Teaching how BOM was REALLY translated . . .

[dblagent007]

Scribes, not the actual translator. They can't answer whether Joseph saw words that he dictated, or understood the meanings of characters and had to chose the words to voice them, for instance. They can't answer why parts of the Book of Mormon match the King James Bible so closely. They can't say exactly how he used the plates, the urim and thumim, and the seer stone because he generally kept a curtain up between translator and scribe.

The accounts about the hat are second-hand accounts of someone who didn't actually do it, usually from long after the fact.

Jason, most of the accounts are from people that saw everything going on. They didn't see exactly what was happening inside the hat, but they certainly saw Joseph's face in the hat, the seer stone in the hat, what JS said as he translated, etc. There was no curtain up between the translator and scribe or others in the room most of the time. Some said that JS saw words that he dictated and it is likely true that they did not actually witness the words appearing. However, presumably JS told them that was how it worked.

[stn9]

Edited to add that David Whitmer also served as a scribe

Emma said her brother Rueben was also a scribe.

[Garrote]

I was teaching a primary class (10 yr olds) and we read the part of JS's history about working for Josiah S. and money digging. I was sorely tempted to actually tell the primary kids what JS's role was in the money digging, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it (partly out of fear because there is another teacher there and I was afraid that he would think I was teaching unproven anti-Mormon stories).

As for Consig, I think he went far enough with the hat translation demonstration. Innoculation only works if it is done in small degrees. Telling them that the stone was the one he found digging a well and the same one used to search for money would have been too much at one time.

Perhaps you are correct, in any case I give Consig a big Kudos.

[Uncertain]

Personally I think inoculation is a great idea. However implementing it could be tricky. One of the problems I see is there is going to be a great temptation due to time constraints to give only the cliff notes version of the critical case. As such either intentionally or unintentionally it is easy to build a straw mans version easily dispose of it and have a nice hearty round of guffaws on the gullibility of those poor deluded apostates lead astray by satan . But what happens when a class member goes home and looks up say BOM translation on the internet and is exposed to more sophisticated critical arguments? I dare say how a guy like Dan Vogel argues for naturalistic possibilities for the BOM translation is going to be far different than the sunday school version of the naturalistic arguments. In other words by bringing it up it might precipitate investigation by class members on their own time so to speak. And if the critical version they encounter in their investigations is a more convincing version than what they get in class. It might cause problems.

I am just not sure a short 30-50 minute class is enough time to really give a complicated topic like the BOM translation full justice. And it might precipitate "unsupervised" investigation.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[stn9]

And Joseph Smith was also a scribe for 28 words, which was most likely when Oliver "began to translate" (D&C 9:5--Cowdery "did not continue as [he] commenced, when [he] began to translate" and returned to being a scribe, but he's the required second witness to the translation proces).

[stn9]

...They can't say exactly how he used the plates, the urim and thumim, and the seer stone because he generally kept a curtain up between translator and scribe....

This is apparently not true for the whole translation but just for the first part when Martin was first acting as scribe (116+ pages). Again from Skousen's BYU Studies article, p.52:

Elizabeth Anne Whitmer Cowdery Johnson (David Whitmer's sister, Oliver Cowdery's wife; 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....

[Jason]

Jason, most of the accounts are from people that saw everything going on. They didn't see exactly what was happening inside the hat, but they certainly saw Joseph's face in the hat, the seer stone in the hat, what JS said as he translated, etc. There was no curtain up between the translator and scribe or others in the room most of the time. Some said that JS saw words that he dictated and it is likely true that they did not actually witness the words appearing. However, presumably JS told them that was how it worked.

"Didn't see what was happening", "likely true", "did not actually witness", "presumably JS told them".

There's a lot of wiggle room there between "saw everything that was going on" and what was actually happening.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

In my view:

This kind of gospel doctrine class is precisely what we need more of in the Church. Would you rather have members hear that Joseph Smith translated with a rock in a hat from the antis and let them put their spin on it or let us tell the study and control its implication? In my mind, the translation process was miraculous and strengthens my testimony.

[alter idem]

"Didn't see what was happening", "likely true", "did not actually witness", "presumably JS told them".

There's a lot of wiggle room there between "saw everything that was going on" and what was actually happening.

You are free to discount all the scribes' accounts. However, Elder Nelson didn't have a problem with believing their accounts and many other respected scholars don't either.

[dblagent007]

"Didn't see what was happening", "likely true", "did not actually witness", "presumably JS told them".

There's a lot of wiggle room there between "saw everything that was going on" and what was actually happening.

Jason, here are some of the accounts. If you have some other evidence of what went on, please let us know where it is.

The method used by Joseph.

There were numerous witnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith. They all tell essentially the same story. Joseph would put a stone in a hat, then burying his face in the hat he would proceed to dictate the Book of Mormon to the scribe. Joseph claimed to see in the darkened hat the words he dictated. The gold plates were either always covered in a cloth, where no one including Joseph could even see them or they were not even in the room at the time Joseph was translating. The seer stone, that Joseph put in the hat as he translated, was a stone that he found in a well that he helped dig when he was employed as a treasure seeker years before the Book of Mormon plates were retrieved by Joseph. These are the following accounts:

Emma Hale Smith, Joseph's wife, was the first person to serve as his scribe. Here is her testimony as recounted to her son Joseph Smith III:

"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."

Robert N. Hullinger, in his book: Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism, cites a personal interview Emma Smith-Bidamon gave to a committee of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1879. He notes on pages 9-10: "Smith's wife Emma supported Harris's and Whitmer's versions of the story in recalling that her husband buried his face in his hat while she was serving as his scribe."

David Whitmer was one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. The majority of the translation work took place in the Whitmer home.

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation"

Martin Harris, a Book of Mormon scribe for the lost 116 pages of the BOM, also one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, provided this information to his friend Edward Stevenson, who would later become part of the LDS First Council of Seventy.

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. 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 explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

7

In his Comprehensive History of the Church (CHC), LDS historian and Seventy Brigham H. Roberts quotes Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses whose name is found in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its original edition. Harris said that the seer stone Smith possessed was a "chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum." Harris went on to say it was by using this stone that "Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates" (CHC 1:129).

Martin Harris was one of the scribes Joseph Smith used to record the writing on the plates. This enabled him to give a first-hand account of how Smith performed this translation. Harris noted, "By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say 'written;' and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used" (CHC 1:29).

Martin also said that:

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."

Interview given to Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881, reprinted in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

Isaac Hale, the father of Emma Hale Smith, stated in an 1834 affidavit:

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

Michael Morse

The first-hand account of Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, was published in an 1879 article in the RLDS publication Saint's Herald:

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon

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 scribes - Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down.

Joseph Knight, Sr., an early member of the Church and a close friend of Joseph Smith, wrote the following in a document on file in the LDS Church archives:

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes then he would take a sentence and it would appear in bright roman letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go away the next sentence 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." (spelling preserved from original)

Oliver Cowdery was Joseph's principal scribe for the Book of Mormon, and another of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

"These were days never to be forgotten - to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history, or record, called 'The book of Mormon." (spelling and emphasis preserved from original)

William Smith

In volume two of "A New Witness for Christ in America," LDS writer Francis Kirkham notes that Joseph Smith's brother William also confirmed the use of the hat and seer stone. His account is also similar to the accounts given by Harris and Whitmer although he refers to the seer stone as the "Urim and Thummim." He stated, "The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God" (2:417).

1830 Newspaper Account

The article from the Cincinnati Advertiser of June 2, 1830, supports the 'stone in the hat' translation method:

"A fellow by the name of Joseph Smith, who resides in the upper part of Susquehanna county, has been, for the last two years we are told, employed in dedicating as he says, by inspiration, a new bible. He pretended that he had been entrusted by God with a golden bible which had been always hidden from the world. Smith would put his face into a hat in which he had a white stone, and pretend to read from it, while his coadjutor transcribed."

The article corroborates the 'stone in the hat' version of the translation, as opposed to Joseph's description of 'two stones in silver bows'. Considering the earliness of the article, June 1830, it is closer to the original method of the translation as told by Smith's first scribes----Emma, Harris, Whitmer, Joseph Knight, etc.---before Cowdery became involved. Perhaps the original 'peep-stone' story evolved over time into the 'Urim and Thummim' version, in an attempt to give Joseph's practice a Biblical stamp, and to shed the image of his 1820s 'peep-stoning'.

Artist's depiction of the actual translation process:

If you don't trust these quotes (they came from an anti-Mormon site although I edited out the anti-Mormon comments), then try this one: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=10

[alter idem]

In my view:

This kind of gospel doctrine class is precisely what we need more of in the Church. Would you rather have members hear that Joseph Smith translated with a rock in a hat from the antis and let them put their spin on it or let us tell the study and control its implication? In my mind, the translation process was miraculous and strengthens my testimony.

I agree, and I think it was clever the way he used the hat and the illuminated watch face. I wish I'd thought of it when I was teaching. I did give the account of the hat and the seer stone, but I didn't have the imagination to show them, as he did.

[dblagent007]

This thread illustrates the problem the church faces. One person here simply does not believe the history because he has been taught the whitewashed version for so long.

I guess the church has done a cost benefit analysis and decided that teaching the details of its history is too damaging. I hope this is not true, but I don't know any other explanation.

[stn9]

Oh, and consig, it would also be wise to go back to the class and mention the blanket Martin mentioned and to give Cowedry's quote about how Joseph placed the "translators" over the plates:

He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the "interpreter" until it was copied correctly (Stephen D. Ricks, "Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 2 [spring and Fall 1993]: 201)

From considering all of the pertinent quotes together it appears that Joseph Smith translated in a number of different ways during the 63-or-so-day process, not all with the hat nor a blanket.

[JLFuller]

First, thanks for the report. Very interesting. You wouldn't last long in my stake, but at least GD would be entertaining while the fun lasted.

Second, why do you think your three options are the only possibilities. What about JS reading a manuscript in his hat? What about Oliver being in on the fraud (fraud being too strong of a word--maybe JS used a manuscript but still believed it was of God)?

None of the witnesses to the translation who left he church ever recanted their original testimonies about how it was translated or maybe revealed is a better word. As I recall they left because they had problems with Joseph or had been ex'd for behavioral reasons, again, with Joseph having some part in it. Someone may wish to put a finer point on that though. But I am quite sure if the bringing forth of the B of M was not exactly as claimed one of those people would have spilled the beans. A secret that big would not, and I think could not, be kept. If it was not by the principles then by a member of their families or one of thier close friends.

[Jason]

The problem is that no one really knows how the translation happened. We have various accounts, some of which conflict with others, but no detailed accounts from Joseph himself, the person who could have told us the most with the most accuracy. So "teaching how the BOM was REALLY translated" would be not teaching things we know, but things we guess, and perhaps not with any great measure of accuracy either.

A much better use of Sunday School time would be to teach something we do know with certainty - that Joseph Smith recevied revelation, that each of us can receive revelation as well, and that it can be a great help to us.

[Ipso Facto]

Just for the record....

Report of an Interview with Martin Harris in John Clark, Gleanings (1842), p.231:

From Royal Skousen, "Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon," BYU Studies 29:1:52 (footnote 25):

Neither of these accounts have anything to do with the process reported for the translation of the Book of Mormon. These are both from the Urim and Thummim/Lost 116 pages translation sessions.

[Ipso Facto]

Oh, and consig, it would also be wise to go back to the class and mention the blanket Martin mentioned and to give Cowedry's quote about how Joseph placed the "translators" over the plates:

From considering all of the pertinent quotes together it appears that Joseph Smith translated in a number of different ways during the 63-or-so-day process, not all with the hat nor a blanket.

This is, quite obviously, an inferior piece of evidence in comparison to the first-hand and second-hand accounts given by others. This comes perilously close to being rejected out of hand as hearsay.

Just saying.

I understand what you're trying to do here, but I think it's misguided and insupportable. By and large, it is quite apparent from the multitude of witnesses, that Joseph Smith translated the overwhelming majority of the Book of Mormon by means of a stone placed in the bottom of a hat which he drew around his face. And, almost without exception, it is quite apparent that the plates themselves were not in the immediate vicinity. Those are the unavoidable facts.

[Ipso Facto]

The problem is that no one really knows how the translation happened. We have various accounts, some of which conflict with others, but no detailed accounts from Joseph himself, the person who could have told us the most with the most accuracy. So "teaching how the BOM was REALLY translated" would be not teaching things we know, but things we guess, and perhaps not with any great measure of accuracy either.

A much better use of Sunday School time would be to teach something we do know with certainty - that Joseph Smith recevied revelation, that each of us can receive revelation as well, and that it can be a great help to us.

You're correct in saying that no one, except the Prophet himself, knows precisely what were the mechanics of the translation. But, as I noted above:

By and large, it is quite apparent from the multitude of witnesses, that Joseph Smith translated the overwhelming majority of the Book of Mormon by means of a stone placed in the bottom of a hat which he drew around his face. And, almost without exception, it is quite apparent that the plates themselves were not in the immediate vicinity. Those are the unavoidable facts.

I don't know why you (apparently) find this to be so unsettling. Do you? And if so, why?

[kolipoki09]

I don't know why this subject would be so strange, but its so different from what people are "used" to hearing in Sunday School. I've mentioned the translation process before only to be "censored" by those who didn't want to hear it.

[emeliza]

Scribes, not the actual translator. They can't answer whether Joseph saw words that he dictated, or understood the meanings of characters and had to chose the words to voice them, for instance. They can't answer why parts of the Book of Mormon match the King James Bible so closely. They can't say exactly how he used the plates, the urim and thumim, and the seer stone because he generally kept a curtain up between translator and scribe.

The accounts about the hat are second-hand accounts of someone who didn't actually do it, usually from long after the fact.

I don't believe Consig really got into this so much. He said to a couple questions that they didn't know and read an opinion by Nibley, but it doesn't appear he actually gave a definite answer.

[Jason]

If I am unsettled by anything it is by the insistance that several second-hand accounts of how the BoM was translated, some of which conflict with each other, are "unavoidable facts."

[Ipso Facto]

If I am unsettled by anything it is by the insistance that several second-hand accounts of how the BoM was translated, some of which conflict with each other, are "unavoidable facts."

You're one of the very few who find the several accounts "conflicting". Quite frankly, they aren't. Not in terms of the process being observed (the stone, the hat, the absence or lack of use of the plates, etc.) The accounts are quite consistent in those elemental respects. The accounts that don't agree on those points are the outliers, or they are approaching hearsay, and are therefore to be discounted accordingly.

There really isn't an appreciable debate on these points. Among serious students and professional historians, they are all but foregone conclusions and have been spoken of as such for several decades now.

Again, why would it bother you if Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon in this fashion?

[emeliza]

If I am unsettled by anything it is by the insistance that several second-hand accounts of how the BoM was translated, some of which conflict with each other, are "unavoidable facts."

I haven't read any conflicts aside from the curtain and whether it was the seer stone or U&T. That is it.

On a side note, I bet the scribes had to listen closely if Joseph's face was in a hat. How muffled that would be...even if his mouth wasn't in the hat, it still would be a bit muffled.

[JLFuller]

I don't know why this subject would be so strange, but its so different from what people are "used" to hearing in Sunday School. I've mentioned the translation process before only to be "censored" by those who didn't want to hear it.

Koli

My family goes back to the founding years of the church on two lines. The only significance of that is that I have heard just about every wrong headed notion there is about the church and a lot of it came from my dna Mormon family, their friends and others of similar pedigree. What is used to being heard in Church is not always correct. If there is any censoring it is from those people who know the gobbledygook from the real history and suppress it as just that - gobbledygook.

[Calm]

Jason, here are some of the accounts. If you have some other evidence of what went on, please let us know where it is.

Did I miss something? I am wondering why the artist has Joseph sitting on the stairs. In skimming through the accounts, I didn't see anything resembling this.