Review of Royal Skousen on Book of Mormon Witnesses: a Comprehensive Analysis

This article is intended for readers interested in detailed analysis of scholarly work on the Book of Mormon witnesses.

Review of Royal Skousen’s Part Seven: The Early Transmissions of the Text, from Volume Three: The History of the Text, published by The Foundation for Ancient American Research and Mormon Studies and Brigham Young University Studies, Provo, Utah, 2024 (723 pages)

This impressive and welcome addition to Royal Skousen’s Critical Text of the Book of Mormon project focuses on the early transmission of the text from Joseph Smith through publication.

I’ve been eager for this important reference in which Skousen provides exacting and useful detail on the transmission of the text, including changes in the text that Joseph and Oliver made in the 1837 and 1840 editions of the Book of Mormon. The 3,168 textual changes between the 1830 and 1837 editions are itemized and classified in a highly useful and informative presentation.

Much of Part Seven is technical and detailed, which is exactly what many of us appreciate most about Skousen’s work. We can rely on his expertise and diligence for these sections of the book. For example, the detailed exposition of the changes in the 1837 edition supports Skousen’s conclusions that (i) the editing of the 1837 edition standardized the language of the text instead of making it grammatically correct, and (ii) although obvious errors were corrected, unpredictable errors that would have required looking at the original manuscript (OM) were not corrected. This is exemplary scholarly work.

The book is organized into several useful preliminary chapters, a chapter on The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon (pp 41-131), Copying the Manuscript (pp 133-171), Changes in Copying the Original Manuscript (pp 173-318), Typesetter’s Changes in Copying the Manuscripts ([[ 319-424), and then three sections on the 1830, 1837, and 1840 editions of the text. 

Problems with the Witnesses chapter

While the bulk of Part Seven is comprehensive, detailed, and reliable, there are glaring problems with the chapter on The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Because Skousen’s book is likely to be cited and quoted as a definitive source on the translation, this review will focus on that chapter.

Skousen’s work here is a serious problem because the takeaway message from Part Seven for many readers will be this declaration from that chapter on page 62:

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. (emphasis added)

Whether Skousen’s claims are supported by the evidence is up to each reader, but in my view, despite the 90 pages in this chapter, his treatment: 

(i) omits relevant, credible sources that contradict Skousen’s theories,

(ii) accepts uncritically sources that confirm Skousen’s theories, and

(iii) applies inconsistent standards to the sources using outcome-determined reasoning.

Skousen even truncates the references he does quote to omit portions that contradict his theories.

In sum, this chapter is not up to the standards of the rest of Skousen’s work.

Skousen’s manipulation of the historical record is consistent with the approach taken by leading LDS scholars generally. Skousen relied on three main sources:

(i)             John W. Welch’s Opening the Heavens (OTH), which also omits some important sources,

(ii)            Dan Vogel’s groundbreaking Early Mormon Documents series (EMD) which although groundbreaking years ago is incomplete and has been superseded by resources readily available on the Internet, such as the Church History Library’s online content, and

(iii)           Lyndon W. Cook’s David Whitmer Interviews (DWI), which is an essential source but also suffers from transcription errors and lack of context.

While it may be understandable that Skousen relied on these reference materials in the past instead of looking at the original sources (many of which are now available online), that is no longer a legitimate excuse. He could and should have corrected the errors and omissions in these references instead of perpetuating them.

This selective approach to history is similar to the approach taken by the scholars who composed the Gospel Topics Essay (“GTE”) on Book of Mormon Translation, which doesn’t even quote what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said about the translation. At least Skousen offers some of what they said, although he dismisses it as “intentionally misleading.” (Note: The scholars who wrote Saints, Vol 1, likewise manipulated the historical record by omitting these statements, along with others that Skousen omitted, but if it is consistency with the GTE and Saints that Skousen sought to offer, he should have made that explicit.)

Unfortunately, this chapter on the witnesses is so unreliable that it undermines the credibility and thus the usefulness of the rest of Skousen’s work, in this volume and elsewhere. We are left to wonder whether—and where—Skousen has manipulated evidence in other aspects of his work.

It is probably too much to ask, but a second edition that corrects these oversights and deliberate omissions would rehabilitate the reliability of Skousen’s work in Part Seven.

The FAITH model of analysis

In this article, I will discuss the Witnesses chapter by applying the FAITH model of analysis. FAITH is an acronym for Facts, Assumptions, Inferences, Theories, and Hypotheses. It may seem axiomatic that we must start with facts. To quote John Adams (and early LDS author Benjamin Winchester), “facts are stubborn things.” Everyone, regardless of their conclusions, biases, and beliefs, should be able to agree with the facts. People reach different conclusions about those facts because of their different assumptions, inferences, and theories, but the facts themselves should be incontrovertible.

For example, everyone should agree about the existence of a particular document, which is an observable, objective fact. The contents of the document are also facts.

What is not a fact is the authenticity of the document and the reliability, accuracy and credibility of any claims made in it. Readers (and historians) make assumptions and inferences about these indicia of trustworthiness, drawing on extrinsic evidence in the light of their own biases, experiences, expertise, and overall worldviews.

Distinguishing between facts and the multiplicity of assumptions, inferences and theories can be challenging, but it is essential for everyone to understand how and why we reach multiple working hypotheses.

Royal Skousen’s Part Seven is an ideal candidate for applying the FAITH model.

Summary of problems.

There are four categories of major problems with Part Seven’s Witnesses chapter.

(i)             Omission of relevant original sources, especially those that contradict Skousen’s theories

(ii)            Inconsistent application of Skousen’s own standard of evidence

(iii)           Failure to distinguish facts from assumptions, inferences and theories

(iv)           Failure to consider alternative interpretations

The rest of this paper offers details, including citations and links, about each category.

The paper also includes three Appendices.

Appendix A is a brief discussion of the 1829 Jonathan Hadley “Gold Bible” article that Skousen did not address, but which has been recently promoted as the earliest account of the Book of Mormon’s production.

Appendix B presents the full content of the 1834 article “Mormonism” that this review refers to at several points, but which Skousen omits even though it provides essential context for many of the sources he promotes.

Appendix C discusses Skousen’s explanation of the language in the Book of Mormon, assessing aspects of his Foreword to Part Seven and his chapter “On the Importance of the Original Manuscript.” There I suggest that the work of Skousen and Stanford Carmack would be enhanced by expanding their focus to sources known to be available to Joseph Smith prior to his translation of the plates. The examples discussed in the postscript also indicate that Joseph himself was fully capable of producing the text as a translation in his own language.

The FAITH model applied to the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon

As observed above, the takeaway message of Part Seven for many readers will be this sentence from page 62 in the chapter titled “The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.”

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. (emphasis added)

To assess this claim, we will examine the sources Skousen quoted and cited. We recognize that Skousen necessarily summarizes the historical record. This would not be a problem except that:

(i)             he makes claims that contradict the historical record, which is not apparent to readers because he omits sources that contradict his theories, and

(ii)            he manipulates the historical record to support his theories by inconsistently applying his own standards of reliability.

Types of Witnesses.

Skousen opens the chapter on page 41 by identifying two types of witnesses:

(i)             those who saw, felt or hefted the plates, including the Three and Eight Witnesses, Mary Whitmer, and six individuals who felt or hefted the plats; and

(ii)            those who “viewed the translation process, witnesses who actually observed Joseph Smith dictating the text of the Book of Mormon. We have at least eight individuals who qualify as firsthand witnesses of the translation process.”

Skousen inexplicably excludes statements by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery from group (ii), relegating them to a separate group of “generic accounts” that he characterizes as misleading.

We will apply the FAITH model to each group in turn.

Skousen sets out his standard of evidence on page 42.

In selecting witnesses and their statements, we hunt for those accounts that are firsthand, preferably in the witness’s own hand or otherwise based on fairly recent interviews of the witness. As with all accounts of historical events, we will find that they tend to change over time, which means that the earliest accounts are the most reliable ones. Most importantly, we find that the most reliable accounts are supported by more than one witness and that they end up being quite consistent. (emphasis added)

Skousen’s assessment of the witnesses does not follow his own standards. In the case of David Whitmer, for example, Skousen privileges later statements over earlier ones.

Furthermore, the last sentence ignores the investigative problem that witnesses can intentionally or unintentionally influence each other’s statements, leading to a mix of memories or even a collusive consensus version of events. This is why police interrogate people individually and why judges don’t allow witnesses to be present in the courtroom when other witnesses are testifying.[1]

In fact, although Skousen gives us a specific example of this coordination occurring with the Book of Mormon witnesses (the walls of Jerusalem anecdote), he seems oblivious of this common problem when describing the testimony of the witnesses about what they claimed to be the translation.

As noted above, Skousen provides a list of “the more comprehensive sources for the witness statements” (p. 42):

-          Lyndon W. Cook’s David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness, published by Granding Book Company, Orem, Utah, 1991

-          Dan Vogel’s Early Mormon Documents, published in five volumes by Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah: volume 1 (1996), volume 2 (1998), volume 2 (2000), volume 4 (2017), and volume 5 (2003).

-          “Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” pages 126-227 in John W. Welch’s second edition of his Opening the Heavens (published by BYU Studies, Provo, Utah, 2017) (hereinafter “OTH”)

To the extent Skousen limited his research to these three sources, many of the errors and omissions in this chapter are understandable. Cook’s book is generally reliable but contains some well-known transcription errors. Vogel’s books were ground-breaking at the time, but in some cases have been superseded by new findings. Welch’s book is a useful resource but is tainted by his editorial agenda which led him to omit references that contradict his own theories about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. We will offer examples of each of these problems as they surface in Skousen’s analysis.

Witnesses of the golden plates (pp 42-47)

Skousen identifies three groups in this section: (i) the three witnesses, (ii) the eight witnesses, and (iii) Mary Whitmer. He acknowledges that Joseph Smith belongs in the first two groups.

The first thing to notice is the omission of Josiah Stowell’s testimony that he observed a corner of the plates and hefted them.

The only way to clearly and effectively address Skousen’s analysis of the three witnesses is by interlinear commentary on Skousen’s exact wording (indented below). My comments are bolded.

1. The three witnesses. (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris)—and in the presence of Joseph Smith—were shown the golden plates by the angel, sometime near the end of June 1829.

The formal Testimony states, “we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon.” 

The experience was visionary and none of them actually handled the plates.

This statement, written as fact, reflects the formal Testimony but ignores other statements by the witnesses. Oliver Cowdery later said he handled the plates (which the Three Witnesses did not), but Skousen never provides that statement. It is possible that Oliver was referring to a separate occasion, presumably when he attempted to translate. Nor does Skousen mention these statements from Martin Harris that he handled the plates, published in OTH: (i) 1831 – He [Martin] told all about the gold plates, Angels, Spirits, and Jo Smith.—He had seen and handled them all, by the power of God! OTH #136, p. 176. (ii) 1859 – At one time, Martin said “as many of the plates as Joseph Smith translated I handled with my hands, plate after plate.” OTH #46, p. 133. (iii) 1922 – “I saw the angel, I heard his voice, I saw and handled the plates upon which the Book of Mormon was written.” OTH #61, p. 139. (iv) 1923 – “with these hands,” holding out his hands, “I handled the plates containing the record of the Book of Mormon.” OTH #62, p. 139.  

Instead, the angel showed them the plates and turned the leaves over so they could see them. When the angel appeared there also appeared a table on which the golden plates lay, along with other Book of Mormon artifacts, including the original plates of brass, the sword of Laban, the Liahona, and the interpreters that came with the golden plates.

None of this is found in the formal Testimony. The sentence is based on something David Whitmer reportedly said to Edward Stevenson in 1877 (see below). D&C 17:1 promises the witnesses “a view of the plates, and also the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim an Thummim… and the miraculous directors,” yet their Testimony mentions only the plates. The original version of this revelation is not extant. The revelation does not appear in the 1833 Book of Commandments. The earliest known version is the one printed in the 1835 D&C. The phrase “and also” may suggest that the witnesses would see the plates on one occasion, and then see the other objects separately. Furthermore, none of the witnesses reported seeing a seer stone as part of this experience, which should have been critical if it was the actual means of translation. 

The voice of the Lord told the three witnesses that the translation was correct and that they should testify of what they had seen.

The formal Testimony says “the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it,” the pronoun “it” presumably referring to the experience of seeing the angel and the plates while hearing the voice of God. Clearly the Testimony does not mention any objects other than the plates.

David and Martin consistently referred to their experience as spiritual (as being seen with their “spiritual eyes”).

And yet, as we just saw, both Martin and Oliver said they handled the plates.

This witnessing occurred twice, first to Oliver and David along with Joseph; and then soon thereafter to Martin, along with Joseph once more.

This is an example of witnesses coordinating their testimony because contrary to the plain implication of the Testimony, the three did not share the same experience. Certainly, Martin left no record of having seen a table covered with artifacts. 

Their account of this experience was published as “The Testimony of Three Witnesses” in the first (1830) edition of the Book of Mormon; in the earliest editions it was placed at the end of the Book of Mormon, but with later editions at the beginning.

2. The eight witnesses (Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Junior, John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith Senior, Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith) were shown the plates by Joseph Smith, also near the end of June 1829. Each witness was allowed to hold and examine the plates.

This may be another example of witnesses coordinating their testimony because contrary to the plain implication of the Testimony, the eight may not have seen the plates simultaneously. P Wilhelm Poulson wrote a letter about an interview he did with John Whitmer in April 1878. Poulson asked, “Were you all eight witnesses present at the same time?” Whitmer: “No. At that time Joseph showed the plates to us, we were four persons, present in the room, and at another time he showed them to four persons more.”[2] Their joint Testimony does not say they individually handled the plates: “as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon.”

Their witness was purely physical in nature, without any visionary or spiritual aspect.

Accurate according to their Testimony and separate statements.

3. Mary Whitmer (the mother of the five witnesses from the Whitmer family) was shown the plates by the angel sometime in the early part of June 1829.

Mary did not describe the personage as an angel. Based on her description, David Whitmer inferred that it was the same messenger whom he met on the road from Harmony to Fayette. David reported to Edward Stevenson that Joseph Smith identified the personage as a “messenger” who “was one of the Nephites & that he had the plates.”[3] Separately, Stevenson reported that David said Joseph said “their visitor was one of the three Nephites to whom the Savior gave the promise of life on earth until He should come in power. After arriving home, David again saw this personage, and mother Whitmer… is said to have seen not only this Nephite…” Skousen omitted this account from his book, however. 

She was the first witness of the golden plates.

Skousen presumably means other than Joseph Smith. Obviously we cannot know this. At most we can say she was the first witness whose statement is known. We can also infer that when Oliver Cowdery said he handled the plates, he was referring to his attempt to translate in Harmony, which preceded Mary’s experience in Fayette.

Her experience was a physical one, unlike the spiritual one of the three witnesses, but also different from the eight witnesses’ experience: namely, the angel turned over the leaves of the plates so she could view them, but Mary did not handle the plates; and Joseph Smith was not present.

This is a reasonable inference from the available facts, but all we know about Mary’s experience is what others said.

Mary never wrote down her experience, as far as we know, but she told it to her children; we have three accounts of her experience, one from David Whitmer, another from John C. Whitmer (the son of Jacob Whitmer), and a third from the extended family of Christian Whitmer.

The paucity of reliable information about Mary’s experience makes this almost a recreational belief, but we can examine the sources we do have.

On page 43 Skousen republishes a 2014 article he published in the Interpreter, which occupies nearly four full pages (43-47) and relates three hearsay accounts related by Mary’s descendants. But nowhere does he include Stevenson’s account, quoted above, in which David explicitly explains that Joseph identified the messenger. We’ll look at the three accounts.

1. The first account Skousen provides is an excerpt from David Whitmer’s 1878 interview with Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, published 16 November 1878 in the Deseret News. David explained that he picked up Joseph and Oliver from Harmony and was taking them to his father’s home in Fayette when they met a “nice-looking old man” on the side of the road. David offered him a ride, but the man said “No, I am going to Cumorah.” David then said, “This name was something new to me, I did not know what Cumorah meant.” He described the man as “about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches tall and heavy set” with white hair and a long white beard, and then said “It was the messenger who had the plates, who had taken them from Joseph just prior to our starting from Harmony.” David said his mother “was met out near the yard by the same old man (judging by her description of him)… Thereupon he showed her the plates.”

But inexplicably, Skousen omitted an earlier account that David gave of this encounter with the messenger. In December 1877, Edward Stevenson interviewed David and, at the request of Zina Young, asked David about the encounter with the messenger. (Zina and her family had been converted by David Whitmer and Hyrum Smith when they were missionary companions in 1832, which presumably is when she first heard the account.)

Stevenson promptly recorded his interview in his journal, including this excerpt.

"I wish to mention an Item of conversation with David Whitmer in regard to Seeing one of the Nephites, Zina Young, Desired me to ask about it. David Said, Oliver, & The Prophet, & I were riding in a wagon, & an aged man about 5 feet 10, heavey Set & on his back, an old fashioned Armey knapsack Straped over his Shoulders & Something Square in it, & he walked alongside of the Wagon & Wiped the Sweat off his face, Smileing very Pleasant David asked him to ride and he replied I am going across to the hill Cumorah. Soon after they Passed they felt Strangeley and Stoped, but could see nothing of him all around was clean and they asked the Lord about it. He Said that the Prophet Looked as White as a Sheet & Said that it was one of the Nephites & that he had the plates." (emphasis added)[4]

Ten year later Stevenson published an article about his visit with David in the Instructor, including this important detail that Skousen should have included in this section.

David relates, the Prophet looked very white but with a heavenly appearance and said their visitor was one of the three Nephites to whom the Savior gave the promise of life on earth until He should come in power. After arriving home, David again saw this personage, and mother Whitmer, who was very kind to Joseph Smith, is said to have seen not only this Nephite, but to have also been shown by him the sealed and unsealed parts of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.[5] 

The Three Nephites were promised that they “shall never taste of death” 3 Nephi 28:7. The scripture doesn’t say what age they would be when they were changed to enjoy perpetual mortality, but the other nine disciples were promised that “after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall come unto me in my kingdom.” v. 3. David’s description of the messenger is compatible with his appearing to be around 72 years old. (Compare 3 Ne. 28:3)

One would think this account would be dispositive about the identity of the messenger, particularly when Mary Whitmer herself corroborated David’s account (see below). But instead of informing his readers about this account and incorporating it into his theory, Skousen ignores it in favor of his extended discussion of a couple of attenuated hearsay accounts that amount to family lore.

2. The first family lore Skousen quotes is John C. Whitmer’s 1878 account, recorded by Andrew Jenson and published in 1901 in his Latter-Day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia.

I have heard my grandmother (Mary Musselman Whitmer) say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by a holy angel, whom she always called Brother Nephi. (She undoubtedly refers to Moroni, the angel who had the plates in charge.) It was at the time, she said, when the translation was going on at the house of the elder Peter Whitmer, her husband… (emphasis added)

The Moroni parenthetical raises a question that Skousen addressed after continuing the lengthy quotation.

We should note here that there is some issue about the identity of the angel. Mary Whitmer referred to him as Nephi, but John C. Whitmer identifies him as Moroni.

Skousen claims it was John C. Whitmer’s parenthetical, but people don’t speak in parentheticals. When we look at the passage, it seems obvious it was Andrew Jenson who inserted the parentheticals. John Whitmer would not have put his grandmother's name in a parenthetical. More importantly, John was likely familiar with his uncle David's earlier account identifying the messenger, which Royal hasn't shared yet. For whatever reason, Jenson simply assumed Mary was mistaken and inserted the parenthetical when he published the account.

Either way, it is obvious that Mary Whitmer did not identify the angel as Moroni. Instead, “she always called [him] Brother Nephi.” That is consistent with Joseph Smith’s identification of the messenger as one of the Three Nephites. At the time of the encounter, Mary would not have read the Book of Mormon, which was still in manuscript form and not completely translated, which makes her identification of the messenger all the more significant. Furthermore, Brigham Young explained that Joseph interacted with both Nephi and Moroni.[6]

3. The next family lore account that Skousen quotes was provided by Carl Cox, who shared a narrative attributed to Elvira Cox, who was a teenager in 1829. Elvira was the orphaned niece of Sylvester Hulet, the second husband of Anna Shott, the widow of Christian Whitmer, who died in 1835 in Missouri. Hulet married Shott in Missouri.

Carl Cox explained that a family history dated 1958 contained an account written by a grandson of Elvira, O.C. Day, who was born in 1885. Carl told Skousen that “O C Day heard the stories from his grandmother, Elvira, and from his mother, Euphrasia, in his youth, but didn’t write them down until the 1950s.” This means O C was in his 70s when he first recorded his childhood memories.

Aside from the attenuated memory and hearsay problems, the credibility of this account depends on a series of assumptions, such as that Elvira somehow had first-hand knowledge even though her uncle married Christian’s widow after Christian died in Missouri.

In O C’s version of Elvira’s account, “David Whitmer had invited Joseph and Oliver to live in his father’s home while translating.” This is false, because Joseph was commanded through the Urim and Thummim to contact David and Oliver wrote a letter to David asking him to come pick them up.[7]

The account continues by claiming that “a short, heavy-set, gray-haired man carrying a package met her and said, ‘My name is Moroni. You have become pretty tired with all the extra work you have to do…” This account, which directly contradicts what both Mary and David said, was likely influenced by the Moroni parenthetical in the 1878 account Andrew Jenson published that we discussed above, which others picked up as well.

After his extended discussion of the dubious Cox account, Skousen writes (p. 47):

We should also add here the earliest record of the angel appearing to Mary Whitmer. This is found in Edward Stevenson’s interview of David Whitmer on 22-23 December 1877 and is recorded as follows in Stevenson’s diary [Cook 13, Vogel 5:31]:

& the next Morning Davids Mother Saw the Person at the Shed and he took the Plates from A Box & Showed them to her She Said that they were fastened with Rings thus: D he turned the leaves over this was a Sattisfaction to her.

Important note: In Stevenson’s journal, this excerpt comes just a few lines after the excerpt quoted above about the messenger being one of the three Nephites.

He Said that the Prophet Looked as White as a Sheet & Said that it was one of the Nephites & that he had the plates. On arriving at home they were impressed that the Same Person was under the shed & again they were informed that it was so. They saw whare he had been. & the next Morning David’s Mother Saw the Person at the Shed…

Given that Skousen was aware of Stevenson’s interview with David Whitmer (because he quoted an excerpt from it), it is all the more puzzling that he omitted both

(i)             the part of Stevenson’s journal entry that identified the messenger and

(ii)            Stevenson’s published account of that interview.

It’s difficult to think of a reason why Skousen omitted David’s identification of the messenger other than that it contradicts Skousen’s belief that the messenger was Moroni.

A post on this topic that includes images of the relevant source material is here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2024/12/creating-narrative-with-selective.html

Readers can decide for themselves what is going on here.

_____

Witnesses who felt or hefted the covered plates

In this section (pp. 47-49), Skousen relates statements from Josiah Stowell, Lucy Mack Smith, William Smith, Katherine Smith Salisbury, Martin Hartis, and Emma Smith Bidamon. He includes a statement from Martin that he hefted the plates, but as we saw previously, he omits the statements from Martin about his handling the plates.

_____

Two different methods of translating the Book of Mormon (pp 49-79)

Skousen starts this section with a statement that led to his conclusion that what Joseph Smith said about the translation was only partially true and that what Oliver Cowdery said was deliberately misleading.

The Book of Mormon, as we have it today (the result of losing the 116 manuscript pages), was most probably all translated by means of a seer stone that Joseph Smith had. While translating the 116 pages… Joseph could have used the Nephite interpreters (that is, the spectacles) that came with the plates…. Ultimately, a more convenient method weas for him to use the seer stone, by placing it in a hat to obscure the light….

Skousen points out that “there is nothing in the original manuscript to indicate which method of translation Joseph Smith was using.”

Thus, we must rely on witness statements for information about the translation.

Next, Skousen writes that “Joseph Smith sems to have consistently refused to tell others how the translation process worked.” He quotes the minutes of the 1831 conference in which Joseph said “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things.” Yet the translation was only part of the “coming forth of the book of Mormon.”

Joseph never provided the particulars of where, exactly, the stone box was located on the hill Cumorah, nor the repository of Nephite records, nor his interactions with Moroni and Nephi. But he did explain that he translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim, and we have some accounts of how he looked through the Urim and Thummim at the engravings on the plates when he translated.

Furthermore, those present at the 1831 meeting did not apparently understand “the coming forth of the book of Mormon” to mean the translation because several of them did talk about the translation after that meeting.

Later in the chapter (p. 52) Skousen introduces his eight translation witnesses by claiming that “All eight primary witnesses of the translation independently refer to Joseph Smith using the seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon.” To say they acted “independently” is merely an assumption that they neither coordinated their statements nor were influenced by one another, an assumption contradicted by Skousen’s own analysis of the “walls of Jerusalem” example.

In the next part of the paper, we will apply the FAITH model to these witnesses to assess credibility and reliability.

Applying the FAITH model to the section on Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

The FAITH model starts with identifying all the relevant Facts, which everyone can agree upon, and then moves to an analysis of the various Assumptions, Inference, and Theories that lead to the overall Hypothesis or Worldview being advocated. By separating objective Facts from subjective Assumptions, Inferences, etc., everyone can clearly understand the thought process followed by each of the multiple working hypotheses about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

For example, the existence and content of a particular historical document are facts everyone can agree upon. Whether the contents of that document are factual is a separate question that involves assumptions and inferences, as well as evidentiary criteria such as credibility, reliability, means, motive, and opportunity.

Regarding personal accounts, when a purported witness relates an account without mentioning personal experience (or in a context when personal experience is known independently), my default assumption is that the account is hearsay.

In this section of his book, Skousen mingles facts with assumptions, inferences, etc. By applying the FAITH model of analysis, we can separate the facts and enable readers to make informed decisions for themselves.

As mentioned above, Skousen quotes the brief minutes from the 1831 meeting. Then he makes this statement:

Joseph liked to simply refer to the translation as having been done "by the gift and power of God", which doesn't really tell us anything about the actual translation procedure.

Although Skousen states this as a fact, it is not accurate to say that Joseph “simply” referred to the translation as having been done “by the gift and power of God.” To the contrary, he usually accompanied that statement with clarity about the instrument he used, as we will see in his statements.

_____

On page 50, Skousen discusses what he calls “the first method” with this heading:

The first method: Using the Nephite interpreters along with the plates

To his credit, Skousen quotes JS-H 1:62 (although he inexplicably cites Vogel and Welch instead of JS-H).

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)

Skousen dismisses this first-hand statement by saying it “does not provide much detail.” Maybe not “much” detail, but Joseph gives us the important detail that he was copying and translating individual characters “by means of the Urim and Thummim.” This is far from Skousen’s concept that he was reading words and/or complete sentences off a stone in a hat without looking at the plates.

The FAITH model recognizes the statement as at least approved by Joseph Smith (although apparently written by scribes). It is a reasonable assumption that the statement is factual, meaning Joseph Smith actually did copy characters and translate them, which is corroborated by Martin Harris taking Joseph’s translation to New York. People can make different assumptions about whether and how Joseph used the Urim and Thummim (“U&T”).

Skousen and others characterize this as the “first method” because they cannot reconcile Joseph translating individual character with the stone-in-the-hat (“SITH”) narrative, as we will see.

Next, Skousen quotes the John A. Clark statement based on what he claimed was Martin Harris’ account.

Before we discuss the Clark statement, you might wonder why Skousen did not include other statements by Joseph Smith or the accounts from Oliver Cowdery. Skousen saves those for later, on page 62, in a section he titles “Generic accounts from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery,” which we will discuss below.

The Clark statement:

“Smith concealed behind the blanket, pretended to look through his spectacles, or transparent stones, and would then write down or repeat what he saw, which, when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of the suspended blanket.”

Next Skousen quotes two accounts by Charles Anthon. The first is from Mormonism Unvailed: “being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered [sic] the characters in the book…” Anthon’s 1841 letter describes it a little differently: “having fastened the spectacles to his head, had read several pages in the golden book, and communicated their contents in writing to certain persons stationed on the outside of the curtain.”

Skousen does not comment on these references, which are all hearsay based on what Martin Harris may have told Anthon. Obviously, if Martin was behind a curtain he could not know what Joseph was doing unless Joseph explained it to him, or demonstrated it somehow.

These accounts are at least consistent. They corroborate what Joseph said about the commandment not to show the Urim and Thummim or the plates (JS-H 1:59), because otherwise there would be no need for a curtain. This curtain—this “vail”—surfaces in the title of the book Mormonism Unvailed.

Skousen then provides the Nancy Towle account from 1831, another hearsay account:

He accordingly went; and was directed by the angel to a certain spot of ground, where was deposited a 'Box, and in that box contained 'Plates,' which resembled gold; also, a pair of 'interpreters,' (as he called them,) that resembled spectacles; by looking into which, he could read a writing engraven upon the plates, though to himself, in a tongue unknown.

Here again we have Joseph looking into, or though, the pair of interpreters to read the engravings on the plates. This corroborates both Joseph’s account in JS-H 1:62 where he was translating characters “by means of the Urim and Thummim” and D&C 10:41 (“you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi).

_____

Skousen’s next section starting on page 51 is titled:

Shifting from the first method to the second one

But before going through this section, we note that Skousen inexplicably omits three important accounts of “the first method,” two related by actual scribes and one by Joseph’s mother.

1. Samuel H. Smith

Samuel H. Smith, brother of Joseph Smith, was one of the scribes Joseph used and was thus an eyewitness of the translation.[8]

In 1832, Samuel was a missionary companion with Orson Hyde. They responded to a reporter's questions, as reported in the Boston Investigator newspaper.[9] The Q&A included the translation of the Book of Mormon:

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

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

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

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

D&C 5:30 implies that Martin served as a scribe in March 1829 before Oliver arrived. Note that Samuel did not mention he was also a scribe. Perhaps he refrained out of humility, or to avoid complicating the conversation. He (and Orson Hyde) also did not mention Emma, John Whitmer and Christian Whitmer as scribes, possibly because neither of them was present when they were scribing.

Had Samuel not been a scribe, these answers might have been hearsay. As one of the scribes, for however briefly he may have served, Samuel is a first-hand witness of the translation process. People can make different assumptions and inferences about the accuracy of the newspaper account, but it corroborates what Joseph and Oliver always said.

Some may argue that Samuel was a scribe only for the lost 116 pages, but that does not fit the chronology of Joseph’s 1832 history. Joseph said that Oliver Cowdery saw the plates in a vision and explained that “now my wife had writen some for me to translate and also my Brothr Samuel H Smith but we had become reduced in property and my wives father was about to turn me out of doors.”[10] Oliver, who arrived in April 1829, was the answer to Joseph’s prayer for help.

_____

2. John Whitmer

John Whitmer, David's brother, served as a scribe in Fayette, NY, where Joseph translated the plates of Nephi (as commanded in D&C 10). 

The book Opening the Heavens includes John's statement here:

104. John Whitmer, as interviewed by Zenas H. Gurley (1879)

He had seen the plates; and it was his especial pride and joy that he had written sixty pages of the Book of Mormon. . . . 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 words remained in sight till correctly written, and mistakes of the scribe in spelling the names were corrected by the seer without diverting his gaze from the Urim and Thummim.[11]

It’s unclear why Skousen omits this account. John was a scribe in Fayette and therefore had nothing to do with the lost 116 pages. This account has Joseph and the scribe sitting at separate tables with no mention of a curtain between them. The account has John specifically seeing the plates (he was one of the Eight Witnesses) and implies he also observed the Urim and Thummim and breast-plate when Joseph was translating at the other table. But he also described the words remaining in sight, which John could not have seen, so at least that part of the sentence is hearsay. The ambiguous nature of this account supports multiple working hypotheses, but it must be included in any analysis of witness statements.

3. Lucy Mack Smith.

Lucy related her experience when she came to visit Joseph in Harmony in the fall of 1828.

when I entered his house the first thing that attracted [p. 135] 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. In the evening he gave us the following relation of what had transpired since our separation… [quoting Joseph, p. 138] “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. 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.[12]

Lucy’s account shows Joseph possessing and using the U&T after the loss of the 116 pages. The angel had taken the U&T when he lost the pages but then returned it and Joseph “commenced translating again.”[13]

In her 1844-5 history, Lucy related this event a little differently, with interlinear addition of the U&T.

I then continued <​said​> Joseph my suplications to God without cessation that his mercy might again be exercised towards me and 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[14]

These accounts from Samuel Smith, John Whitmer, and Lucy Mack Smith contradict Skousen’s conclusion, but that is no excuse for omitting them.

_____

Let’s return to Skousen’s next section that begins on page 51.

Shifting from the first method to the second one

Skousen writes:

A few witnesses clearly distinguish between the two translating instruments. According to these accounts, the Nephite interpreters were used for translating the lost 116 pages (or only in part, according to Martin Harris's account), but afterwards Joseph Smith used only the seer stone:

“A few” means Emma Smith Bidamon, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris.

Skousen provides an excerpt from Emma’s 1870 letter to Emma Pilgrim:

Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of Urim, and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color.[15]

The existence of this letter and its content are facts everyone can agree upon. Whether the contents are factual, however, is a question of assumptions and inferences that lead to different conclusions. Note the significance of Emma distinguishing between the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone, a distinction that some modern LDS scholars have sought to blur.

In terms of credibility, the first thing to notice is the date: 1870, over 50 years after the translation of the Book of Mormon. The lateness of the account is not dispositive; people can recall details their entire lives. But in this letter, Emma says she could give a better answer if she could look at the Times and Seasons, but someone had taken her copies, which suggests her memory was vague. She gives no details about where she scribed or what she scribed, and does not express personal knowledge, such as “I saw” or even “Joseph told me.” Instead, it comes across as hearsay which anyone could have related.

The letter seems to contradict Emma’s 1879 “Last Testimony” in which she claimed Joseph used the stone-in-a-hat to translate the portion she wrote, presumably in Harmony during the translation of the 116 pages (because she wrote “day after day” and doesn’t mention other people being present). But in the Pilgrim letter, she claims Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate those pages and used the seer stone after those pages were lost (which was David Whitmer’s belief). If her statements are both correct, she could not have written any part of the 116 pages, but could only have been a scribe for the existing Book of Mosiah and/or a portion of the plates of Nephi in Fayette. (In my view, Emma was a scribe during all three portions of the translation, but she adopted the SITH narrative for apologetic purposes to rebut the then-prevailing Spalding theory.)

The Spalding theory held that Joseph was reading a pre-existing manuscript from behind a curtain. The SITH narrative serves as an apologetic refutation of the Spalding theory. William McLellin claimed Joseph never had any Urim and Thummim. And in this time frame, William McLellin had been visiting all the Reorganized members, pushing the stone in the hat theory. In her letter, Emma asked Pilgrim about McLellan in an apparently favorable context.

please write to me again and let me know how you will get along and how Mr. Hedrich and Mr. McLelland manages with regard to the Church, do they have any regular Church organisation, or not, and what their moral and religious influence is among the people there.

Juxtaposed to these credibility problems with the Pilgrim letter is the more contemporaneous, specific, and first-hand account from Joseph’s mother that we discussed above. With respect to the U&T, Lucy Mack Smith’s account is much earlier and more specific than the Pilgrim letter.

Next Skousen quotes an excerpt from the 1877 David Whitmer interview recorded by Edward Stevenson. “David said that the Prophet translated first by the Urim & thumim [sic] & afterwards by A Seer Stone.”

This statement corroborates Emma Smith’s distinction between the U&T and the seer stone, but David is vague about (i) when and where Joseph used either instrument and (ii) what he translated. Furthermore, the statement is compound hearsay because Edward was reporting a summary of what David said and David was never present in Harmony for the translation and thus had no personal knowledge of how Joseph translated there. In this account David does not share the basis for his belief.

The third statement in this section is from Martin Harris, recorded by Edward Stevenson. Stevenson claimed Martin related the account on 4 September 1870 during the train ride to Utah from Ohio. Martin died in 1875 after giving many interviews, but apparently did not relate this account to anyone else. Stevenson first published the account on 30 November 1881.

He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone. [Martin then described the Urim and Thummim.]

This statement is the source of the “convenience” narrative. Martin’s other accounts, discussed above, describe a blanket or screen between him and Joseph. The Stevenson account does not explain how Martin would know what instrument Joseph was using. Martin’s description of the Urim and Thummim likely was based on his experience as one of the Three Witnesses.

Skousen omitted another account that would fall in this category.

Zenas Gurley, Jr., a member of the Reorganized Church, interviewed David Whitmer and others of Joseph’s associates. He published an account of his visit with David and discussed the Urim and Thummim at some length, pointing out that:

Had the Book of Mormon been translated from ‘behind a blanket,’ as its opponents assert, it would even then be in harmony with that kind of practice among the high priests, as seen from the above quotation [from Dr. Robinson’s Bible Encyclopedia].

Then Gurley wrote,

That Joseph had another stone called seers' stone, and ‘peep stone,’ is quite certain. This stone was frequently exhibited to different ones and helped to assuage their awful curiosity; but the Urim and Thummim never, unless possibly to Oliver Cowdery.

[Gurley then quotes Oliver Cowdery’s account which is now the note at the end of JS-H.]

This agrees with Joseph Smith’s account of the translation; and though Joseph lost the Urim and Thummim through transgression, the latter part of June (probably), 1828, yet they were returned to him in July of the same year; by which, according to his statement above, he accomplished by them what was required at his hand…[16]

Gurley thus offers an explanation of the translation that fits the evidence; i.e., that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim (interpreters) that came with the plates, but he also had a seer stone that he showed the early Saints to “assuage their awful curiosity.” What Gurley meant by that is open to assumptions and inferences. One possibility is that Joseph, having been commanded not to show the Urim and Thummim, used the stone to explain how the translation worked by demonstrating it. This would explain him putting the stone in a hat and dictating words as related by the witnesses discussed below. Another possibility is that Joseph simply used the stone as a sort of prop, even though he did not need it to receive revelations.

At any rate, Skousen should have included Gurley’s account in this section for his readers to assess.

_____

The next section, starting on page 52, is titled

The second method: Placing the seer stone in a hat in order to obscure the light

Skousen introduces this section with this statement:

All eight primary witnesses of the translation independently refer to Joseph Smith using the seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon, from the beginning in the early months of 1828 in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, to the end in June 1829 at the Peter Whitmer home in Fayette, New York; that is, from some portion of the 116 pages containing the book of Lehi to the small plates of Nephi; and from the first scribes, Emma Smith, Reuben Hale, and Martin Harris, to the final scribes, Oliver Cowdery and two Whitmers, John and Christian. Nearly all mention obscuring the light or at least having the viewing occur in darkness; all explicitly state that the seer stone was placed in a hat. In these statements, there is some variety in how the seer stone is referred to: once as "the Urim and Thummim" (Joseph Knight), once as "the director" (Elizabeth Anne Whitmer), three times as simply "the stone" (Emma Smith, Elizabeth McKune, and Joseph McKune), and three times as "the seer stone" (Michael Morse, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris). By implication, there was no curtain or blanket separating Joseph Smith and his scribe. Nor did Joseph have any books, manuscripts, or notes that he was consulting.

There is a lot to unpack here.

When Skousen refers to “all eight primary witnesses of the translation,” he specifically omits Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Samuel Smith, and John Whitmer, none of whom stated, suggested or implied any use of the seer stone in the hat. In other words, Skousen identifies the SITH witnesses as the “primary witnesses.”

Skousen says these witnesses “independently” refer to SITH. Yet as we have seen, Skousen also points out that the “walls of Jerusalem” anecdote, which presumably originated with Emma Smith, was repeated by David Whitmer instead of being an “independent” account. What Skousen describes as “some variety” is not necessarily evidence of independence, but can also be seen as confusion from multiple hearsay accounts.

Next we will assess what Skousen calls the eight “primary witnesses.” Note that he does not consider Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Samuel Smith, John Whitmer, or Lucy Mack Smith as “primary witnesses,” apparently because they do not support the SITH narrative.

1. Joseph Knight Senior wrote this reminiscence between 1835 and 1847:

Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite so we see it was marvelous thus was the hol [whole] translated.

Nothing in this account indicates first-hand observation or the source of Knight’s knowledge. Skousen simply assumes Knight was an actual witness. Because he thinks it would be impractical for Joseph to put large spectacles in a hat, Skousen writes, “I have assumed that here in his description of the translation process, Joseph Knight uses the term ‘urim and thummim’ to mean the seer stone.”

Obviously, it is not difficult to put eyeglasses into a hat. It is a question of relative size. Skousen’s assumption here is neither logical nor likely.

When a purported witness relates an account without mentioning personal experience, my default assumption is that the account is hearsay. For example, before Knight wrote this statement, the “Mormonism” article that described stone-in-the-hat narrative had been published.[17] 

In this case, Skousen uses compound assumptions to reconcile obvious problems with Knight’s statement to make it fit the SITH narrative. 

2. Elizabeth Anne Whitmer Cowdery’s account, which purports to be “a certificate in her own hand,” exists only as a copy by William E. McLellin in a letter dated 15 February 1870. Elizabeth was 14 years old during the translation. She later married Oliver Cowdery.

Skousen gives this excerpt from the McLellin letter:

I staid in Richmond two days and nights. I had a great deal of talk with widow Cowdry, and her amiable daughter. She is married to a Dr Johnson, but has no children. She gave me a certificate, And this is the copy. “Richmond, Ray Co., Mo. Feb 15, 1870———I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at my Father’s house. And 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.

At first glance, this appears to be a first-person account of direct observation. But the context raises serious questions. Even assuming that a 14-year-old farm girl would plausibly sit for hours listening to Joseph dictate the Book of Mormon, Elizabeth doesn’t relate what Joseph dictated on these occasions. Was he quoting Isaiah? Dictating Nephi’s original words? We don’t know. 

In his letter, McLellin writes he “visited David Whitmer again in Richmond…” This is important context. Elizabeth’s purported statement was written 42 years after the fact, in the presence of her brother David, who was the primary promoter of SITH. This raises an inference that Elizabeth was supporting her brother’s accounts, or perhaps her statement was coached. It was hardly an “independent” statement.

Furthermore, McLellin copied her statement: the original is not extant. We can’t know whether he copied it accurately or adjusted it to fit his own agenda, which he expressed elsewhere in his letter. Before getting to Elizabeth’s account, McLellin wrote, “I dont think there would be much object of his [David’s] acting much without he can obtain the Interpreters.”

After relating Elizabeth’s account, McLellin wrote:

“I am now looking for some man to rise with the Interpreters or Directors—those ancient eyes by which hidden treasures can and will come to light. (Joseph in his history and all L.D.S.ism call those interpreters the Urim & Thummim), but I prefer calling it by its proper name—it never was Urim nor Thummim but LDSism nicknamed almost every holy thing which it touched I have less and less patience with its unholy doings, the more I see of it.

McLellin rejected what Joseph (and Oliver) said about the translation, raising an inference that he used his visit to David and Elizabeth to confirm his biases.

Skousen notes that “In the Book of Mormon, the interpreters are sometimes referred to as directors (Alma 37:21, 24) while the singular director is used to refer to the compass that Lehi found, also called the Liahona (Mosiah 1:16; Alma 37:38, 45).”

Skousen’s analysis is complicated by D&C 3:15: “thou hast suffered the counsel of thy director to be trampled upon from the beginning.” Does “director” here mean the Lord (a unique name) or the Urim and Thummim? Also, D&C 17:1 uses the plural: “the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea.”

McLellin referred to “interpreters or directors,” plural, while Elizabeth’s statement refers to “the director.” Perhaps the latter was a copy error by McLellin, but it could also be a discrepancy between their respective beliefs (i.e., spectacles, plural, and seer stone, singular). In either case, Joseph had been commanded not to show the Urim and Thummim (spectacles) to anyone, so presumably Elizabeth did not see the Urim and Thummim. But if Elizabeth was referring to the spectacles, her account is corroborated by the Knight account that Skousen disputed.

One view could be that McLellin reached his conclusion because of what Elizabeth and David said. On the other hand, McLellin had his falling out with Joseph Smith decades earlier and spent much of his life justifying his position.

Bottom line: Elizabeth’s account, which appears credible at first glance, has serious credibility problems when read in context.

3. Emma Smith Bidamon’s account, recorded by her son Joseph Smith III in 1879, is so problematic that even Joseph Smith III did not refer to it when he later concluded in a careful article that his father used the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates.

For more analysis, see the book By Means of the Urim and Thummim: Restoring Translation to the Restoration, by James Lucas and Jonathan Neville.[18]

4. Michael Morse, brother-in-law to Emma Smith, was interviewed in May 1879 by W.W. Blair. Blair’s letter describing the interview was published in the June 15, 1879, issue of The Saints’ Herald.

Skousen quotes an excerpt from the letter in which Blair reported his version of Morse’s recollections from 50 years earlier. Blair was a missionary for the Reorganized Church who wrote letters to local newspapers as part of his work and visited local congregations, including the one at Amboy. He was also a co-editor of The Saints’ Advocate with Zenas Gurley.

Below is the excerpt Skousen quotes:

He further states that when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon, he, (Morse), had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating, word after word, while the scribe-Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other, wrote it down.[19]

At first glance, this is a persuasive account because Blair writes that Morse said he went into Joseph’s “immediate presence and saw him engaged at his work of translation.” But a closer examination raises questions beyond the 50-year gap between the events and the recollection.

First, there is evidence of why Morse contacted Blair. Blair wrote the letter, dated May 22, 1879, from Sandwich, Illinois, stating that “When at Amboy a few days since, I learned from Mr. Mochel Morse…”. Sandwich is about 40 miles from Amboy, Illinois.

On April 30, 1879, the Amboy (Ill.) Journal had published an article titled “Mormon History” by Joseph Lewis and Hiel Lewis. The week before they had published affidavits in the same newspaper.

The Lewis brothers were cousins of Emma’s. They were sons of Nathaniel Lewis, a Methodist lay preacher who was opposed to Joseph’s activities. Among other things, Joseph Lewis reported that he confronted Joseph Smith about joining the local Methodist Episcopal church and got him to strike his name from the class book because he, Joseph Lewis, thought Joseph Smith’s “name would be a disgrace to the church.” 

[For more background on the various members of the extended Hale family and their neighbors, see Appendix B which shows the interdependence of their statements, their unified bias against Joseph, and the relationship to the anti-LDS book Mormonism Unvailed which first widely promoted the SITH narrative. That most of the Hale family accounts were originally solicited by Philastus Hurlbut is critical historical context which Skousen fails to disclose. This controversial provenance should be factored into any evaluation of the credibility of these hostile sources.]

In their affidavits and article the Lewis brothers related accounts of Joseph Smith engaging in “peeping” using a “peep stone” to find local hidden treasures and tied this to his translation of the Book of Mormon. On June 4 and June 11 Hiel and Joseph Lewis published additional articles in the paper. Hiel Lewis claimed Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the same enchanting spirit that directed him to make dog sacrifices.

Because the first two of these highly critical articles appeared in the local Amboy newspaper just a few weeks before Blair met with Morse in Amboy, it is reasonable to assume that Morse was influenced by the articles. It is likely that these articles prompted Morse to contact Blair, although Blair does not explain how he came to meet Morse.

Skousen notes Morse was “never a Mormon.” Blair pointed out that “Mr. Morse is not, and has never been a believer in the prophetic mission of Joseph,” and that Morse “states that the sons of Mr. Hale seemed opposed to and at enmity with Joseph from the first, and took occasions to annoy and vex him, and that at one of these times, when out fishing, Joseph threw off his coat and proposed to defend himself.”

Morse married Emma’s sister so these “sons of Mr. Hale” were his brothers-in-law, and from his description, Morse shared their enmity toward Joseph. Morse described Joseph as “an awkward, unlearned youth.” When asked whether Joseph could have composed the text, “Mr. Morse replied with a decided emphasis, No. He said he then was not at all learned, yet was confident he had more learning than Joseph then had.”

In the statement, Morse refers to three scribes: Emma, John Whitmer, and O. Cowdery. Whitmer was never a scribe in Harmony. This suggests Morse was repeating information that he heard or read somewhere, or mingling others’ accounts with his own, instead of relating his personal knowledge. Blair says Morse related “Joseph's placing the Seer Stone,” a term that Morse may have borrowed or Blair supplied, because Morse did not believe Joseph had prophetic powers.

On the other hand, Blair’s letter is the first known source to describe Joseph putting a stone into the “crown” of the hat (a term David Whitmer adopted later that year). It is also the only known source to describe Joseph “resting his elbows upon his knees.” Those specific details suggest credibility.  

The Morse interview raises the question of why Joseph was commanded not to show the plates or the Urim and Thummim. If just anyone could repeatedly walk in on the translation—particularly antagonistic skeptics—with no problem, then Moroni had no reason to warn Joseph against showing the U&T. He wasn’t using it anyway.

Like the other late SITH accounts, the Morse account could be either a mishmash of derivative hearsay or an authentic personal experience tainted by errors.

But Blair himself apparently did not find Morse convincing. As Associate Editor of The Saints’ Herald in 1888, he responded to a letter addressed to him that asked whether David Whitmer’s account was correct. There he rejected David’s SITH narrative in favor of the plates-and-interpreters narrative from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.[20]

5. David Whitmer. David provided the most numerous accounts of SITH. Lyndon Cook’s book David Whitmer Interviews contains over 250 pages of transcripts of his various accounts. The bottom line: David’s first accounts of the translation described the Urim and Thummim, but he later began to promote the SITH narrative instead.

Skousen begins his discussion of Whitmer with the Traughber interview, published in The Saints’ Herald on 15 November 1879. It is an interesting choice because this interview is the first known account of David Whitmer relating the SITH narrative. It includes the “crown” description from the letter that Blair published in The Saints’ Herald a few months earlier in May. The article even quotes from the Blair letter.

The Traughber article is mainly a response to an earlier article (April 15, 1879) in The Saints’ Herald in which T.W. Smith said he heard David Whitmer say

that he saw Joseph translate, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, time and again… as the translation was being read by the aid of the Urim and Thummim of the characters on the plates by Joseph Smith, which work of translation and transcription he frequently saw.[21]

Smith’s article, “Origin of the Mormon Bible,” was largely an apologetic defense against the Spalding theory. Smith concluded his article by writing “I would suggest that if the Book of Mormon is Solomon Spaulding’s Romance, that the novel loving public get and read it as a novel.”

Because Traughber’s article argued in favor of stone-in-the-hat theory and directly contradicted Smith’s account, Smith published a rejoinder in the 1 January 1880 edition of The Saints Herald that we will consider after we discuss the Traughber article.

In the excerpt Skousen provides, Traughber claims that

I, too, have heard Father Whitmer say that he was present many times while Joseph was translating; but I never heard him say that the translation was made by aid of Urim and Thummim; but in every case, and his testimony is always the same, he declared that Joseph first offered prayer, then took a dark colored, opaque stone, called a "seer-stone," and placed it in the crown of his hat, then put his face into the hat, and read the translation as it appeared before him. This was the daily method of procedure, as I have often heard Father Whitmer declare; and, as it is generally agreed to by parties who know the facts, that a considerable portion of the work of translation was performed in a room of his father's house, where he then resided, there can be no doubt but what Father David Whitmer is a competent witness of the manner of translating…

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a "Seer Stone," which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.

I provided Skousen’s entire excerpt above because the part he omitted, indicated by the ellipses, is highly relevant.[22] The omitted part consists of the author’s assessment of the translation debate.

Here is what Skousen omitted, starting four words before his ellipses. My comments are inserted in brackets below.

…the manner of translating. I am aware of the fact that the “Urim and Thummim” story has long been foisted upon the world as the true account of the origin of the Book of Mormon;

[Traughber refers to accounts by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, using the pejorative “foisted” akin to Skousen’s conclusion that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone]

but the times demand, and, the interest of truth demands, that the truth should be told. We need not be afraid of truth; and I greatly doubt if anybody will be ultimately benefitted by the perpetuation of a falsehood, which was invented for the purpose of gaining prestige, in the minds of the people, for ambitious leaders.

The proofs are clear and positive that the story of Urim and Thummim Translation does not date back, for its origin, further than 1833,

[This 1833 narrative has been refuted by the 1832 Boston Investigator article discussed above in connection with Samuel Smith. Yet it remains prevalent among many LDS scholars today and persists even in parts of the Joseph Smith Papers.]

or, between that date and 1835; for it is not found in any printed document of the Church of Christ up to the latter part of the year 1833, or the year 1834. The “Book of Commandments” to the Church of Christ, published in Independence, Mo., in 1833, does not contain any allusion to Urim and Thummim; though the term was inserted in some of the revelations in their reprint in the “Book of Doctrine and Covenants” in 1835.

[Among some modern LDS scholars, this narrative has been reframed as an “embarrassed” explanation; i.e., that Joseph and Oliver were embarrassed by SITH because of its connections with folk magic, so they introduced the Urim and Thummim narrative to avoid embarrassment.[23]]

Who originated the Urim and Thummim story, I do not know; but this I do know, that it is not found in the first printed book of revelations to the Church of Christ, and there is other testimony to show that it is not true. It is proper to notice what it is claimed the Urim and Thummim was. P. P. and 0. Pratt both say it was an instrument composed of two clear or transparent stones set in the two rims of a bow. It is also confounded with the “Intrepreters,” [sic] which were shaped something like a pair of ordinary spectacles, though larger.

Now let us see. David Whitmer declares, and I have shown him to be a competent witness, that Joseph Smith translated by aid of a dark stone, called a “seer stone,” which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph thrust his face.

In the Saints’ Herald of June 15th, 1879, pages 190 and 191, 1 find a letter from President W. W. Blair, in which he states some facts, learned from Mr. Michael Morse, who married a Miss Hale, “a sister to Sr. Emma.” Among other things which I have not space to notice here, but which your readers can find by following the reference I have given, President Blair says :

[quoting from the Blair letter as Skousen excerpted]

The above agrees perfectly with David Whitmer’s statements, and goes far to confirm Father Whitmer’s testimony;

[As we have seen, Morse’s testimony claimed he saw John Whitmer act as scribe, but John was never in Harmony, indicating Morse at least incorporated that element of David’s statements about the translation. The agreement between Morse and David Whitmer is as much evidence of influence and coordination as it is of any independent, accurate recollection from 50-year-old events.]

but this is not all. In the Saints’ Herald of October 1st, 1879, in an article headed “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” on first page of the Herald, third column, near the bottom of the page, Sr, Emma is represented as saying:

“In writing for your father 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 statement was made to President Joseph Smith, by his mother in February, 1879. The wife of Joseph Smith — who acted sometimes as his scribe, certainly is a competent witness, and her last testimony is entitled to respectful consideration, and she says Joseph translated by a stone placed in his hat.

[As we have seen, Joseph Smith III did not even mention his mother’s account when he assessed David Whitmer’s SITH narrative and concluded that his father used the Urim and Thummim interpreters.]

Why did not Mrs. Bidamon not say that Joseph translated by aid of Urim and Thummim?

[Traughber was apparently unaware of the Pilgrim letter in which Emma did say Joseph used the Urim and Thummim, although in that account only for the first part of the translation.]

The reason is obvious in the light of the facts, to which I have briefly alluded: because he translated with a stone, a Seer Stone; not two clear stones set in the rims of a bow. Thus we see that Mr. Morse and Mrs. Bidamon both agree that Joseph Smith used a stone and not Urim and Thummim, nor Interpreter either.

[Here Traughber confuses the facts of the existence and content of the various statements with the separate question of whether that content is factual. He assumes these statements support one another, but they just as logically demonstrate interlocking influence.]

Will those who hold the Urim and Thummim story to be correct, still continue to give the lie to David Whitmer, Michael Morse and Mrs. Emma Bidamon ? Or will they have the courage to admit that those who have held high positions have been guilty of gross fabrication ?

[This logical fallacy—the appeal to authority—falls flat, particularly in the face of the authority of Joseph and Oliver, who specifically and repeatedly affirmed the U&T narrative that Traughber is disputing.]

[The article continues with the second excerpt that Skousen provides.]

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; ; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a “Seer Stone,” which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.

In her last testimony Mrs. Emma Bidamon said to President Joseph Smith [III]:

“David Whitmer I believe to be an honest and truthful man. I think what he states may be relied on.”

[Of course, this cuts both ways. Emma, who admitted a faulty memory in her Pilgrim letter, may well have simply deferred to David Whitmer’s SITH narrative. That would explain her lack of specificity—where, when and what she wrote as Joseph translated.]

So say all who know him. And as sure as he is truthful and honest, the Book of Mormon was translated by means of a Seer Stone. And if it was not, I say distinctly that David Whitmer, the only surviving witness to the Book of Mormon, is not truthful.

[This false dilemma is another logical fallacy. It is entirely possible that David Whitmer observed Joseph put a stone in a hat and dictate words. But whether he was dictating the text of the Book of Mormon on that occasion is unknown and unknowable. Gurley’s conclusion, after interviewing David and others, that Joseph used the seer stone to “assuage the awful curiosity” of people is a rational alternative interpretation that accounts what seems to be a direct conflict between the SITH accounts and the Urim and Thummim accounts.]

J. L. Traughber, Jr

As mentioned before, Thomas Wood Smith published a response to Traughber in the January 1, 1880, Saints’ Review, published in Cook, 56-7.

Bro. Joseph: When I first read Mr. Traughber’s paper in Herald of November 15th, I thought that I would not notice his attack at all, as I supposed that I was believed by the Church to be fair and truthful in my statements of other men’s views, when I have occasion to use them, and I shall make this reply only: That unless my interview with David Whitmer in January, 1876, was only a dream, or that I failed to understand plain English, I believed then, and since, and now, that he said that Joseph possessed, and used the Urim and Thummim in the translation of the inscriptions referred to, and I remember of being much pleased with that statement, as I had heard of the “Seer stone” being used. And unless I dreamed the interview, or very soon after failed to recollect the occasion, he described the form and size of the said Urim and Thummim. The nearest approach to a retraction of my testimony as given in the Fall River Herald and that given publicly in many places from the stated from January, 1876, till now, is, that unless I altogether misunderstood “Father Whitmer” on this point, he said the translation was done by the aid of the Urim and Thummim. If he says he did not intent to convey such an impression to my mind, then I say I regret that I misunderstood him, and unintentionally have misrepresented him. But that I understood him as represented by me frequently I still affirm. If Father Whitmer will say over his own signature, that he never said, or at least never intended to say, that Joseph possessed or used in translating the Book of Mormon, the Urim and Thummim, I will agree to not repeat my testimony as seen in the Fall River Herald on that point.

T. W. Smith

Smith’s account reflects his strong confidence in what he remembers David having told him in 1876. The Traughber article elicited an even earlier account of David testifying about the Urim and Thummim.

The 1 March 1880 issue of The Saints’ Herald included a letter dated January 25, 1880, by Eri B. Mullin, relating a memory from 1874.

Dear Brethren:--

I have been reading the news in the Herald for several years, and among the many testimonies that I have read is one from Mr. L. Traughber, of Carrol county, Missouri, said to be from D. Whitmer. Mr. D. Whitmer told me in the year 1874, that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim when he was translating. But now it is said that he lost it when he gave the first part of the book to Martin Harris; after that he used the Stone. Bro. T. W. Smith, I think was right.. I for my part know he said that Joseph had the instrument Urim and Thummim. I asked him how they looked. He said they looked like spectacles, and he (Joseph) would put them on and look in a hat, or put his face in the hat and read. Says I, “Did he have the plates in there.” “No; the word would appear, and if the failed to spell the word right, it would stay till it was spelled right, then pass away; another come, and so on.” Now this Mr. Traughber used to say that the Reorganized Church was right, but now he fights against us; says we are not right, neither the Book of Covenants. I believe both to be right, but that Mr. Whitmer carried the idea that the translation was by both, or either Urim and Thummim and the stone.

Eri B. Mullin

We can all see the dilemma. The earliest known accounts of David Whitmer relating his knowledge of the translation are recollections from 1874 and 1876. Both accounts have David saying that Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim.

In December 1877 Edward Stevenson interviewed David and recorded an account in his diary. Although his original entry does not mention the translation, at an unknown date Stevenson inserted a note above the margin that reads: “David said that the Prophet translated first by the urim & thummim & afterwards by A Seer Stone—E. Stevenson.”[24] Stevenson wrote letters to Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and the Salt Lake Herald describing his interview with David Whitmer. (Cook, pp 14-19.) None of these letters mention the translation. Thus, it is unknown whether Stevenson inserted the note based on something he forgot about his own interview or based on what he subsequently read or heard about a later interview David gave, such as those in The Saints’ Herald.

[Note: this is the same diary entry in which Stevenson related David’s account of Joseph identifying the messenger as “one of the Nephites.” In his letter to John Taylor, Stevenson wrote “He related many very interesting items of seeing one of the Nephites in company with the Prophet and Oliver, when Joseph’s countenance became almost transparent, &c.”]

The chronology so far goes like this:

In 1874 and 1876, David Whitmer said Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim.

In 1877, Stevenson interviews David and records nothing about the translation but later inserts a comment about the U&T and the seer stone.

On April 15, 1879, The Saints’ Herald publishes T.W. Smith’s recollection from 1876, relating David’s account of the Urim and Thummim.

Also in April, the Lewis brothers start publishing their antagonistic memories of Joseph Smith in Amboy, Illinois. In May, Blair interviews Morse in Amboy, who relates a SITH account.

On June 15, 1879, The Saints’ Herald publishes Blair’s letter about Morse’s SITH account.

On 15 November 1879 The Saints’ Herald publishes Traughber’s article relating David Whitmer’s first SITH account, incorporating one detail from the Morse interview.

In January 1880, The Saints’ Herald publishes T. W. Smith’s letter reaffirming his recollection of David Whitmer’s U&T account.

To corroborate Smith’s account, Mullin writes a letter that is published in The Saints’ Herald, explaining that in 1874 David Whitmer testified about U&T.

The rest of Skousen’s quotations from David Whitmer postdate 1880 and continue the SITH narrative. As we saw, W.W. Blair rejected all of these in 1888.

Skousen provides excerpts from an interview published 1 June 1881 in the Kansas City Journal, which David later claimed was incorrect because, as he wrote to the paper, “I did not say that Smith used ‘two small stones’ as stated nor did I call the stone ‘Interpreters.” I stated that “he used one stone (not two) and called it a sun stone.” The following year David wrote a letter complaining that he did not write “sun stone” but instead wrote “seer stone.”

These accounts illustrate the confusion that arose from David’s accounts. For example, Skousen includes an excerpt from an 1881 Chicago Times interview: “The tablets or plates were translated by Smith, who used a small oval kidney-shaped stone, called Urim and Thummim.”

In ensuing accounts, David became more adamant about the SITH narrative, to the point that in his 1887 An Address to all Believers in Christ, David does not even use the term Urim and Thummim. Instead, gives the oft-quoted “description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated,” and relates the SITH narrative.

But he introduces this narrative with a discussion of the Spalding theory.[25]

The historical record leaves no clear indication of why David changed his narrative about the translation from the Urim and Thummim to SITH, but because he addressed the Spalding theory in connection with his SITH account, we can reasonably infer that he saw SITH as a useful apologetic response to the Spalding theory. 

6. Martin Harris.

Skousen provides an excerpt from Edward Stevenson’s recollection from 4 September 1870, published in 1881, which we discussed above.

Skousen comments that

Martin Harris died on 10 July 1875; thus this account was published more than six years after Martin's death. Since this reminiscence dates from the Sabbath meeting that occurred on 4 September 1870, then this account would be over 11 years old. One aspect that is unexplained is what Joseph and Martin did when the text did not disappear after Martin said "written". It seems that they would have had to repeat the text in some manner in order to correct it. Although this account does not mention any hat being used for the darkening, it clearly indicates that Joseph Smith was viewing the text under conditions of darkness, thus Joseph's exclamation "All is as dark as Egypt."

The credibility of this account is dubious for the reasons we previously discussed. Stevenson was the sole witness of this account, recorded it after the fact, and did not publish it until long after Martin had died.  Further, although he liked to recount the stone-swapping anecdote, Stevenson never again said the seer stone was used “for convenience,” and otherwise always ascribed the translation to the Urim & Thummim.  Stevenson even went so far as to include in an 1893 book of his recollections a lithograph showing Moroni handing the spectacle-like Urim & Thummim interpreters to Joseph.

7. Elizabeth L. McKune.

Elizabeth was a niece of Issac Hale and the sister of the Lewis brothers (Hiel and Joseph) discussed above. Her statement is part of the series of antagonistic articles that the Lewis brothers published in 1879 (50 years after the fact). Elizabeth claimed she “saw Smith translating his book by the aid of the stone and hat. Reuben Hale, acting as scribe…” This fits the SITH narrative, reflecting allegiance with her brothers’ determination to damage Mormonism.

Hiel Lewis wrote that “Smith’s excuse for using his spectacles (that is, peep-stone) and hat to translate with, instead of those spectacles, was that he must keep the spectacles concealed, but any and all persons were permitted to inspect the peep-stone; and that he could translate just as well with the same.”

Skousen suggests that “Lewis’s actual statement accidentally replaces his intended peep-stone with spectacles, in anticipation of the following use of spectacles.” That is one possibility. Another possibility is that Lewis was confused about terminology and what actually happened.

Members of the Lewis and McKune families contributed to the 1834 article “Mormonism” mentioned above in which Isaac Hale expressed his strong antipathy toward Joseph Smith and the others joined in with their contempt. See the transcript in Appendix B.

8. Joseph Fowler McKune, in a reminiscence recorded by Rhamanthus M. Stocker in 1887, reportedly lived in Broome County, NY and “was quite often in Smith’s home. Mr. McCune states that Reuben Hale acted as scribe a part of the time. He says Smith’s hat was a very large one, and what is commonly called a “stove pipe.” The hat was on the table by the window and the sone in the bottom or rather in the top of the hat. Smith would bend over the hat with his face buried in it so that no light could enter it, and thus dictate to the scribe what he should write.”

Skousen comments that:

Stocker is here referring to the early translating of the Book of Mormon, in 1828, when Reuben Hale was one of the scribes. This provides additional evidence that the seer stone was used early on in the translation. McKune himself was born in 1815, so he would have been about 13 years old when he observed Joseph Smith translating.

Of course, this contradicts the Pilgrim letter, in which Emma said Joseph used the Urim and Thummim for the first part of the translation that Martin Harris lost.

Stocker actually interviewed McKune’s widow, Sarah (Sallie) McKune, years after Joseph Fowler McKune died. Stoker documented her recollections of her husband’s experiences in Centennial History of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania (1887). Separately, Sarah claimed she knew there was a blanket between Joseph and his scribes, which corroborates the second-hand accounts based on what Martin Harris said. Naturally, the use of a blanket contradicts the accounts of Joseph using the stone in the hat in the open.

_____

In the next section, Skousen categorizes elements of the stone-in-the-hat statements.

Characteristics of the second method

-          The plates were not directly used. Skousen observes that two accounts state the plates were not directly used: Emma’s “Last Testimony” and the 1881 Kansas City Journal article. We discussed the credibility of each above. If Joseph did not need the plates or the Urim and Thummim to produce the Book of Mormon, not only were those items superfluous, but the arduous work of Nephite scribes and prophets keeping the records for centuries and protecting them from the Lamanites, Mormon and Moroni abridging the records, Moroni depositing them in the Hill Cumorah to preserve them for more centuries, and then Joseph’s exertions to protect them would seemingly all be pointless. Not to mention, as Mormonism Unvailed did in 1834, the testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses were of no use if Joseph did not even use the plates anyway.

-          There was curtain or blanket between Joseph Smith and his scribe. Skousen surmises that the blanket “seems to have been used only in the very beginning, when Joseph Smith had the plates out in the open… In using the seer stone, there was no need for a curtain since the plates were not being used.” The latter conclusion is axiomatic, but the first is merely an assumption that contradicts the sources. If Joseph had no reason to conceal anything from public view, then Moroni’s warning to Joseph that he would be destroyed if he did show them was a pointless threat. On the other hand, if, as Gurley concluded, Joseph used the seer stone to “assuage the awful curiosity” of people, a blanket would impede that effort.

-          There were no notes, manuscripts, or books. Whether Joseph was reading words off the stone in the hat, or translating the engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim, he would not have referred to extraneous sources. Every account that mentioned this point was consistent, usually in connection with a reference to the Spalding theory (e.g., Emma’s “Last Testimony” and David Whitmer’s Address to All Believers in Christ.).

_____

Next, starting on page 59, Skousen provides accounts that he excluded from consideration under the heading “Problematic accounts.”

1. Truman Coe wrote a letter to the editor of the Ohio Observer, published 11 August 1836, that included this passage:

The manner of translation was as wonderful as the discovery. By putting his finger on one of the characters and imploring divine aid, then looking through the Urim and Thummin, he would see the import written in plain English on a screen placed before him. After delivering this to his emanuensi, he would again proceed in the same manner and obtain the meaning of the next character, and so on till he came to a part of the plates which were sealed up, and there was commanded to desist: and he says he has a promise from God that in due time he will enable him to translate the remainder. This is the relation as given by Smith.

Skousen rejects this account (he uses scare quotes around “relation”) because, he says, “Joseph Smith always refused to give this kind of detailed account.” That obvious tautology—Joseph did not give a detailed account to Coe because he did not give detailed accounts—comes across as cognitive dissonance on Skousen’s part.

Skousen also objects because Coe did not mention a blanket or curtain, which would have been required if the plates were in the open for Joseph to access. But Coe said he was relating what Joseph said, not what a witness or scribe might have said. Joseph would have no reason to mention a blanket.

Skousen further objects that “a single character corresponding to an entire thought… seems to be impossible.” Yet we have Joseph’s own account of copying characters and translating them.

Finally, Skousen writes that “Joseph was also told in advance not to touch the sealed portion, so this description of him working up to the sealed part and then suddenly being told not to go on also contradicts Joseph’s own account of the sealed portion.”

Think about that objection. Moroni spelled out the commandment: “I have told you the things which I have sealed up; therefore touch them not in order that ye may translate; for that thing is forbidden you, except by and by it shall be wisdom in God.” (Ether 5:1)

If Joseph was not handling the plates when he was translating, as Skousen claims, this is another superfluous command from Moroni. The stone would simply not display the forbidden translation. But if he was handling the plates, he would naturally come to a place where the plates were sealed. Coe’s statement is a little ambiguous, but it can be read consistently with Moroni’s commandment; i.e., that there, at that point, Joseph knew he had been commanded not to proceed.

In terms of the FAITH model, the Coe account has advantages over the SITH accounts, including proximity to the events (published in 1836 instead of the 1870s), published during Joseph’s lifetime with no known objection by Joseph, specificity that corroborates what Joseph said about translating characters and what Moroni warned against in Ether 5:1, and corroboration of what Joseph and Oliver always said about the Urim and Thummim.

Skousen’s objections boil down to nothing but incompatibility with Skousen’s SITH narrative.

2. Eri B. Mullin’s recollection David Whitmer’s statement from 1874.

We discussed this account above. Here is Skousen’s rationale for rejecting it:

So David supposedly says that Joseph Smith put on the Nephite interpreters (the spectacles) and then looked in the hat, "or put his face in the hat and read" -without anything in the hat? This account mixes up the seer stone with the Nephite interpreters.

Eri said David described the Urim and Thummim (“they looked like spectacles”) and said Joseph would put them on and look in a hat. The point of spectacles is to put them on, so that part makes sense. Skousen does not explain why he objects to words appearing on the Urim and Thummim instead of on a stone, but the function is the same. The account is not detailed, leaving open the question of whether Joseph first looked at the engravings on the plates before reading the U&T in the darkness of the hat.

This is the earliest known account of David describing the translation, which lends it credibility over later accounts. Eri wrote the letter to the editor in response to the Traughber article, which is a legitimate motivation.  

Again, Skousen’s objections boil down to incompatibility with Skousen’s SITH narrative.

3. Chicago Times, August 1875, report of an interview with David Whitmer. This account relates that “Having placed the Urim and Thummim in his hat, Joseph placed the hat over his face, and with prophetic eyes read the invisible symbols syllable by syllable and word by word, while Cowdery or Harris acted as recorders…. Three times has he been at the hill Cumorah and seen the casket that contained the tablets, and the seer-stone.”

Skousen rejects this account because it “mixes up the (Nephite) interpreters with the seer stone.” However, this account, sandwiched in time between the Eri Mullin and T.W. Smith accounts, also precedes David’s later accounts when he shifted to pure SITH.

4. Samuel W. Richards interview of Oliver Cowdery. Cowdery stayed with Richards during the winter of 1848-9. 58 years later, on May 21, 1907, Richards hand wrote his recollection.

He [Oliver] represents Joseph as sitting by a table with the plates before him, and he reading the record with the Urim & Thummim. Oliver, his scribe, sits close beside to hear and write every word as translated. This is done by holding the translators over the words of the written record, and the translation appears distinctly in the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. This instrument now used fully performed its Mission. Every word was made distinctly visible even to every letter, and if Oliver did not in writing spell the word correctly it remained in the translator until it was written correctly. This was the Mystery to Oliver, how Joseph being comparatively ignorant could correct him in spelling without seeing the word written, and he would not be satisfied until he should be permitted or have the gift to translate as well as Joseph. To satisfy Oliver, Joseph with him went to the Lord in prayer until Oliver had the gift by which he could translate, and by so doing learned how it was that Joseph could correct him even in the spelling of words.

Skousen rejects this testimony, claiming it is “full of error.”

“First of all,” Skousen writes, “Oliver had not yet seen the plates. It is possible that this is how the (Nephite) interpreters worked, but Joseph Smith would have done this behind a curtain at this time, if he had been translating using the interpreters.”

These are Skousen’s assumptions, but there are at least two plausible explanations. Although Oliver sat close to Joseph, there could have been a curtain between them that Richards did not mention, at least until Oliver was given the “gift to translate” (D&C 6:25) and thus presumably had access to the plates and the interpreters. Oliver himself said he handled both. Richards’ account is not necessarily chronological; he may have started with Oliver’s explanation of the process that Oliver learned after he had been given the gift to translate.

Skousen continues: “But with the seer stone it was done with a hat and no plates being directly used, although they were often nearby wrapped up in a cloth.” Obviously, Skousen’s statement, written as a fact, contradicts what Richards remembered Oliver saying. Skousen’s theory collides with the Richards account, but that alone is not a basis for rejecting the Richards account.

Skousen also objects because “Richards invokes an ironclad interpretation for the transmission of the text, and even has Joseph correcting Oliver's spelling. Yet Oliver Cowdery's frequent misspellings are never corrected in the original manuscript.” This is a good point, but it applies as well to several SITH statements that claim the stone corrected the spelling of the scribes. A plausible explanation is that the spelling correction occurred for certain proper nouns but that the rest of the translation and was then more loosely related using Joseph’s mental language bank of vocabulary and phrases.

5. Nathan Tanner Junior interview of David Whitmer, 13 May 1886, recorded on 17 February 1909.

Tanner said that David said that Joseph was separated from the scribe by a blanket, and “that he had the Urim and Thummim, and a chocolate colored stone, which he used alternatively, as suites his convenience…. He said that Joseph would—as I remember—place the manuscript beneath the stone or Urim, and the characters would appear in English, which he would spell out, and they would remain there until the word was fully written and corrected.”

Skousen objects to this account because Tanner’s diary entry for 13 May 1886 lacks the information, and the account “is compounded by the folklore that had arisen by the early 1900s.”

But that same objection applies to all the accounts from the 1870s and later.

Skousen objects to the “ironclad” approach of one word at a time and other discrepancies.

_____

Skousen’s next section, starting on page 62, is titled:

Generic accounts from Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery

In this section, Skousen provides the well-known accounts from Joseph and Oliver. He rejects them all. We will assess his reasoning after listing the accounts. Skousen bolded the passages as indicated below.

-          Joseph’s “Answers to Questions” in the July 1838 Elders’ Journal: “I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them; by the means of which I translated the plates; and thus came the book of Mormon.”

-          The 1842 Wentworth letter: “With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.”

-          Oliver Cowdery, Letter I, JS-History note: “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to wrote from his mouth as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history, or record, called ‘The book of Mormon.’”

-          Oliver Cowdery, 1848, recorded by Reuben Miller: “I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet as he translated it by the gift and power of God by means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, holy interpreters.”

Here is Skousen’s reasoning, with my comments in brackets.

The two individuals that could have told us the most about the translation process are Joseph Smith, the translator, and Oliver Cowdery, his primary scribe.

[While this is undoubtedly true as far as it goes, it is an ironic statement because Skousen explicitly rejected more detailed accounts from both Joseph and Oliver on the ground that they never gave detailed accounts—the tautology that we discussed above.]

Besides stating that the translation was done by "the gift and power of God", they both explicitly claim that Joseph made the translation using the Urim and Thummim, meaning the interpreters that came with the plates.

[Exactly. The consistent, formal, published statements from Joseph and Oliver, when read in historical context, responded to the SITH claim in Mormonism Unvailed. Affirming that the translation was accomplished through divinely-appointed means instead of through a superstitious and occult “peep stone” was more important than satisfying curiosity about the specific mechanism. And yet, they did relate the specific mechanism to some people, as recorded in the accounts that Skousen rejects.]

But in no case did they give any details, nor did they ever mention the seer stone.

[We saw in the previous section that both Joseph and Oliver did give details, but Skousen just rejected the accounts. There was no reason for Joseph and Oliver to “mention the seer stone” because, as they repeatedly explained, Joseph used the Urim and Thummim instead.]

It appears that their witness statements purposely avoid mentioning the stone in the hat, the method that would have linked Joseph to treasure hunting.

[This is the “embarrassment” narrative used to explain and justify SITH. Obviously they would have avoided mentioning SITH because Joseph never used the seer stone to translate. The idea that Joseph and Oliver “misled” (a euphemism for “lied”) about the translation in multiple published statements because they were embarrassed is not plausibly consistent with their courageous testimonies regarding the Restoration overall.]

And although it is true that Joseph used the interpreters in the very beginning of the translation, there is no firsthand witness who confirms their use after the loss of the 116 pages of manuscript.

[Except Joseph, Oliver, Samuel Smith, and John Whitmer.]

In fact, three witnesses gave evidence that the seer stone was used when Oliver was the scribe: Emma Smith (February 1879), Michael Morse (8 May 1879), and David Whitmer (14 October 1881); Emma's evidence is indirect, but the two others specifically list Oliver by name.

[Morse also listed John Whitmer, who was never in Harmony, showing that Morse was relating hearsay. Besides, John Whitmer said Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and breastplate. The 14 October 1881 account is not a direct quotation from David but a newspaper reporter’s version that conflates various accounts. The article never mentions a hat. It reads, “The tablets or plates were translated by Smith, who used a small oval kidney-shaped stone, called Urim and Thummim… Frequently, one character would make two lines of manuscript, while others made but a word or two words.” Skousen rejected another account for such a statement about the characters. And if David told the reporter that the seer stone was called Urim and Thummim, then David’s accounts are even more inconsistent than we thought.]

Thus 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.

[Of course, this is Skousen’s remarkable conclusion that prompted me to write this review. By now it is obvious that Skousen reached that conclusion first, then assembled and organized the evidence to support the conclusion.]

On page 63, Skousen starts a section titled “Other claims,” but before reviewing that section we should consider some additional statements that Skousen omitted from consideration.

1. The Reuben Miller account. Skousen provided an excerpt of the Miller account (which he promptly dismissed as intentionally misleading), but when viewed in context, the account is more significant than Skousen’s readers will realize from his treatment of it.

When Cowdery returned to Church membership in 1848 he spoke to an Iowa conference. His words there were recorded by Reuben Miller. Recall that on this occasion, he had possession of the brown stone that Skousen and others say Joseph used to translate the Book of Mormon, yet Oliver did not mention that stone at all. Nor did he display it to the audience to prove his testimony. 

Instead, he addressed ongoing challenges to the Restoration: stone-in-the-hat and Spalding theories, and Priesthood.

First, Oliver reaffirmed the translation by the Urim and Thummim. Then he specifically addressed the Spalding theory from Mormonism Unvailed. Finally, he reiterated the literal restoration of the Priesthood.

I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet as he translated it by the gift and power of God by 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 beheld the Interpreters. 

That book is true. 

Sidney Rigdon did not write it. 

Mr. Spaulding did not write it. 

I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet. ….

Bro. Hyde has just said that it was all important that we keep in the true channel in order to avoid the sandbars. This is true, the channel is here, the priesthood is here. I was present with Joseph when an holy angel from God came down from heaven and conferred, or restored, the Aaronic priesthood. And said at the same time that it should remain upon the earth while the earth stands. I was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek priesthood was conferred by the holy angels of God which we then confirmed on each other by the will and commandment of God. (emphasis added)

Skousen infers that Oliver intentionally misled his audience about the translation but presumably accepts Oliver’s testimony about the plates, the interpreters, the Spalding theory, and the restoration of the Priesthood.

Readers can make up their own mind about the consistency and plausibility of Skousen’s approach.[26] 

2. Letter IV. The fourth of Oliver Cowdery’s essays about early Church history, published in 1835, includes a detailed account of Moroni’s visit. Oliver introduced the account by writing “to use his [Joseph’s] own description.”

Among other things, Oliver explained that Moroni said

this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.[27]

Scholars debate whether it was Moroni, Joseph Smith, or Oliver Cowdery who used the term “Urim and Thummim” here. The passage can be read to support all three positions. Skousen presumably would cite this as more evidence of the “embarrassment” narrative, but he should have included it in his list of sources because it corroborates what Joseph and Oliver always said.

Letter IV, like the other seven essays Oliver wrote, were originally published in the Messenger and Advocate, then copied into Joseph’s own history as part of his life story, and later republished (with Joseph Smith’s encouragement) in 1841 in the Gospel Reflector and Times and Seasons. They were republished in the Millennial Star (1841) and The Prophet (1844) (and later in the Improvement Era). In 1842 they were published together in a pamphlet in England that sold thousands of copies. 

Other than scriptural passages, Oliver’s eight letters were the most frequently published content during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. Whether these letters were part of an intentional deception as Skousen claims, or a legitimate account of early Church history that Joseph helped write and fully endorsed, readers can decide.

3. D&C 10. There is a bit of controversy about D&C 10 because the earliest extant version, published in the Book of Commandments as Chapter IX, reads differently from the current version.

Chapter IX (1832):

NOW, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them, and you also lost your gift at the same time, nevertheless it has been restored unto you again:

D&C 10 (1835 Doctrine and Covenants)

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

2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.

3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again;

The change looks like a clarification of the original version. Presumably when the original revelation was given, everyone involved knew that Joseph was translating with the Urim and Thummim, but that was not known by those outside Joseph's close associates. The 1835 change also corresponds with the account of Moroni's visit published by Oliver Cowdery in Letter IV, based on Joseph's "own description" as we saw above. 

Nevertheless, some scholars (both critical and faithful) argue that Joseph and Oliver made this change to the revelation because Joseph was "embarrassed" about having used the seer stone in the hat instead of the Nephite interpreters.

Presumably Skousen views this change as more evidence that Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation process.

Everyone can read the accounts and make informed decisions for themselves.[28]

But there is more in D&C 10 about the translation that Skousen should have considered.

When Joseph and Oliver finished translating the abridged plates in Harmony, they considered going back to the beginning to re-translate the book of Lehi.

But the Lord instructed Joseph otherwise.

38 And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands, is engraven upon the plates of Nephi;

39 Yea, and you remember it was said in those writings that a more particular account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi.

40 And now, because the account which is engraven upon the plates of Nephi is more particular concerning the things which, in my wisdom, I would bring to the knowledge of the people in this account—

41 Therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi, down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin, or until you come to that which you have translated, which you have retained;

42 And behold, you shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. (Doctrine and Covenants 10:38–42)

None of this makes sense if Joseph was simply reading words off a stone in the hat, as Skousen claims. According to the stone-in-the-hat narrative, it was the stone that provided the words, not the engravings on the plates. According to that theory, Joseph did not even use the plates and would have had no idea what part of the physical plates corresponded to what he was reading on the stone.

The first 26 verses of D&C 10 are superfluous if Joseph was not actually translating the engravings on the plates. For that matter, Joseph could not have intentionally obeyed or disobeyed the commandment in verse 41; the stone in the hat was doing all the work.

4. D&C 17. Another revelation that would be superfluous in part is D&C 17:1.

1 Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea. (Doctrine and Covenants 17:1)

In 1834, Mormonism Unvailed pointed out the futility of the Three Witnesses seeing the Urim and Thummim if Joseph did not even use that instrument to translate the plates. As an artifact it would be useful to corroborate the historicity of the narrative in the Book of Mormon, but its utility as a translation device is zero according to the SITH theory. It is also significant that in D&C 17:1 it is the Lord who names the instrument. This corroborates the narrative that it was Moroni who used the term in the first place.

Presumably Skousen would argue that D&C 17:1 is part of the scheme by Joseph and Oliver to intentionally mislead everyone, but he should make his position explicit instead of avoiding it by simply not mentioning these important sources from the Scriptures regarding the translation.

_____

Other claims (page 63). In this section Skousen notes “additional claims the witnesses of the translation made.” Skousen discusses how long it took to translate, how Joseph had to be in the right spirit to translate, what Joseph saw in the instrument, etc. I will comment only on the first claim.

1. Joseph Smith was ignorant of the walls of Jerusalem.

Emma famously claimed that Joseph did not know Jerusalem had walls, presumably when she was scribing the book of Lehi in early 1828 (part of the lost 116 pages). Skousen notes that both Martin Harris and David Whitmer made the same claim, “but this remembrance of David’s is probably based on what he had heard from Emma Smith about Joseph’s translation of the book of Lehi.” I agree with Skousen on this point. And it is a perfect example of coordinating stories about the translation, where a non-witness to the event nevertheless testifies about it.

The walls of Jerusalem anecdote leads Skousen to this conclusion: “This incident regarding the walls of Jerusalem shows that Joseph Smith was not the author of the Book of Mormon text. He just did not know enough about the Bible, for one thing.”

Another view is that Joseph had a legitimate question. The Bible does not say there were walls around Jerusalem when Lehi left Jerusalem. The Book of Mormon refers to the "first year of the reign of Zedekiah." This is in 2 Kings 24. There is nothing in the Bible about walls around Jerusalem in that year. Asking about walls around Jerusalem at this time seems like a reasonable question. 2 Kings 25:1 skips to the ninth year of Zedekiah's reign, after Lehi had left. That chapter does discuss walls, but not when they were built. The 2 Chronicles 36:19 version of the history says the Chaldeans broke down the wall of Jerusalem, but again, that was several years after Lehi left. This is not a critical issue, but it is a stretch to say Joseph did not know the Bible because he did not know if there were walls around Jerusalem when Lehi left the city.

_____

Overall conclusion. I spent the time to go through Skousen’s book because of the significance of his conclusion that Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone about the translation.

In my view, Skousen did a cursory, outcome-determined analysis of the witness statements to support his conclusion. He also omitted relevant sources that contradict his conclusion.

The FAITH model requires a careful, consistent consideration of all the Facts, distinguished from Assumptions, Inferences, and Theories that lead to the overall Hypotheses.  My analysis leads me to the conclusion that Joseph and Oliver told the truth about these events, and that others who disagreed with them had various motives to do so (both apologetic and critical), relied on hearsay, mingled assumptions and inferences with facts, and for these reasons reached unreliable conclusions about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Hopefully other scholars will avoid the outcome-driven approach that Skousen used in his book and instead adopt the principles of the FAITH model of analysis.

_____

Appendix A.

1829 Jonathan Hadley article.

Although Skousen did not mention the article Jonathan Hadley published in Palmyra in August 1829, other scholars cite Hadley’s article as the earliest account of the stone-in-the-hat narrative. Their conclusions are based more on assumptions, inferences and theories than on facts.

The best-known example is the book Let’s Talk about the Translation of the Book of Mormon by Gerrit J. Dirkmaat and Michael Hubbard MacKay, published by Deseret Book. An article-length discussion is available online here:

https://www.academia.edu/108674225/The_1829_Jonathan_Hadley_account_of_the_translation_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

_____

Appendix B.

1834 “Mormonism” article.

An article titled “Mormonism” was published in Pennsylvania in May 1834, several months before the publication of Mormonism Unvailed. The article is important context for assessing the bias, reliability and credibility of the statements by members of those families that Skousen included in Part Seven because he considers them highly trustworthy.

“Mormonism” describes the stone-in-the-hat narrative and reflects strong antipathy toward Joseph Smith by Isaac Hale and the Lewis and McKune families. It was prompted by a letter that E.D. Howe (the publisher of Mormonism Unvailed) sent to Isaac Hale, Emma’s father.

Below is a transcript of “Mormonism.” Susquehanna Register (Montrose, Pennsylvania) 9, no. 21 (1 May 1834).[29]

MORMONISM.

Mr. WARD, SIR,—The Sect calling themselves Mormons, which started a few years since in Harmony in this County, have, you are aware brought themselves into public notice in many parts of our country. A gentleman in the state of Ohio, applied to Mr. ISAAC HALE, of Harmony, for a history of facts relating to the character of JOSEPH SMITH jun., author of the Book of Mormon, called by some, the Golden Bible. Mr. HALE sent the facts in a letter, and the Mormons pronounced the letter a forgery; and said that ISAAC HALE was blind, and could not write his name,—which was the cause of the taking the accompanying affidavits.

Some of your subscribers, and particularly those at a distance, might feel obliged by your inserting the affidavits, then all might judge for themselves, as to the authenticity of the Revelation claimed to have been made to JOSEPH SMITH jun’r. A SUBSCRIBER.

Great Bend 21, March 1834.

_____

PAINESVILLE, OHIO FEB. 4, 1834.

Mr. ISAAC HALE,

—Dear Sir,—I have a letter with your signature, post-marked Dec. 22, 1833—addressed to D. P. HURLBUT, on the subject of Mormonism. I have taken all the letters and documents from Mr. HURLBUT, with a view to their publication. An astonishing mass has been collected by him and others, who have determined to lay open the imposition to the world. And as the design is to present FACTS, and those well authenticated, and beyond dispute, it is very desirable, that your testimony, whatever it may be, should come authenticated before a magistrate.

Your letter has already been pronounced a forgery by the Mormons, who say you are blind and cannot write, even your name. I hope no one has attempted to deceive us: deception and falsehood in the business will do no good in the end, but will help build up the monstrous delusion. We look upon your connexion with Smith, and your knowledge of facts, as very important, in the chain of events,—and if it be your desire to contribute what facts you have, in so desirable an undertaking, I hope you will without delay, have drawn up a full narrative of every transaction wherein SMITH, jun’r. is concerned and attest them before a magistrate—This is our plan.

E. D. HOWE.

_____

Statement of Mr. Hale.

I first became acquainted with JOSEPH SMITH, Jr. in November, 1825. He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called “money-diggers;” and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face. In this way he pretended to discover minerals and hidden treasure. His appearance at this time, was that of a careless young man—not very well educated, and very saucy and insolent to his father. Smith, and his father, with several other ‘money-diggers’ boarded at my house while they were employed in digging for a mine that they supposed had been opened and worked by the Spaniards, many years since. Young Smith gave the ‘money-diggers’ great encouragement, at first, but when they had arrived in digging, to near the place where he had stated an immense treasure would be found—he said the enchantment was so powerful that he could not see. They then became discouraged, and soon after dispersed. This took place about the 17th of November, 1825; and one of the company gave me his note for $12.68 for his board, which is still unpaid.

After these occurrences, young Smith made several visits at my house, and at length asked my consent to his marrying my daughter Emma. This I refused, and gave my reasons for so doing; some of which were, that he was a stranger, and followed a business that I could not approve: he then left the place. Not long after this, he returned, and while I was absent from home, carried off my daughter, into the state of New York, where they were married without my approbation or consent. After they had arrived at Palmyra N. Y., Emma wrote to me enquiring whether she could have her property, consisting of clothing, furniture, cows, &c. I replied that her property was safe, and at her disposal. In a short time they returned, bringing with them a Peter Ingersol, and subsequently came to the conclusion that they would move out, and reside upon a place near my residence.

Smith stated to me, that he had given up what he called “glass-looking,” and that he expected to work hard for a living, and was willing to do so. He also made arrangements with my son Alva Hale, to go up to Palmyra, and move his (Smith’s) furniture &c. to this place. He then returned to Palmyra, and soon after, Alva, agreeable to the arrangement, went up and returned with Smith and his family. Soon after this, I was informed they had brought a wonderful book of Plates down with them. I was shown a box in which it is said they were contained, which had to all appearances, been used as a glass box of the common sized window-glass. I was allowed to feel the weight of the box, and they gave me to understand, that the book of plates was then in the box—into which, however, I was not allowed to look.

I inquired of Joseph Smith Jr., who was to be the first who would be allowed to see the Book of Plates? He said it was a young child. After this, I became dissatisfied, and informed him that if there was any thing in my house of that description, which I could not be allowed to see, he must take it away; if he did not, I was determined to see it. After that, the Plates were said to be hid in the woods.

About this time, Martin Harris made his appearance upon the stage; and Smith began to interpret the characters or hieroglyphics which he said were engraven upon the plates, while Harris wrote down the interpretation. It was said, that Harris wrote down one hundred and sixteen pages, and lost them. Soon after this happened, Martin Harris informed me that he must have a greater witness, and said that he had talked with Joseph about it—Joseph informed him that he could not, or durst not show him the plates, but that he (Joseph) would go into the woods where the Book of Plates was, and that after he came back, Harris should follow his track in the snow, and find the Book, and examine it for himself. Harris informed me afterwards, that he followed Smith’s directions, and could not find the Plates, and was still dissatisfied.

The next day after this happened, I went to the house where Joseph Smith Jr., lived, and where he and Harris were engaged in their translation of the Book. Each of them had a written piece of paper which they were comparing, and some of the words were “my servant seeketh a greater witness, but no greater witness can be given him.” There was also something said about “three that were to see the thing”—meaning I supposed, the Book of Plates, and that “if the three did not go exactly according to orders, the thing would be taken from them.” I enquired whose words they were, and was informed by Joseph or Emma, (I rather think it was the former) that they were the words of Jesus Christ. I told them then, that I considered the whole of it a delusion, and advised them to abandon it. The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!

After this, Martin Harris went away, and Oliver Cowdry came and wrote for Smith, while he interpreted as above described. This is the same Oliver Cowdry, whose name may be found in the Book of Mormon. Cowdry continued a scribe for Smith until the Book of Mormon was completed as I supposed, and understood.

Joseph Smith Jr. resided near me for some time after this, and I had a good opportunity of becoming acquainted with him, and somewhat acquainted with his associates, and I conscientiously believe from the facts I have detailed, and from many other circumstances, which I do not deem it necessary to relate, that the whole “Book of Mormon” (so called) is a silly fabrication of falsehood and wickedness, got up for speculation, and with a design to dupe the credulous and unwary—and in order that its fabricators might live upon the spoils of those who swallow the deception. ISAAC HALE.

Affirmed to and subscribed before me, March 20th, 1834.

CHARLES DIMON, J. Peace.

State of Pennsylvania,

Susquehanna County, ss.

We, the subscribers, associate Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, in and for said county, do certify that we have been for many years personally acquainted with Isaac Hale, of Harmony township in this county, who has attested the foregoing statement; and that he is a man of excellent moral character, and of undoubted veracity. Witness our hands.

WILLIAM THOMPSON.

DAVIS DIMOCK.

March 21st, 1834.

I have been acquainted with Isaac Hale for fifty years, and have never known him guilty of wilfully, or deliberately telling a falsehood. His character for truth and veracity has never been questioned. He has been Supervisor, Assessor and Collector, in this town—has kept his own accounts, and made his returns, to the satisfaction of all concerned. But he is now old, and his arms are somewhat palsied, so that when he desires any thing written, he usually employs one of his sons, although he retains his sight, and is still capable of writing.

NATHANIEL LEWIS.

Affirmed and subscribed before me,

March 20, 1834.

CHARLES DIMON, J. Peace.

_____

State of Pennsylvania,

Susquehanna County, ss.

I do hereby certify, that I have been acquainted with Nathaniel Lewis, who affirmed to, and subscribed the above certificate, for these twenty-seven years, last past, and during the whole of that time he has been a respectable minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a man of veracity, and good moral character. Witness my hand, March 21st, 1834. WM. THOMPSON,

Associate Judge.

_____

Elder Lewis also certifies and affirms in relation to Smith as follows:

“I have been acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. for some time: being a relation of his wife, and residing near him, I have had frequent opportunities of conversation with him, and of knowing his opinions and pursuits. From my standing in the Methodist Episcopal Church, I suppose he was careful how he conducted or expressed himself before me. At one time, however, he came to my house, and asked my advice, whether he should proceed to translate the Book of Plates (referred to by Mr. Hale) or not. He said that God had commanded him to translate it, but he was afraid of the people: he remarked, that he was to exhibit the plates to the world, at a certain time, which was then about eighteen months distant. I told him I was not qualified to give advice in such cases. Smith frequently said to me that I should see the plates at the time appointed.

“After the time stipulated, had passed away, Smith being at my house was asked why he did not fulfil his promise, show the Golden Plates and prove himself an honest man? He replied that he, himself was deceived, but that a-should see them if I were where they were. I reminded him then, that I stated at the time he made the promise, I was fearful “the enchantment would be so powerful” as to remove the plates, when the time came in which they were to be revealed. “These circumstances and many others of a similar tenor, embolden me to say that Joseph Smith Jr. is not a man of truth and veracity; and that his general character in this part of the country, is that of an impostor, hypocrite and liar.

NATHANIEL C. LEWIS.”

Affirmed and subscribed, before me, March 20th 1834.

CHARLES DIMON, J. Peace.

_____

We subjoin the substance of several affidavits, all taken and made before CHARLES DIMON Esq. by credible individuals, who have resided near to, and been well acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr.—Illustrative of his character and conduct, while in this region.

_____

JOSHUA M’KUNE states, that he “was acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. and Martin Harris, during their residence in Harmony, Penn’a., and knew them to be artful seducers;”—That they informed him that “Smith had found a sword, breast-plate, and a pair of spectacles, at the time he found the gold plates”—that “these were to be shown to all the world as evidence of the truth of what was contained in those plates,” and that “he (M’Kune) and others should see them at a specified time.” He also states that “the time for the exhibition of the Plates, &c. has gone by, and he has not seen them.” “Joseph Smith, Jr. told him that his (Smith’s) first-born child was to translate the characters, and hieroglyphics, upon the Plates into our language at the age of three years; but this child was not permitted to live to verify the prediction.” He also states, that “he has been intimately acquainted with Isaac Hale twenty-four years, and has always found him to be a man of truth, and good morals.”

_____

HEZEKIAH M’KUNE states, that “in conversation with Joseph Smith Jr., he (Smith) said he was nearly equal to Jesus Christ; that he was a prophet sent by God to bring in the Jews, and that he was the greatest prophet that had ever arisen.”

_____

ALVA HALE son of Isaac Hale, states, that Joseph Smith Jr. told him that his (Smith’s) gift in seeing with a stone and hat, was a gift from God,” but also states “that Smith told him at another time that this “peeping” was all d——d nonsense. He (Smith) was deceived himself but did not intend to deceive others;—that he intended to quit the business, (of peeping) and labor for his livelihood.” That afterwards, Smith told him, he should see the Plates from which he translated the book of Mormon,” and accordingly at the time specified by Smith, he (Hale) “called to see the plates, but Smith did not show them, but appeared angry.” He further states, that he knows Joseph Smith Jr. to be an impostor, and a liar, and knows Martin Harris to be a liar likewise. That his father (Isaac Hale) can both see and write, the declarations of the Mormons to the contrary notwithstanding; and that the letter sent by his father, Isaac Hale, to Dr. P. Hurlbut was written by Jesse Hale, his (I. Hale’s) son, and was correct and true.”

LEVI LEWIS states, that he has “been acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. and Martin Harris, and that he has heard them both say, adultery was no crime. Harris said he did not blame Smith for his (Smith’s) attempt to seduce Eliza Winters &c.;”—Mr. Lewis says that he “knows Smith to be a liar;—that he saw him (Smith) intoxicated at three different times while he was composing the Book of Mormon, and also that he has heard Smith when driving oxen, use language of the greatest profanity. Mr. Lewis also testifies that he heard Smith say that he (Smith) was as good as Jesus Christ;—that it was as bad to injure him as it was to injure Jesus Christ.” “With regard to the plates, Smith said God had deceived him—which was the reason he (Smith) did not show the plates.”

_____

NATHANIEL C. LEWIS states “he has always resided in the same neighborhood with Isaac Hale, and knows him to be a man of truth, and good judgment.” He further states, that “he has been acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. and Martin Harris, and knows them to be lying impostors.”

_____

SOPHIA LEWIS, certifies that she “heard a conversation between Joseph Smith Jr., and the Rev. James B. Roach, in which Smith called Mr. R. a d——d fool. Smith also said in the same conversation that he (Smith) was as good as Jesus Christ;” and that she “has frequently heard Smith use profane language. She states that she heard Smith say “the Book of Plates could not be opened under penalty of death by any other person but his (Smith’s) first-born, which was to be a male.” She says she “was present at the birth of this child, and that it was still-born and very much deformed.”

_____

We certify that we have long been acquainted with Joshua M’Kune, Hezekiah M’Kune, Alva Hale, Levi Lewis, Nathaniel C. Lewis and Sophia Lewis, [the individuals furnishing the several statements above referred to] and that they are all persons of good moral character, and undoubted truth and veracity.

ABRAHAM DUBOIS, J. Peace.

JASON WILSON, Post Master.

HERBERT LEACH.

Great Bend, Susquehanna Co. Penn’a.

March 20th, 1834.

Appendix C.

Comment on the English language in the Book of Mormon.

Much of the work of Skousen and Carmack in this and other volumes in the Critical Text series has focused on the source of the language in the text of the Book of Mormon. In the chapter on the 1837 Kirtland Edition, they classify the 3,168 textual changes using the following types of language usage (p. 491):

E Early Modern English: English language dating from before 1700

O Original Book of Mormon Language: language characteristic of the Book of Mormon

K King James Biblical Language: language identifiable with the King James Bible

S Standard English: English language dating from after 1700

N Nonstandard English: dialectal or ungrammatical language

M Misreading: language that represents an obvious error in the transmission.

They mark the most frequent changes from the 1830 to 1837 editions as changes from Early Modern English to Standard English. This reflects their long-held conclusion that the text consists largely of Early Modern English grammar, vocabulary and syntax that Joseph Smith could not have known, and thus had to be provided by supernatural means through a seer stone that Joseph put in a hat. Joseph allegedly found this stone while digging a well. The gist of stone-in-the-hat theory is that Joseph did not actually translate the plates, but instead read words that appeared on the stone by supernatural means of unknown origin. (For ease of reference, this can be summarized as the mysterious incognito supernatural translator, or MIST.)

In my view, Skousen and Carmack relied on assumptions and methodology that led them to hypotheses that, while arguably supported by the evidence, are not required by the evidence. For example, they simply assume that King James Biblical language came from the King James Bible instead of from sources that quoted (and paraphrased) the Bible. They also focused on databases of published material, which by its nature was carefully written and edited prior to publication, and ignored the real-world language spoken by Joseph’s contemporaries in Vermont and New York. Even in our day, people do not usually speak the way they write, and apart from artistic expressions, published material does not reflect common speech patterns.

This is why others look at the same evidence as Skousen and reach different conclusions. For example, I have proposed that Joseph Smith actually translated the plates, as he claimed, and that he used his own mental language bank to do so, drawing (as we all do) on the vocabulary, syntax, and usage he had previously heard and read. D&C 1:24 explains it this way:

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. (emphasis added)

Ironically, a good example arises in Skousen’s Foreword.

p. 6. “Since its inception, numerous individuals have “provided ways and means” ) a phrase actually used twice in the original text of the Book of Mormon—not only financial…”

Technically the quoted phrase does not actually appear in the text. Instead, the text has “provide means” and “ways and means,” both of which are nonbiblical phrases.

And if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God he doth nourish them, and strengthen them, and provide means whereby they can accomplish the thing which he has commanded them; wherefore, he did provide means for us while we did sojourn in the wilderness. (1 Nephi 17:3) (1830 1 Nephi V, page 42, lines 20-22)

A similar phrase also appears in the D&C:

34 Yea, for this cause I have said: Stop, and stand still until I command thee, and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee. (Doctrine and Covenants 5:34)

As a nonbiblical phrase, the phrase could have come directly from the stone, as Skousen advocates. Alternatively, if Joseph was the translator as he claimed, the phrase was part of his “mental language bank.” He explained both that he was born of “goodly Parents who spared no pains to instruct me in the​ Christian religion” and that he had “intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations.” (spelling corrected).[30] Joseph’s familiarity with Christian teachings is apparent from the language in the text.

Among the sources of Joseph’s mental language bank may have been the 8-volume, 1808 edition of Jonathan Edwards’ works that was available in the Palmyra printing shop and bookstore that he regularly frequented. The following examples relevant to Skousen’s phrase are from the Kindle version of the 1808 edition.

I pray God to pity you, and take care of you, and provide for you the best means for the good of your souls… Kindle 2146.

the giving Christ and providing means of salvation in him… Kindle 42301

How much hath God done to provide you with suitable means and advantages… Kindle 63550

Or Joseph might have read one of Edwards’ sermons, in which he wrote, “also to provide means for a proportionable sense of his terribleness…”[31]

The nonbiblical phrase “ways and means” is found once in the Book of Mormon text:

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them. (Mosiah 4:29) (1830 Mosiah II, page 165, line 30)

Again, as a nonbiblical phrase, the phrase could have come directly from the seer stone. Alternatively, Joseph could have read it in the 1808 edition of Jonathan Edwards’ works.

I used to be continually examining myself, and studying and contriving for likely ways and means, how I should live holily, with far greater diligence and earnestness… Kindle 564

There are so many ways and means whereby the lives of men come to an end… Kindle 64158

The unseen, unthought of ways and means of persons’ going suddenly out of the world are innumerable and inconceivable. Kindle 61087

_____

In his chapter “On the Importance of the Original Manuscript,” Skousen explains there are 216 original readings of the text in the Original Manuscript that have appeared in printed editions. On page 16, he observes that “at least 102 of these new readings affect the meaning (that is, they would show up as differences in foreign-language translation of the English-language Book of Mormon).” He gives several examples, of which we will look at three.

1 Nephi 8:31

-          Multitudes pressing their way towards… (OM)

-          Multitudes feeling their way towards… (PM)

That feeling is an error is evident not only from the OM but from the use of pressing throughout the text. Pressing is a nonbiblical term used 3 times in the Book of Mormon, all in 1 Nephi 8 and always with “forward.”

many of whom were pressing forward, (1 Nephi 8:21)

I beheld others pressing forward (1 Nephi 8:24)

he saw other multitudes pressing forward (1 Nephi 8:30)

The word press appears with this frequency in the scriptures: OT (2) NT (7) BM (6) DC (1). In the KJV, the word is always a noun except here:

Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee (Luke 8:45)

I press toward the mark (Philippians 3:14)

In the Book of Mormon, the term is always used as a verb, usually with forward.

they did press forward through the mist of darkness (1 Nephi 8:24)

they did press their way forward (1 Nephi 8:30)

ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ… if ye shall press forward (2 Nephi 31:20)

army of Coriantumr did press forward upon Lib (Ether 14:12)

the armies of Coriantumr did press upon the armies of Shiz (Ether 15:10)

Joseph Smith used the term as a verb in his canonized 1842 letter.

that subject seems to occupy my mind, and press itself upon my feelings (D&C 128:1)

As a nonbiblical phrase, the phrase could have come directly from the stone, as Skousen believes. Alternatively, if Joseph was the translator as he claimed, the phrase was part of his “mental language bank.” Again, he could have added the phrase to his mental language bank by reading Jonathan Edwards.

There are 18 examples in the 1808 edition alone (pressing/press forward), and many more in other sermons and writings that may have circulated in pamphlets, newspapers, magazines, etc.

The following examples are from the Kindle version of the 1808 edition.

He continues pressing forward in a constant manner… Kindle 26076

running the race set before him, continually pressing forwards through all manner of difficulties and sufferings… Kindle 27032

makes them more eager to press forwards… Kindle 31682

reaching forth unto those things that were before, pressing towards "the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (paraphrasing Philippians)

putting on the whole armor of God, and standing, having done all to stand, pressing forward, reaching forth… Kindle 31737 (paraphrasing Ephesians 6)

they desire not to rest satisfied with past attainments, but to be pressing forward… Kindle 31744

the life of a Christian… strives and presses forward… Kindle 33238

We should be engaged and resolved to press forward… Kindle 5688

While others press forward in the strait and narrow way to life… Kindle 56926

The only way to seek salvation is to press forward with all your might… Kindle 60661

The consideration of this should stir you up effectually to escape, and in your escape to press forward, still to press forward, and to resolve to press forward for ever, let what will be in the way… Kindle 60680

1 Ne. 12:18

-          Yea even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God

-          Yea even the word of the justice of the Eternal God.

Sword combined with justice is a nonbiblical Book of Mormon usage.

why did he not let the sword of his justice fall upon us, and doom us to eternal despair? (Alma 26:19)

I would tell you somewhat concerning the justice of God, and the sword of his almighty wrath (Alma 54:6)

the sword of justice doth hang over you (Alma 60:29)

he hath put it into my heart to say unto this people that the sword of justice hangeth over this people; and four hundred years pass not away save the sword of justice falleth upon this people. (Helaman 13:5)

And it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that the sword of my justice shall hang over them at that day; (3 Nephi 20:20)

even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be. (Ether 8:23)

Again, as a nonbiblical phrase, the phrase could have come directly from the stone. SITH. Or, if Joseph was the translator, maybe it was part of his “mental language bank” from reading the 1808 edition of Jonathan Edwards’ works.

The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads… Kindle 61051

In his writings, Jonathan Edwards used variations of the concept:

And he stood between God and the people of Jerusalem when he saw the sword of justice drawn against it to destroy it (2 Samuel 24:17–25). So the Messiah is spoken of, as in like manner, the mediator, being himself peculiarly God's elect and beloved, is given for a covenant of the people

Therefore vindictive justice was as a flaming sword that turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life… It was the sword of God's dreadful wrath, the sword of divine justice wielded by his infinite power,

There are many that, notwithstanding the flaming sword of God's justice and vindictive wrath that turns every [way], are endeavoring to find out ways to come at the tree of life.

The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and 'tis nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God's mere will, that holds it back.

The princes and rulers, spoken of in the Ezekiel 11:1–3, had multiplied the slain in the city, not only those whom they by the sword of justice had unjustly put to death under color of law

wicked men are more sottish even than the brute creatures in rushing on upon the point of the sword of divine justice.

Alma 43:14

-          Now those dissenters were as numerous

-          Now those descendants were as numerous

“Dissenters” is a nonbiblical Book of Mormon term that appears 20 times in the text. It is also found in the works of Jonathan Edwards.

Edwards is everyday rising in esteem among dissenters, so that his works sell very fast. Kindle 69

Arminianism has greatly prevailed among the Dissenters… Kindle 14644

Greatly prevails there, both in the Church of England and among dissenters… Kindle 14647

Two divines, of no inconsiderable note among the dissenters in England… Kindle 52153

These example suggest that the work of Skousen and Carmack would be enhanced by expanding their focus to sources known to be available to Joseph Smith prior to his translation of the plates.

More importantly, these examples suggest that Joseph himself was fully capable of producing the text as a translation in his own language.

_____

[1] The practice of separating witnesses during police interrogations is grounded in both psychological research and standard investigative procedures. E.g., the U.S. Department of Justice’s guide, "Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement" online at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf.

[2] https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/desnews3/id/2218503 and

https://bhroberts.org/records/uthtQb-0EchI1/poulson_reports_john_whitmers_final_testimony_of_the_bom

[3] https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/82199881-7613-43e6-a79e-b72609d95b23/0/23?lang=eng, also at https://www.mobom.org/trip-to-fayette-references

[4] https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/82199881-7613-43e6-a79e-b72609d95b23/0/22?lang=eng (emphasis added)

[5] Edward Stevenson, “Visit,” Instructor 22 (1887):55 (emphasis added)

[6] See https://www.mobom.org/moroni-and-nephi

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

[8] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letterbook-1/12 

[9] See Note 33, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-revelations-and-translations-volume-5?p=1#108368103164379468. (emphasis added)

[10] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/6

[11] https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-book/opening-the-heavens/documents-of-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon

[12] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/142

[13] This version was published in the 1902 History of the Prophet Joseph Smith by his mother Lucy Mack Smith. https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheProphetJosephSmithByHisMotherLucyMackSmith/page/n139/mode/2up

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

[15] A full transcript is available at https://www.mobom.org/emma-smith-to-emma-pilgrim.

[16] Zenas H. Gurley, Jr., “The Book of Mormon,” Autumn Leaves (1892), Vol. 5, quote at pp. 452-3, available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433075797161&seq=485

[17] “Mormonism.” Susquehanna Register (Montrose, Pennsylvania) 9, no. 21 (1 May 1834). See the transcript in Appendix B to this review.

[18] Salt Lake City: Digital Legends, 2023, chapter 2(B). Also see https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/08/credibility-of-emma-smiths-last.html

[19] The full article is available at https://archive.org/details/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n189/mode/2up

[20] The Saints’ Herald, March 3, 1888, page 129.  https://www.google.com/books/edition/Saints_Herald‌/vJD0EOEmJyYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22saints+herald%22+%22march+3,+1888%22&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover

[21] https://archive.org/details/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n127/mode/2up?q=Urim

[22] https://archive.org/details/TheSaintsHerald_Volume_26_1879/page/n339/mode/2up?q=Urim

[23] See the discussion here: https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2024/09/the-embarrassed-narrative-and-stone-in-the-hat.html.

[24] https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/82199881-7613-43e6-a79e-b72609d95b23/0/20?lang=eng

[25] https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/10/mode/2up

[26] The original Reuben Miller journal entries are available here: https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=22222322-f4fe-41e3-aa86-bfc54b94df92&crate=0&index=14. See also https://www.mobom.org/oliver-returning-to-the-church

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

[28] For more analysis, see https://www.mobom.org/urim-and-thummim-in-1832.

[29] https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/BOMP/id/868

[30] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1

[31] http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4xNjo5LndqZW8uNDU0NDk3LjQ1NDUwNQ==