Author: Jonathan Neville

https://www.lbcoaching.co.za/surfacing-the-elephant-in-the-room/

There is an obvious reality when it comes to problems: if you can’t talk about them, you can’t fix them.

This is the elephant-in-the-room problem.

It is classic organizational behavior to ignore problems and pretend they don’t exist. Management often considers it disloyal to discuss certain problems. Here is a good example from an article in Forbes that I link to at the end of this post.

After completing a culture assessment for a major corporation I was doing my “What? So what? and Now what?” presentation to the senior management team. That’s where I describe the results, point out the implications of the findings, and make recommendations for change. One of the findings was that the CEO had a shoot-the-messenger reputation that was stifling open dialogue on key operational issues.

_____

We see the elephant-in-the-room in the Church as well.

I, along with many other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, notice that there are elephants in the room that no one can talk about.

It’s unfortunate because many of these elephants exist because of past mistakes, and these mistakes can be resolved fairly easily be refocusing on the teachings of the prophets instead of the teachings of modern intellectuals.

For example, there is a lot of confusion about Church history and Book of Mormon historicity that people don’t feel free to discuss. The recent Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon geography  expressly prohibits discussing the topic in Church settings.

Treating these issues as elephants in the room doesn’t prevent people from thinking about them. It just moves the conversation to other forums, notably the Internet. Web pages such as Mormon Stories and CES Letter thrive by focusing on these elephants in the room.

As long-time readers know, I’ve addressed some of these topics in my blogs and books. There is more to come.

In the meantime, there is an excellent discussion of the elephant-in-the-room problem here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2014/10/14/is-there-an-elephant-in-the-room-name-it-and-tame-it/#6d99856734dd

Faced with the publication of Mormonism Unvailed, how did Joseph and Oliver respond?

They prepared essays about the history of the Church. They published these as letters in the Messenger and Advocate newspaper. I consider these to be the first Gospel Topics Essays, with the significant difference that unlike today’s anonymous Gospel Topics Essays, these 1834-5 essays were signed by President Oliver Cowdery, the Assistant President of the Church (senior in authority to the two counselors in the First Presidency).

After the eight essays were published, Joseph had his scribes copy them into his journal as part of his life story. You can read them in the Joseph Smith Papers (see links below).

To make sure all members of the Church were familiar with these essays, Joseph had them republished in every Church newspaper during his lifetime: the Times and Seasons, the Prophet, the Millennial Star, and the Gospel Reflector. They were published as a separate booklet in England, and thousands of copies were sold. Later, Joseph F. Smith republished them in the Improvement Era in Utah. Part of essay #1 has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price.

The essays are important because they address doctrinal and historical issues that are just as pressing today as they were when Joseph and Oliver wrote the essays in 1834-5.

Sadly, most Church members today are unfamiliar with these important essays, which have never been published in the Ensign.

Consequently, members of the Church are uninformed about what Joseph and Oliver taught and are therefore more easily persuaded by M2C intellectuals and revisionist Church historians. 

[BTW, I had trouble finding illustrations for this section because most of them show Joseph

(i) simply looking at the plates (the older ones) or

(ii) staring at a stone in a hat (the newer ones).

Tomorrow in part 3 we’ll look at the artwork and how the stone-in-a-hat theory is being forced on the youth of the Church today.]

Now, let’s take a look at the original sources.
_____

Oliver introduced the essays with this explanation:

That our narrative may be correct, and particularly the introduction, it is proper to inform our patrons, that our brother J. Smith Jr. has offered to assist us. Indeed, there are many items connected with the fore part of this subject that render his labor indispensible. With his labor and with authentic documents now in our possession, we hope to render this a pleasing and agreeable narrative, well worth the examination and perusal of the Saints.—
To do Justice to​ this subject will require time and space: we therefore ask the forbearance of our readers, assuring them that it shall be founded upon facts.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/48

Rare historically accurate depiction of the translation

In the very first essay, Oliver wrote this:

These were days never to be forgotten—to ​sit​ under the voice 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 should have said, “Interpreters,” the history, or record, called “the book of Mormon.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/49
Also found in JS-H, footnote.

Oliver’s observation, when read in the context of Mormonism Unvailed, constitutes a refutation of the stone-in-a-hat theory.

Recall that Mormonism Unvailed had juxtaposed the two alternative theories: a seer stone (peep stone) vs. the Urim and Thummim. Oliver assured his readers that he was conveying facts, and one of those facts is that Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim.

There are over 200 records of historical accounts about the translation. You can read them at Book of Mormon Central here: https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/miraculous-translation-book-mormon.

If you take the time to read those accounts, compare and contrast what Joseph and Oliver said with what everyone else said.
_____

The current Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation

The current version of the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation includes two quotations from Oliver that predate what he wrote in the Messenger and Advocate but affirm the same facts.

The principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, testified under oath in 1831 that Joseph Smith “found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.”³¹ In the fall of 1830, Cowdery visited Union Village, Ohio, and spoke about the translation of the Book of Mormon. Soon thereafter, a village resident reported that the translation was accomplished by means of “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro which the translator looked on the engraving.”³²

In both cases, Oliver explains that Joseph used the Nephite stones to look on the engraving on the plates.
_____

When Oliver rejoined the Church in 1848 he reaffirmed his testimony about the Urim and Thummim as he spoke to an Iowa conference. “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. … I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet.”8

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

This is another rejection of the stone-in-a-hat theory.

Oliver’s rejection of the stone-in-a-hat-theory was obvious to his listeners, but would not be obvious to today’s readers (except those who are familiar with the details of the changes in the text of the Book of Mormon). The explanation is a little detailed so I’m making it a footnote (*) to this post for those interested.

Note also that if you read footnote 8 in the Ensign article I quoted above, it refers to a BYU Studies article which you can read here:
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1266&context=byusq

However, the BYU Studies article omitted Oliver’s statement about the Urim and Thummim by replacing it with ellipses: I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon save a few pages as it fell from the lips of the prophet… I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold
plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the interpreters….
_____

This is important: If you read the current version of the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation, you will see that the anonymous authors were unable to find a single quotation from either Joseph or Oliver to the effect that Joseph (i) used a seer stone (or peep stone) that he found in a well, or (ii) simply read words that appeared on such a stone without even using the plates.

Nevertheless, the anonymous authors of the Gospel Topics Essay preferred the stone-in-a-hat explanation over what Joseph and Oliver stated.

Worse, they omitted what Joseph and Oliver taught.

For example, when they quoted the passage above (“days never to be forgotten“) they omitted Oliver’s statement that Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim.

They also omitted Joseph’s own statement in JS-H 1:35 “Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.“

The essay does not mention the injunction Joseph was under that led him to conduct the demonstration with the stone in a hat:

JS-H 1:42 Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed.

The essay omits Joseph’s account of translating with the Urim and Thummim: JS-H 1:62 By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.

The essay omits Joseph’s explanation about Moroni’s first visit: also that the Urim and Thumim, was hid up with the record, and that God would give me power to translate it, with the assistance of this instrument.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/26

Notice this: there is no record that Joseph or Oliver ever said Joseph had power to translate the plates with anything other than the Urim and Thummim.

In the Wentworth letter, also omitted from the essay, Joseph declared the following: With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.

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

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

When read in the context of the times, when his audience was familiar with the difference between the stone-in-a-hat theory and the Urim and Thummim narrative, the Wentworth letter is a definitive declaration of how Joseph translated the plates.
_____

We wonder, why do the revisionist Church historians prefer the stone-in-a-hat theory over the definitive, consistent explanations from Joseph and Oliver?

We can’t read minds, and so far as I know the intellectuals have not articulated the rationale for their preference, but it is deliberate, as we’ve just seen from the selection of quotations in the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation.

One possibility is that the revisionist historians think they have discovered something in Church history that was “covered up” for decades. In the interest of openness, they have brought forth the stone-in-a-hat theory.

That makes sense from an academic perspective. To get a PhD and have a career, historians have to contribute something new to their field, and because the prophets have consistently taught that Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim, the idea that Joseph “really” used a seer stone instead would have appeal to an academic.

The problem, of course, is that the stone-in-a-hat theory is 185 years old. Those familiar with Church history have always known about Mormonism Unvailed.

Rather than contributing something new, these revisionist historians have resurrected an old, discredited claim made by critics to undermine faith in the accounts of Joseph and Oliver.

True, there are plenty of accounts of the stone-in-a-hat process, but as I’ve pointed out, a careful reading of these accounts is consistent with a demonstration, not the actual translation of the plates.

BTW, if Church historians want to write about something new, I recommend that they republish President Cowdery’s eight historical essays in the Ensign so members of the Church can see how he and Joseph responded to the critics. Those eight essays provide a far more effective response to the critics than the current Gospel Topics Essays that largely embrace the arguments of the critics instead of refute them.

Another possible rationale for the stone-in-a-hat theory is good old academic arrogance. There’s nothing an intellectual enjoys more than showing that he/she knows more than the prophets. IOW, the revisionist historians have “discovered” that the teachings of the prophets about the translation, consistently taught for 180 years, were “incomplete” or even “misleading.”

Depiction of Emma’s unbelievable account from Fairmormon and Book of Mormon Central

Among other things, the historians usually cite statements from Emma Smith, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, which I’ve discussed in detail in my upcoming book on the translation.

To summarize, David was never a scribe; he could only have witnessed a demonstration, not the actual translation with the plates and Urim and Thummim. He didn’t even see the plates until after the translation was complete and he became one of the Three Witnesses.

Martin Harris’ statements are consistent with the demonstration explanation. He, too, never saw the plates or the interpreters until he became one of the Three Witnesses. If he knew those objects weren’t even used for the translation, why would he have been so insistent on seeing them?

Emma’s statement is not believable for several reasons that I’ll discuss in part 3.
_____

Like modern revisionist historians, Mormonism Unvailed greatly preferred the stone-in-the-hat theory.

Here’s an observation from p. 77-8 of Mormonism Unvailed. If you look at the Internet, you’ll find plenty of memes that make the same point today.

Now, whether the two methods for translating, one by a pair of stone spectacles “set in the rims of a bow,” and the other by one stone, were provided against accident, we cannot determine — perhaps they, were limited in their appropriate uses — at all events the plan meets our approbation 

We are informed that Smith used a stone in a hat, for the purpose of translating the plates. The spectacles and plates were found together, but were taken from him and hid up again before he had translated one word, and he has never seen them since — this is Smith’s own story. Let us ask, what use have the plates been or the spectacles, so long as they have in no sense been used ? or

what does the testimony of Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer amount to ? They solemnly swear that they saw the plates, and that an angel showed them, and the engravings which were upon them. 

But if the plates were hid by the angel so that they have not been seen since, how do these witnesses know that when Smith translated out of a hat, with a peep-stone, that the contents of the plates were repeated and written down? Neither of the witnesses pretend that they could read the hieroglyphics with or without the stone; and, therefore, are not competent testimony….

_____

For decades, Church leaders taught that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim. If you search Journal of Discourses, for example, you get over 100 results that explain that Joseph translated the plates with the “Urim and Thummim” that he obtained from Moroni, which had been prepared for the purpose of translating the plates.

The speakers in Journal of Discourses were familiar with Mormonism Unvailed and Oliver’s eight essays that cited facts to rebut the claims of the critics. They were familiar with all of the statements by Oliver and Joseph about how Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates.

Nevertheless, our intellectuals have persuaded members of the Church that the prophets were wrong because Joseph actually used the stone in a hat instead of the Urim and Thummim.

Based on the feedback I’ve received over the last few years, many members of the Church will be happy to know there is an alternative narrative that supports, instead of repudiates, the teachings of the prophets.
_____

In part 3, we’ll address these questions:

Why did Emma say Joseph used the stone-in-a-hat method?

How are revisionist historians (including BYU professors) teaching the youth that the prophets are wrong?

How does all of this implicate M2C?
_____

* As noted above, Oliver Cowdery said “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.“

I think it’s safe to say that Oliver Cowdery knew what was written in the Book of Mormon. He not only wrote it as Joseph dictated the text, but he copied the entire manuscript for the printer.

Plus, he actually saw the Interpreters and specifically identified them as the Urim and Thummim.

[Here, I should mention that our revisionist historians claim W.W. Phelps was the first to call the interpreters the Urim and Thummim, but as I’ve explained elsewhere, all we can say is that the Phelps reference is the first extant published reference. The Phelps statement is consistent with prior use of the term by Joseph and Oliver.]

Oliver Cowdery certainly knew that the Book of Mormon refers to “interpreters” in only four verses.

Mosiah 8:13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

Mosiah 8:19 And now, when Ammon had made an end of speaking these words the king rejoiced exceedingly, and gave thanks to God, saying: Doubtless a great mystery is contained within these plates, and these interpreters were doubtless prepared for the purpose of unfolding all such mysteries to the children of men.

Mosiah 28:20 And now, as I said unto you, that after king Mosiah had done these things, he took the plates of brass, and all the things which he had kept, and conferred them upon Alma, who was the son of Alma; yea, all the records, and also the interpreters, and conferred them upon him, and commanded him that he should keep and preserve them, and also keep a record of the people, handing them down from one generation to another, even as they had been handed down from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem.

Ether 4:5 Wherefore the Lord hath commanded me to write them; and I have written them. And he commanded me that I should seal them up; and he also hath commanded that I should seal up the interpretation thereof; wherefore I have sealed up the interpreters, according to the commandment of the Lord.

In 1923, Church leaders recognized that the Hill Cumorah in western New York was the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6. It was the scene of the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites, just as President Oliver Cowdery described it in Letter VII.

BYU Studies has an excellent article on the commemoration that year of the 100th anniversary of Moroni’s first visit to Joseph Smith. I posted comments about it on my new blog, where I am accumulating everything relevant to Cumorah.

www.thehillcumorah.com

The question to consider: What will the 200th anniversary be like?

Unless there is a course-correction to the current trend, in 2023 any celebration at the “hill in New York” will involve only the set of plates Joseph obtained from Moroni’s stone box on the hill. There will be no mention of Jaredites or Nephites having lived in that area.

Academic pride seems to be driving a lot of revisionist Church history as well. And the explanations given by LDS intellectuals are making the problem worse.
_____

CES Letter compilation stone-in-a-hat theory

People ask me all the time about the stone-in-the-hat theory of translation. This is the currently popular narrative that Joseph Smith read words off a stone-in-a-hat to dictate the Book of Mormon. It was featured in Saints, which I didn’t address in detail because of the other significant problems in that book (the censorship of Cumorah, the phony Mary Whitmer/Moroni story, etc.).

Many members have said they felt betrayed or misled when Church intellectuals and media embraced the stone-in-a-hat theory because they had been taught all their lives that Joseph translated the plates by using the Urim and Thummim that Moroni put in the stone box with the plates.

In my view, these members should have felt betrayed by the revisionist historians, not by the traditional teachings of the prophets, because the traditional teaching was correct. 

It has been a serious mistake to reject the teachings of Joseph and Oliver in favor of the statements by others about the stone-in-a-hat. (I’ve pointed out elsewhere that the people who made the statements about the stone-in-a-hat were probably honest, but they were reporting demonstrations by Joseph Smith, not the actual translation of the Book of Mormon.*)

Although it is new to many Church members today, the stone-in-a-hat theory had its origins back in 1834 in a book titled Mormonism Unvailed.  The authors published the book in Painesville, Ohio, just a few miles from Kirtland, and sought every way possible to discredit Joseph Smith, his associates, and the Book of Mormon. They articulated the stone-in-a-hat theory as an alternative to Joseph’s account that he translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that Moroni put in the stone box with the plates.

Certain modern scholars have revived the stone-in-a-hat theory as if it was recently discovered, but in reality it is 184 years old.

It’s old news to anyone who is familiar with Church history.

Here’s the key: Joseph and Oliver dealt with it right after it was first published in Mormonism Unvailed. Recently it has risen from the dead, a zombie of Church history. Sadly, it is our own Church historians who have given it life.
_____

We can understand the chronology of the alternative theories through a simple chiasmus:

Joseph produced the Book of Mormon by reading words off a stone-in-a-hat (critics) [1834]
     Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim (alternative account) [1834]
     Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim (taught for decades by LDS leaders) [1834-2015]
Joseph produced the Book of Mormon by reading words off a stone-in-a-hat (revisionist historians) [2015 to present]

IOW, our current intellectuals have now embraced what only the critics claimed back in 1834. As we’ll see below, Oliver and Joseph specifically repudiated the stone-in-a-hat theory. That’s why, for 180 years, the prophets taught that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate, and not the stone-in-a-hat.

Critics such as CES Letter made a big issue out of the stone-in-a-hat narrative. They claimed the Church was covering up its history. In response, what did our intellectuals do?

Did they reaffirm what Joseph and Oliver taught about the translation?

No.

Instead, they embraced the arguments of the critics, and now they are teaching the youth the stone-in-a-hat theory, including the idea that Joseph didn’t even use the plates.

You can see how this plays out right here on the CES Letter page: https://cesletter.org/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon-translation.html.

In my view, the revisionist Church historians’ revival of the stone-in-a-hat zombie is an unmitigated disaster.
_____

At the end of this post, we’ll see how the stone-in-a-hat theory implicates M2C and why the M2C citation cartel, including Book of Mormon Central, promote the stone-in-the-hat theory.

Scene from Church film that teaches the stone-in-a-hat theory of translation

First, we observe that the stone-in-a-hat theory has been set forth in the Gospel Topics Essay on Translation, in the pages of the Ensign, and in numerous books and articles by revisionist Church historians. It is portrayed in the recent Church film about Harmony. It is being taught in visitors centers. The Priesthood Restoration site in Pennsylvania even features a hat in the Joseph Smith cabin, but at least they hadn’t put a stone in it when I visited there.

An article in the Ensign, for example, makes this claim:

By 1833, Joseph Smith and his associates began using the biblical term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to any stones used to receive divine revelations, including both the Nephite interpreters and the single seer stone.17

That statement is purely revisionist history. 

Look at note 17: Wilford Woodruff, for instance, called a seer stone he saw in Nauvoo a Urim and Thummim (Wilford Woodruff journal, Dec. 27, 1841, Church History Library).

If you read Woodruff’s journal, he never says he saw a seer stone. He simply says “I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM.”
You can read his journal entry yourself here:
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=28b53d73-2ba2-418b-8ef7-dafcc935bee3&crate=0&index=125

The historians simply infer that Woodruff saw a seer stone and then state their inference as a fact. 

Those interested in more details about all of this can read my upcoming book. For example, Heber C. Kimball said Brigham Young had the Urim and Thummim.

I’m not saying that it’s impossible the term was used for things other than the Nephite interpreters prepared for the translation of the plates, but I am saying that in 1834 forward, during Joseph’s lifetime, there was a clear delineation between the Urim and Thummim and any seer stones. That’s why it is so important to recognize that Joseph and Oliver always said Joseph translated the plates using the Urim and Thummim.

As we see below, in 1834 even the critics recognized the distinct difference between (i) the “seer stone” that Joseph found while digging a well and (ii) the Urim and Thummim prepared anciently for the translation of the Book of Mormon.

The idea that Joseph and his associates used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the seer stone Joseph reportedly found in a well is merely an effort by the revisionist historians to reconcile what Joseph and Oliver (and their contemporaries and successors) taught with what the critics claimed.

That’s an understandable approach. The revisionist historians sought an explanation that is both historically accurate and palatable to Church members. But instead of an explanation that makes sense and is consistent with the historical record–an explanation that would help people understand history and reaffirm the teachings of the prophets–these intellectuals simply adopted the claims of the critics and embraced the stone-in-a-hat theory.

They’re teaching that Joseph and Oliver misled the Church about the translation, the same way Joseph and Oliver supposedly misled the Church about the New York Cumorah.

The revisionist historians have inadvertently caused great confusion and ridicule, and they have given enemies of the Church plenty of ammunition to destroy faith.
_____

On page 18, which you can read here, Mormonism Unvailed acknowledges two alternative explanations of the translation. The first involved the seer stone (which the book calls a “peep stone”) that Joseph put in a hat to read off the words that appeared. Setting aside the sarcasm of this passage, we can see that the first paragraph below is what our revisionist Church historians are teaching today (although they claim Joseph saw a group of words instead of a single word at a time).

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

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

South Park depiction of the stone-in-a-hat theory

This version of the translation was been infamously portrayed in an episode of South Park, as well as on many web pages critical of the Church.

Now, this stone-in-a-hat theory has been embraced in Church publications, as mentioned above.

Mormonism Unvailed acknowledged an alternative explanation of the translation. This is the explanation that Joseph and Oliver always gave, albeit not exactly the way it is explained in Mormonism Unvailed.

Another account they give of the transaction, is, that it was performed with the big spectacles before mentioned, and which were in fact, the identical Urim and Thumim mentioned in Exodus 28 — 30, and were brought away from Jerusalem by the heroes of the book, handed down from one generation to another, and finally buried up in Ontario county, some fifteen centuries since, to enable Smith to translate the plates without looking at them ! 

Mormonism Unvailed is not noted for accuracy in its presentation about the Book of Mormon. Here, the authors missed the points that (i) the Urim and Thummim that Joseph received was not brought from Jerusalem by Lehi but instead had been used by the Jaredites in America, and (ii) Joseph actually looked at the plates with the spectacles.

However, the passage quoted above makes a clear delineation between the stone-in-a-hat theory and the Urim and Thummim narrative. (Elsewhere in the book the authors distinguish between the peep stone and the spectacles.) Everyone who read the book understood these were two competing explanations of the translation of the Book of Mormon. There was no suggestion that Joseph, Oliver, or anyone else referred to the “seer stone” as the Urim and Thummim. All contemporary accounts referred to the interpreters Moroni put in the stone box as the Urim and Thummim.

Faced with the publication of Mormonism Unvailed, how did Joseph and Oliver respond?

We’ll cover this in part 2, tomorrow.

To be continued…
_____
* The stone-in-a-hat theory is based on accounts of demonstrations Joseph conducted to satisfy people’s curiosity, while he was under the constraint of never showing the plates or the Urim and Thummim to unauthorized persons. Not a single one of these witnesses ever recorded what Joseph actually dictated during these demonstrations. There is no account of Joseph or Oliver ever saying Joseph used a seer stone instead of the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates. People simply inferred that the demonstrations were actually the translations of the plates, but Joseph and Oliver consistently taught otherwise.

Spokane, Washington temple, July 19, 2019

In the last week, I visited three more temples I hadn’t seen before: Spokane, Washington; Billings, Montana; and Bismark, North Dakota.

Each one featured the statue of Moroni. In fact, all but 8 of the temples around the world feature a statue of Moroni. In some cases, a Moroni statue was added during renovation of older temples, including the temples in Ogden, Provo, London, Bern, and Tokyo.

(When we visited the Tokyo temple some years ago, lightning had struck the statue and knocked the trumpet out of Moroni’s hands.)

Every time we visit a temple, the Moroni statue is a reminder of the restoration of the Gospel. But it’s also a reminder of what Moroni taught about the Book of Mormon itself.

Sadly, and inexcusably, our M2C intellectuals are teaching our youth that Moroni was wrong about important aspects of the restoration.
_____

You can read a brief history of the Moroni statues here. The first temple to feature a statue of an angel identified as Moroni was the Salt Lake temple, dedicated in 1893.

Why a statue of Moroni?

One webpage that focuses on temples explained it this way: Because the angel Moroni had such a significant role in in restoring the everlasting gospel to be preached to all the world, we now place his statue atop the temples. He is shown as a herald of the Restoration to usher in the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ.

I like to think these statues are a re-affirmation of what Moroni taught, both in the Book of Mormon and directly to Joseph Smith and others.

Notice, too, that the statue of Moroni fits the description given by Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith. He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. JS-H 1:31.

The stature of this personage was a little above the common size of men in this age; his garment was perfectly white, and had the appearance of being without seam. Oliver Cowdery, Letter IV.

Mary Whitmer and the Nephite messenger who is definitely not Moroni

Moroni was not a portly old man with a long beard, less than six feet tall, the way David Whitmer and his mother Mary described the messenger who took the Harmony plates to Cumorah and brought the plates of Nephi to Fayette. According to Joseph Smith, that was one of the Nephites. According to Mary Whitmer, he called himself brother Nephi.

But according to Book of Mormon Central, the Saints book, and our other M2C intellectuals, the messenger was a shape-shifting Moroni. Book of Mormon Central commissioned this painting and actually titled it “Mary Whitmer and Moroni.”

They teach that this old man was Moroni because they don’t want people to know that the Hill Cumorah is in western New York.

They don’t even want people to know that this messenger took the Harmony plates to Cumorah because they want people to believe the real Hill Cumorah that contains the repository of Nephite records is in southern Mexico.

To promote M2C, these intellectuals want people to disbelieve Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Joseph Smith, and even Mary Whitmer.

As well as Moroni himself.
_____

Today we’ll compare some of the teachings of Moroni with the teachings of the M2C intellectuals and revisionist Church historians.

Think about this contrast every time you visit a temple.

A movie about his mission to Palmyra is being released today (July 24, 2019). I can’t see it because it’s not playing anywhere near Palmyra, ironically, but I encourage people to see it because so few people know his story.

Even fewer know about a book he wrote titled Book of Mormon Geography: In search of Ramah-Cumorah. Everyone interested in Willard Bean should read this book, which is available on Amazon here, as well as in various bookstores, including Latter-day Harvest in Palmyra itself.

The book was first published in 1948 – 71 years ago!

The Preface alone is fascinating.

“In recent years there has been a tendency among certain students of the Book of Mormon to orientate Book of Mormon cultures far to the south…. These students think it unlikely that the Jaredites or Nephites were in North America, and that they surely did not push northward as far as New York State… Most students who accept this theory do not consider the Hill Cumorah in western New York as the hill where the gold plates were originally deposited, nor the area immediately south of the Great Lakes as the site of the Jaredite and Nephite battlefields. This theory leads to the assumption that… The hill where they [the plates] were finally concealed was named Cumorah in honor of the original hill far to the south where they were first deposited….
The following pages are a plea in defense of the old theory–the interpretation of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, and a countless number of the Authorities of the Church…”

It’s amazing how long this debate over M2C vs. the New York Cumorah has been going on.

I realize that our modern LDS intellectuals think Willard Bean was wrong. They think all the leaders of the Church who have taught the New York Cumorah were wrong.

But I agree with Willard that the prophets were right.

Earlier this year, an anonymous Gospel Topics essay stated that as of now, the Church’s position on Cumorah has changed; the Church no longer takes any position on any Book of Mormon settings. But, as we’ve seen, those anonymous essays are subject to change at any moment without notice.

Besides, every member of the Church–everyone who accepts the Book of Mormon whether or not they are LDS–should at least be informed about why every member of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency who has ever addressed the question of Cumorah has reaffirmed the New York setting. Willard Bean’s book is a good place to start.
_____

There’s another fun book on the topic. It’s a book of photos from Willard Bean that I believe is out of print but can still be purchased from Latter-day Harvest and other sites.

https://www.facebook.com/OldNauvoo/

I have a copy and I enjoy seeing these old photos and explanations, especially those involving the dedication of the Angel Moroni statue.

Here’s how it looks on youtube.

Of course, the Mayan logo directly contradicts the Church’s policy of neutrality regarding Book of Mormon Geography. It also makes the Book of Mormon look ridiculous to non-LDS experts on the Mayans.

Many believers in the Book of Mormon still accept the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. That does not exclude Central America as a possible site for some Book of Mormon events, but Book of Mormon Central excludes the New York Cumorah as a possibility for Cumorah!

“your prejudices, like armed men, stood with their swords ready drawn, to guard all the passes of conviction, and hew down every truth as fast as it presented itself to your mind.”