

[12] JSP-JS, Journal, 9–11 Nov. 1835, in JSP, J1:89. Joseph Smith consistently described the translation this way throughout his life. Three individuals who acted as witnesses to the plates described Smith's work similarly. (See, for example, Preface to Book of Mormon, ca. Aug. 1829, in JSP, D1:93; JS, Kirtland, OH, to Noah C. Saxton, Rochester, NY, 4 Jan. 1833, in JSP, D2:354; JS, “Church History,” Times and Seasons, 1 Mar. 1842, 3:707, in JSP, H1:495; and Testimony of Three Witnesses, in Book of Mormon, Printer's Manuscript, ca, Aug. 1829-ca. Jan. 1830, in JSP, R3, Part 2, p. 407.)

[13] JSP-See, for example, Revelation, July 1828, in JSP, D1:6-9 (D&C 3]; and Revelation, Apr, 1829-D, in JSP, D1:48–50 [D&C 9).

[14] JSP-JS History, vol. A-1, 9, 13-15, 22, in JSP, HT:244, 276-284, 308 (Draft 2); Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints' Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, 289; JS History, ca. Summer 1832, [6], in JSP, H1:16; Oliver Cowdery, Norton, OH, to William W. Phelps, 7 Sept. 1834, Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, 1:14; James H. Hart, “About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City), 25 Mar. 1884, [2].

[15] JSP-Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, 105–107.

[16] JSP-Knight, Reminiscences, 3.

[17] JSP-JS History, vol. A-1, 7, in JSP, H1:234-236 (Draft 2); C. M., “The Original Prophet," 229; W. D. Purple, Reminiscence, 28 Apr. 1877, in “Joseph Smith, the Originator of Mormonism," Chenango Union (Norwich, NY), 2 May 1877, [3]; see also Walker, “Persisting Idea of American Treasure Hunting," 429-459; Ashurst-McGee, “Pathway to Prophethood," 74-78, 194; and Taylor, “Rediscovering the Context of Joseph Smith's Treasure Seeking," 18–28.

[18] JSP-See “Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon," in JSP, R3, Part 1, pp. xv-xvi; Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 48-52, 61; and Ashurst-McGee, “Moroni: Angel or Treasure Guardian?" 44.

[19] JSP-JS History, vol. A-1, 8, in JSP, H1:238 (Draft 2).

[20] JSP-JS History, ca. Summer 1832, 5, in JSP, HI:15

[21] JSP-JS History, vol. A-1, 9, in SP, Hr:240 (Draft 2). Some individuals who interacted with Harris in New York City made no mention of an English translation accompanying the copied characters that Harris showed to scholars. (Charles Anthon, New York City, NY, to Eber D. Howe, Painesville, OH, 17 Feb. 1834, in Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 270-272; Charles Anthon, New York City, NY, to Thomas Winthrop Coit, New Rochelle. NY 2 Apr 1841, in Clark, Gleanings by the Way, 233; Turner, History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase and Morris' Reserve, 215; “Golden Bible," Gem, of Literature and Science (Rochester, NY]. 5 Sept. 1829, 70)

[22] JSP-Charles Anthon, New York City, NY, to Eber D. Howe, Painesville, OH, 17 Feb. 1834, in Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 270; Charles Anthon, New York City, NY, to Thomas Winthrop Coit, New Rochelle, NY, 3 Apr. 1841, in Clark, Gleanings by the Way, 233; MacKay, “Git Them Translated," 95-98. Smith's later history implies that Harris first visited Anthon and then Mitchill. (JS History, vol. A-1, 9, in JSP, H1:240, 244 (Draft 2].)

[23] JSP-JS History, vol. A-1, 9, in JSP, H1:240, 244 (Draft 2).

[24] JSP-Charles Anthon, New York City, NY, to Eber D. Howe, Painesville, OH, 17 Feb. 1834, in Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 270-272; Charles Anthon, New York City, NY, to Thomas Winthrop Coit, New Rochelle, NY, 3 Apr. 1841, in Clark, Gleanings by the Way, 233,238; Charles Anthon, New York City, NY, to “Rev. and Deor Sir," 12 Aug. 1844, in “A Fact in the Mormon Imposture," New-York Observer (New York City), 3 May 1845, [1].

[25] JSP-Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints' Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, 289; "Golden Bible," Gem, of Literature and Science (Rochester, NY), 5 Sept. 1829, 70.

[26] JSP-JS History, ca. Summer 1832, 5, in JSP, H1:15; JS History, vol. A-1, 7, in JSP, H1:232 (Draft 2).

[27] JSP-Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., 217, 328, 546 [Mosiah 28:20; Alma 37:21-24; Ether 4:5).

[28] JSP-“Mormonism—No. II,” Tiffany's Monthly, Aug. 1859, 165-166; see also [John A. Clark], “Gleanings by the Way. No. VI.” Episcopal Recorder, 5 Sept. 1840, 94.

[29] JSP-JS, “Church History,” Times and Seasons, 1 Mar. 1842, 3:707, in JSP, H1:495.

[30] JSP-Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844-1845, bk. 5, [7]-[8].

[31] JSP-See “Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon," in JSP, R3, Part 1, pp. xviii-xix; Oliver Cowdery, Norton, OH, to William W. Phelps, 7 Sept. 1834, Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, 1:14; “Mormonism," Kansas City (MO) Daily Journal, 5 June 1881, [1]; and Woodruff, Journal, 27 Dec. 1841. The earliest recorded use of the biblical term Urim and Thummim to describe the instrument Joseph Smith used for translation dates from 1832. (“Questions Proposed to the Mormonite Preachers and Their Answers Obtained before the Whole Assembly at Julien Hall, Sunday Evening, August 5, 1832," Boston Investigator, 10 Aug. 1832, [2]; see also Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; Numbers 27:21; Deuteronomy 33:8; 1 Samuel 28:6; (William W. Phelps), “The Book of Mormon," The Evening and the Morning Star, Jan. 1833, [2]; Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim; and Ashurst-McGee, “Pathway to Prophethood," 312–316, 325.)

[Comment: The August 1832 article is the earliest known recorded use, but it’s highly unlikely that Orson Hyde or Samuel Smith coined the term on their own. More likely, they heard it from Joseph or Oliver or both.]

[32] JSP-Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses," Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City), 13 Dec. 1881, (4): Emma Smith Bidamon, Nauvoo, IL, to Mrs. Pilgrim, 27 Mar. 1870, in John Clark, “Translation of Nephite Records,” Return, 15 July 1895, 2; see also David Whitmer, Interview, Chicago Inter-Ocean, 17 Oct. 1886, quoted in “David Whitmer Reviewed,” Saints' Herald, 13 Nov. 1886, 707.

[33] JSP-Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald, 1 Oct. 1870.

[34] JSP-Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” 454. Though the original manuscript contains some spelling corrections, there are also many misspelled words throughout the manuscript.

[35] JSP-Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses," Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City), 13 Dec. 1881, [4].

[36] JSP-“The Early Mormons,” Broome Republican (Binghamton, NY), 28 July 1880, [1].

[37] JSP-“Gold Bible, No. 6,” Reflector (Palmyra, NY), 19 Mar. 1831, 126, italics in original; see also Charles Anthon, New York City, NY, to Thomas Winthrop Coit, New Rochelle, NY, 3 Apr. 1841, in Clark, Gleanings by the Way, 233.

[38] JSP-MacKay and Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light, 91.

[39] JSP-Emma Smith recorded that she took dictation from her husband, "hour after hour with nothing between us.” David Whitmer, who observed the translation in Fayette, New York, stated that a curtain provided privacy from visitors but that it did not separate Smith from the scribe. (Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, 289, italics added; “The Book of Mormon," Chicago Daily Tribune, 17 Dec. 1885, 3; see also Emma Smith Bidamon, Nauvoo, IL, to Mrs. Pilgrim, 27 Mar. 1870, in John Clark, “Translation of Nephite Records,” Return, 15 July 1895, 2; and Briggs, “Visit to Nauvoo in 1856, 454.)

[40] JSP-Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma." Saints' Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, 290.

[41] JSP-JS History, ca. Summer 1832, [6], in JSP, H1:16.

[42] JSP-JS History, vol. A-1, 10, in JSP, H1:246 (Draft 2). https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-1839-circa-1841-draft-2/12

[43] JSP-Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844-1845, bk. 7, [9]-[11].

[44] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/91

[45] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/145

[46] JSP-JS History, vol. A-1, 10, in JSP, H1:246 (Draft 2).

[47] JSP-Revelation, July 1828, in JSP, D1:8 [D&C 3:9-10).

[48] JSP-JS History, ca. Summer 1832, [6], in JSP, H1:16. Smith's later history states that he received the plates and interpreters again a few days” after dictating the revelation in July 1828. (JS History, vol. A-1, II, in JSP, H1:252 (Draft 2).)

[49] JSP-Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, 135; see also Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844-1845, bk. 7, [8]. Lucy Mack Smith later remembered that her son was to receive the plates "again on the 22 of september," but records indicate he likely received them before that time. Lucy recalled her son having the plates in his possession when she and her husband visited Harmony in September 1828, and they had already returned to Palmyra by 11 September, when one of their children was treated by a local doctor there. (Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844-1845, bk. 7, [9]; Gain C. Robinson, Account Book, microfilm copy, CHL.)

[50] JSP-Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, 135–136, 138.

[51] JSP-As published, the Book of Mormon begins with the books of 1 Nephi through the Words of Mormon and then proceeds from the book of Mosiah through the end of the volume. But it is clear that 1 Nephi was not translated first because part of 1 Nephi is in the handwriting of John Whitmer, who could not have served as scribe until late May or June 1829.

[52] JSP-Oliver Cowdery, Norton, OH, to William W. Phelps, 7 Sept. 1834, Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, 1:14: Agreement with Isaac Hale. 6 Apr. 1829, in JSP, D1:28–34; JS History, vol. A-I, 13, in JSP, H1:276 (Draft 2).

[53] JSP-Oliver Cowdery, Norton, OH, to William W. Phelps, 7 Sept. 1834, Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, 1:14, italics in original.

[54] JSP-JS History, vol. A-1, 15, 16, in JSP, H1:284, 286 (Draft 2).

[55] JSP-Revelation, Apr. 1829-B, in JSP, DI:46 [D&C 8:11].

[56] JSP-Revelation, Apr. 1829-D, in JSP, D1:49, 50 [D&C 9:1, 7–8).

[57] JSP-Oliver Cowdery, Norton, OH, to William W. Phelps, 7 Sept. 1834, Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, 1:15; JS History, vol. A-1, 17-18, in JSP, H1:292–296 (Draft 2).

[58] JSP-Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844-1845, bk, 8, [8].

[59] JSP-“Mormonism," Kansas City (MO) Daily Journal, 5 June 1881, [1]; JS History, ca. June-Oct. 1839, [3], in JSP, H1:306 (Draft 1); Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844-1845, bk. 8, [8], [10]; James H. Hart, "About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City), 25 Mar, 1884, [2].

[60] JSP-James H. Hart, “About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City), 25 Mar. 1884, [2].

[61] JSP-JS History, ca. June-Oct. 1839, [4], in JSP, H1:312 (Draft 1).

[62] JSP-JS History, vol. A-1, 22, in JSP, H1:308 (Draft 2); James H. Hart, “About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City), 25 Mar. 1884, [2].

[63] JSP-John C. Whitmer, Statement, in [Andrew Jenson], “The Eight Witnesses," Historical Record, Oct. 1888, 621. [See https://archive.org/details/historicalrecord01jens/page/620/mode/2up.]

[64] JSP-Joseph F. Smith, New York City, NY, to John Taylor et al., [Salt Lake City, Utah Territory), 17 Sept. 1878. draft, Joseph F. Smith, Papers, CHL; Stevenson, Diary, 23 Dec. 1877; 9 Feb. 1886; 2 Jan. 1887. [See http://jared.pratt-family.org/report-of-elders-orson-pratt-and-joseph-f-smith.html.]

[65] JSP-John C. Whitmer, Statement, in [Andrew Jenson], “The Eight Witnesses," Historical Record, Oct. 1888, 621; Joseph F. Smith, New York City, NY, to John Taylor et al., [Salt Lake City, Utah Territory] 17 Joseph F. Smith, Papers, CHL; Stevenson, Diary, 23 Dec. 1877; 9 Feb. 1886; 2 Jan. 1887.

[66] JSP-Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery, Statement, is Feb. 1870, in William McLellin, Independence, MO, to "My Dear Friends.” Feb. 1870, CCLA. The last part of this statement is cut off because a portion of the page written is missing. Only the top half of the next line is visible. There is no evidence that a curtain was in use to separate Smith from his scribe during the later portion of the translation.

[There is circumstantial evidence both from Joseph’s emphasis that he couldn’t allow anyone to see the plates or Urim and Thummim, and from the denials by his supporters (which wouldn’t have been necessary if there had never been a curtain).]

[67] JSP-Whitmer, Address to All Believers in Christ, 12. 

[68] JSP-J. L. Traughber Jr., “Testimony of David Whitmer,” Saints' Herald, 15 Nov. 1879, 341.

[69] JSP-Whitmer, Address to All Believers in Christ, 12; see also “Mormonism,” Kansas City (MO) Daily Journal, 5 June 1881, [1]; and James H. Hart, “About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City), 25 Mar. 1884, [2]. Whitmer is the only witness who mentions a parchment and one of the few witnesses or early associates of Joseph Smith who gave a detailed description of what Smith saw in the seer stone. Martin Harris was reported to have said that "by aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet.” (Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses,” Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City], 13 Dec. 1881, [4].)

[70] JSP-Whitmer, Address to All Believers in Christ, 12.

[71] JSP-See “Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon," in JSP, R3, Part 1, p. xxvi; “Mormonism,” Kansas City (MO) Daily Journal, 5 June 1881, [1]; and Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, 158.

[72] JSP-Textual evidence indicates that the original manuscript was used to set type for the portion of the book from chapter 13 of Helaman through chapter 9 of Mormon. (Skousen, "Why Was One Sixth of the 1830 Book of Mormon Set from the Original Manuscript?," 93–103.)

[73] JSP-James H. Hart, “About the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City), 25 Mar, 1884, [2]; Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” 454.

[74] JSP-“Mormonism," Kansas City (MO) Daily Journal, 5 June 1881, [1].

[75] JSP-See p. 287 herein.

[76] JSP-Skousen, "Translating and Printing the Book of Mormon," 91. The first two instances were spelled "Amelechiah”, and Cowdery corrected the next two instances to read “Amalickiah"; thereafter, the spelling varied.

[77] JSP-Skousen, "Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations in the Book of Mormon," 377-378.

[78] JSP-Cowdery relayed to a gathering of Latter-day Saints in 1848 his role in the Book of Mormon. “I wrote with my own pen the intire book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the prophet.” (Miller, Journal, 21 Oct. 1848.)

[79] JSP-P. Wilhelm Poulson, “Interview with David Whitmer,” Deseret Evening News (Salt Lake City), 16 Aug. 1878, [2].