Category: Uncategorized

49:09

Brant: it is
an apologetic for a particular idea where you say I’m uncomfortable with that
history and I want it to be different therefore I will find things that fit
my premise.

Comment. As
we’ll see when we get to this part of the interview, Brant was referring (falsely)
to my approach to SITH. But I start with this because it’s a fascinating Freudian
slip, also called parapraxis, in which Brant describes his own approach to
these issues.

We saw
several examples of this in his discussion of Book of Mormon geography, such
as when he claimed Joseph Smith said he was “crossing the plains of the Lamanites.”

His mind so
deeply rejects the North American setting that it apparently won’t allow
Brant to accurately recall Joseph’s actual statement, which was “crossing the
plains of the Nephites.”

Brant’s books
about the setting of the Book of Mormon employ this type of confirmation
bias.

To his credit,
Brant rejected the Stela 5 meme that was popular among M2Cers. But as we read
his books and articles on the topic, we see a pattern of seeking for and
finding details in Mesoamerica that “parallel” his interpretation of the text
while rejecting data that contradict his interpretation (such as Letter VII).

We all do
this, more or less, so this is not a surprise. But it’s telling to see Brant
articulate this problem only in the context of finding fault with those who
disagree with him.

[Now back to the beginning of this part of the conversation]

7:55 Murph: Understanding
how the Book of Mormon was translated… you know I grew up believing that
Joseph Smith translated it, you know, by the gift and power of God. Most of
the depictions show him, you know, with the plates, you know, looking at the
gold plates. We read about in his official history as he describes it, using
the Urim and Thummim which are the Nephite interpreters or the spectacles, like
they’re like two, sort of like whiteish Stones, weren’t they?

In a silver
bow…

8:29

… and they’re
kind of worn as spectacles

Here Murph
accurately relates the traditional understanding of how the Book of Mormon
was translated, based on authentic historical documents; i.e., Joseph
translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the
plates. He and Oliver were consistent whenever they discussed the
translation.

One example
is from the 1838 Elders’ Journal:

Question 4th. How, and where did you

obtain the book of Mormon?

Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited

the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill
in Manchester, Ontario County New York, being dead; and

raised again therefrom, appeared unto me,

and told me where they were; and gave me

directions how to obtain them. I obtained

them, and the Urim and Thummim with

them; by the means of which, I translated

the plates; and thus came the book of Mormon.

Link: Joseph
Smith Papers

That
explanation is clear, direct, and unequivocal. Joseph explains he translated
the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.
The statement leaves no room for a seer stone found elsewhere.

8:29 but
actually there’s quite a few statements from some eyewitnesses like uh Emma
Smith his wife, Martin Harris, David Whitmer uh maybe some others as well who
talk about him having a Seer Stone and him putting it into his hat burying
his face in the hat and then either reading and we’ll get into that later
with your review

or dictating
the words as they appeared on the stone

8:54

and for a lot
of for a lot of people I didn’t know about that until um I think after my
mission, the Seer Stone was used… I remember somebody said to me that the
church anoints the seer Stone because I went on my mission 2015.

I think that
was the year the church were like publicly you know, released it and there
was, I think an article Joseph the Seer about it so I think it could be good
to initially talk about, you know, seer stones and Joseph Smith sort of uh
folk magic, you know, the culture and, you know, the 18th 19th century of
using not just seer stones but things like uh divining rods and people
believing in you know buried treasure underground guarded by spirits that was
sort of like the culture that, the environment that he was in. Is there
anything you want to tell us a bit about yeah sort of like the 19th century
magical folklore and culture he grew up?

Murph does a
good job establishing the fundamental discrepancy between what Joseph and
Oliver said versus what others said. He also describes the “magic world view”
that has become widely accepted.

The Ensign
article to which he refers is here:

Link: Ensign
2015

I’ve
discussed this article several times, such as here:

It’s a great article, overall,
but it started a theme that continues to cause a lot of confusion in the
Church. For example, the article says

In another Book of Mormon account, Alma the Younger gives the
interpreters to his son Helaman. “Preserve these interpreters,” Alma counsels
him, referring to the two stones in silver bows. But Alma also quotes a
prophecy that appears to refer to a single stone: “And the Lord said: I will
prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness
unto light.” (Alma 37:21, 23).

The problem here: the original
version of Alma 37 did not read “interpreters.” It read “directors.” The term
was changed in the 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon. Thus, when Oliver
Cowdery said “interpreters” he could not have been referring to
Alma 37.

The article also claimed this:

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 This imprecise terminology has complicated attempts to reconstruct
the exact method by which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

This paragraph states a weak
theory as a fact. Note 17 refers to the Wilford Woodruff account of seeing
the Urim and Thummim in Nauvoo, but Brigham Young’s account of the same
meeting clearly distinguished between the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone
Joseph showed on that occasion.

Besides, as anyone knows who has
read the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed, that book made a clear distinction
between the Urim and Thummim and the seer or “peep” stones. It
presented them as alternative accounts that were circulating at the time. That
context explains why it is significant–critical–that Joseph and Oliver
always said Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim and never said he
translated with a seer stone.

Link: BookofMormonCentralAmerica

9:50

Brant: I
think it’s important to know that that that existed because it gives a
context

to what
Joseph was doing because when we hear it you know it’s the reaction everybody
has to the seer stone which is, oh no, this is weird, this is strange and
what we don’t understand because we come from a very different world view is,
for the people who lived in that world view and at that time this was
perfectly normal this was accepted this is what you do and if you dig into
the history of this it actually has a very long history and it goes back into
England…

Brant is accurately
relating the modern LDS scholarly narrative about the acceptability of seer
stones in Joseph Smith’s time, but it’s obviously apologetic when we consider
how the topic was actually treated during Joseph’s lifetime.

It was hardly
“perfectly normal” to use seer stones to find treasure, let alone to
translate an ancient record. Instead, the practice was an object of ridicule
and scorn, as we read right in the 1834 Mormonism Unvailed:

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

Link:
Archive.org
Mormonism Unvailed

After
digressing into a discussion of herbalists vs doctors, Brant continues.

13:04

Up until the
translation of the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith is part of this culture of people
who believe that you can find things with the Seer Stone and before the
translation of the Book of Mormon there are records of Joseph Smith using a
Seer Stone to find lost things

If there are
records of these events that predate the translation of the Book of Mormon,
they aren’t documented anywhere I’ve seen, apart from the trial when Joseph
was charged with fraud, essentially, for using the stones, as Brant discusses
later. The other accounts are post facto recollections.

13:23

He found a
lost wallet he told somebody where they’re you know where their lost horse
was

um famously
Martin Harris was testing Joseph and he said you know I just dropped a pin
can you find it in you know the tall grass right Joseph you know takes out of
seer Stone and is able

to find it um
he describes Josiah Stoal’s property as well on Josiah Stoal is  convinced of his uh his seeric gift and hires
him uh to come to Harmony Pennsylvania to help you know dig on the silver
mine they were going to yeah and all of that says you know this is a context
where Martin Harris believed that this was possible other people believed it
was possible so it’s not strange at all.

These
accounts were related after the fact, which doesn’t make them untrue but it
does raise the possibility of embellishment, conflation with other stories,
etc.

Oliver
Cowdery addressed these and related charges in Letter VIII, which Joseph had copied
into his own journal as part of his life history and encouraged its
republication in the Gospel Reflector and Times and Seasons. ,
as well as the Millennial Star and the Prophet. IOW, Oliver’s
eight letters were widely distributed among the Saints during Joseph’s
lifetime. Part of Letter I is canonized in JS-H in the Pearl of Great Price.

Here’s an
excerpt from several pages of explanation:

On the private character of our brother I need add nothing further,
at present, previous to his obtaining the records of the Nephites, only that
while in that country, some verry officious persons complained of him as a
disorderly person, and brought him before the authorities of the country
county; but there being no cause of action he was honorably acquited.

Link:
Joseph
Smith Papers

14:07 what I
think is fascinating is you know if somebody comes to me and you know an
angel Moroni came to me and said by the way you’re going to translate
something my first response is okay where are the dictionaries you know give
me the dictionary give me the you know where is the apparatus where’s the
grammar where’s the dictionary how am I going to do this? 

Moroni comes to
Joseph and Joseph’s got the same question how in the world am I going to do
this?

This is all
projection and mind-reading. Naturally, as a scholar, Brant would think this
way. But we have no record of Joseph saying or implying anything of the sort.

To the
contrary, Joseph knew exactly what to do because Moroni told him he was going
to use the Urim and Thummim to translate the record. “God had prepared them for the purpose of translating
the book.” (Joseph Smith—History 1:35)

Letter IV
explains that Moroni “said
this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it
was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to
obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which
were deposited for that purpose with the record.”

Link:
Joseph
Smith Papers

And that’s
exactly what Joseph actually did once he got to Harmony (long before Martin
Harris went there.)

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

(Joseph Smith—History 1:62)

14:35

And so one of
the questions that gets asked is, okay, maybe we’ll find someone to translate
it and so they actually, uh, with that in mind you know, we’ve got the plates.
We’re going to get them translated they said. Martin Harris goes off, goes east
to consult with the scholars to see if he can get someone to translate

M: yeah he
takes some of the characters with him

“with that in
mind” is more mind reading by Brant.

Note the
glaring error here. Martin did not take just the characters with him. He took
the characters along with Joseph’s translation.

This was the
whole point of Martin’s trip. Not to get the characters translated, but to
validate Joseph’s own translation he had done before Martin even came to
Harmony.

14:57

B: and the
whole thing with Charles Anthon is because they’re looking for someone to
translate and this is yeah I can’t do it you know I you know like they look
good but yeah I can’t do it.

So everything
comes back and it gets to Joseph and Joseph realizes okay I’m going to have
to do it.

Brant
contradicts Joseph’s explicit history, which quotes Martin Harris.

“I went to the city of New York,
and presented the characters which had been translated, with the
translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated
for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation
was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the
Egyptian.

(Joseph Smith—History 1:64)

I realize the
SITH sayers have problems with Martin’s version of events, just as they have
problems with Joseph’s version. But here Brant is reading Joseph’s mind to
say Joseph “realizes” he’s going to have to translate only after Martin
returns from New York, despite the fact Joseph had explicitly translated the
characters before giving them to Martin along with the translation to
take to New York.

Nowhere does
Brant explain these passages from JS-H, nor does Murph call him out on them.

In the
interest of charity, we can assume Brant and other SITH sayers have an
explanation. One I’ve heard is that Joseph tried to translate using his own
intellect, but failed, and that’s why he resorted to the seer stone. That
strikes me as pure fiction because Joseph said he did successfully translate
the characters with the U&T before Martin took them to New York. Like
Brant’s mind-reading, this is just a retroactive justification for SITH.

15:14 how is
he going to do that? You know he looks at the plates and everything else and
he goes how in the world am I going to see something that I can’t see? how do
I get the hidden message from this?

This is not
merely mind-reading by Brant. It’s calling Joseph a liar for claiming he
copied and translated the characters.

It is hardly
a “hidden message” when he can copy the characters and translate them into
English, as he said he did.

15:27 and his
only concept is to go back to what he knew which is, you know, I can find
things with a seer stone. I can see things that otherwise could not be seen.
And so it’s absolutely logical in his world that he’s going to use that Seer
Stone as a means of translation because he’s got nothing else. There’s no
grammars. There’s no, there’s no nothing. Even if there were grammar Joseph wouldn’t
probably know how to read that darn thing.

If Joseph is going
“back to what he knew,” he is going back to the Urim and Thummim he had
already used to translate the characters.

Brant says
Joseph has “got nothing else” than the seer stone.

Seriously, it
is difficult to believe that Brant Gardner is unaware of JS-H. But if he is
aware, this is obvious and intentional misinformation to fool listeners into
accepting SITH.

15:58 Murph: like
the magical culture and it’s described as Folk magic. Some people, particularly
you know some Christians might criticize that, you know is this uh dark magic,
you know black magic satanic stuff they were engaged with. My understanding
is it was term deemed as Folk magic because it’s the magic of

the people uh
you know engaging in you know using Seer stones or divining rods and it was
more their magical worldview and sort of like a you know pseudo-science there,
understanding of how the world works.

Murph does a
good job summarizing the SITH narrative here.

Mormonism
Unvailed put it this way:

Joseph, Jun. in the mean time, had become very expert in the arts of
necromancy, jugling, the use of the divining rod, and looking into what they
termed a “peep-stone,” by which means he soon collected about him a gang
of idle, credulous young men, to perform the labor of digging into the hills
and mountains, and other lonely places, in that vicinity, in search of gold.

Link:
Archive.org Mormonism Unvailed

But Joseph
and Oliver hardly approved of Mormonism Unvailed. See a short
discussion here:

Link:
LDSHistoricalNarratives

16:35 Brant: yeah
it is unfortunate that it got

labeled as
magic because then you can say okay wait a minute. Magic is not right. And
then you

get this
occult thing. When I was talking about that clash between the old traditional
and this newer modern science coming in the idea that the um that old folk
belief was satanic is actually much later in history. It’s a reaction to that
right it’s a denial it’s sort of saying okay yeah that’s a bad thing. Well it
wasn’t at the time. It’s a different reaction that people have when you get
that label and it’s unfortunate.

This begins a
discussion of how seer stones were perceived as acceptable at the time. To
normalize SITH, the SITH sayers pursue this line of argument, resorting to a
lot of generalities.

But when
Brant says the idea that seer stones were Satanic “is actually much later in
history,” he should at least cite and explain why the Lord told Joseph to
have Oliver tell Hiram Page that “Satan deceiveth him” when Page used a
stone.

That’s
explicitly Satanic, and September 1830 is hardly “later in history.”

11 And again, thou shalt take
thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those
things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan
deceiveth him;

(Doctrine and Covenants 28:11)

17:22

Murph: almost
kind of like presentism isn’t it? Because whenever I talked to Dan Vogel he
said that the Smiths and other people that would have engaged in these folk
magic practices. They wouldn’t have seen it as uh anything satanic or dark. They
just would have understood that’s how the world works and they’re invisible
forces.

Naturally,
Dan would frame it this way because it fits his narrative. But we can all
read D&C 28:11.

There were
probably some people who thought seer stones were fine, others who thought
they were evil, and others who didn’t care. But the 1830 revelation
explicitly links the Page stone to Satan, so it’s hard to say that Joseph’s
contemporaries “wouldn’t have seen it as anything satanic.”

18:47

Brant: so
yeah this the whole idea that satanic that is actually a reaction that comes much
later in time

Brant
reiterates his bizarre claim that September 1830 (D&C 28:11) is “much
later in time.”

[The
discussion veers into divining rods, others who used seer stones, more anecdotes
about Joseph using the stone, etc.]

The credibility
of the seer stone accounts is subjective; i.e., people can believe or
disbelieve them and give arguments to justify their beliefs.

Here, though,
Brant gives us more extensive mind-reading, telling us what Joseph was
thinking when he was supposedly using the stone.

[after discussing
more accounts, including animal sacrifice, Murph asks] 34:13 have you looked
at those quotes and do you have any thoughts?

34:20 there
are a whole bunch of things that

were
collected after the fact, where somebody’s going in they’re saying I want to
get all these affidavits. Well they’re trying to get things, trying to
encourage people to say bad things about Joseph

M: yeah and Hurlburt
affidavits

B: yeah these
are people who uh you know who are familiar with the kinds of things that
went on and so I wouldn’t be surprised that somebody was involved with animal
sacrifice I also wouldn’t be surprised that they said Joseph was, whether he
was or he wasn’t uh you know these were things that had happened people had
done that and so okay here’s a bad story let me impute that with the Joseph… my
take on it is that those based on the context the way they’re being collected
and the nature of the stories uh I think what we’re seeing is people who know
that those things happened and therefore imputed them to Joseph because they
wanted the person collecting the stories wanted something bad to say about
Joseph. so I don’t necessarily think that that actually happened with Joseph
I think it actually happened with someone um and they just imputed that story
to Joseph because it didn’t sound good and therefore it would make Joseph
look bad…

Comment. This
is a good discussion of the subjectivity and dubious reliability of these
historical narratives.

Contrast
these accounts with what Oliver wrote in Letter VIII, cited above.

During Joseph’s
lifetime, Oliver’s letters (essays) were the most frequently republished
accounts of the Restoration, explicitly approved by Joseph Smith.

However, to
the extent Oliver’s essays refute SITH and M2C, modern LDS historians reject
them. But rejecting these essays for ideological reasons is the epitome of
presentism.

38:14

Murph: okay
so we’ll transition away from Seer Stone treasure digging. We’ll talk briefly
before we get into your theories of the different translation theories. So
when Joseph receives the gold plates after they, you know, go to Charles
Anton he can’t translate it and then Joseph begins translating with Martin
Harris

Here Murph repeats
Brant’s revisionist history, ignoring (or oblivious to) Joseph’s own account
in JS-H.

38:33

there’s from
Martin and from Emma that he uses Urim and Thummim or the spectacles in translation
although I remember I brought up with Steven Smoot you know the story of
Martin

swapping the
stones with Joseph so there’s a bit of ambiguity was it only the Urim and
Thummim

or was the
Seer Stone also used during the 116 pages but it seems that the sources
indicate that after the loss of the 116 Pages it was predominantly the Seer
stone that was placed in the hat for the Book of Mormon as we have it today. Do
you agree with that? do you have any thoughts on you know the Urim and
Thummim and spectacles versus seer stone?

Murph
continues explaining the SITH theory, including the stone swapping account, a
hearsay account that was published only after Martin’s death, based on a
conversation Martin had years previously on the train to Utah, shortly after
his bout of delirium in Ohio.

The other
fallacy here, of course, is that the SITH sayers seem to forget or ignore
that the statements from Joseph and Oliver describe what happened after the
loss of the 116 pages.

39:10

Brant: the
first thought I have is I have to correct language here. The idea that the Urim
and Thummim was ever used with the Book of Mormon is wrong.

How do you like
that for a statement?

M: Explain.

B: The Urim
and Thummim is never in the Book of Mormon. The Urim and Thummim has nothing
to do with the Book of Mormon. The Urim and Thummim was never in the new
world.

39:35

M: right

Brant tries
to be provocative here, which is good rhetorical technique, but it’s pure
word thinking.

When Brant claims
the Urim and Thummim has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, he refers to
the Old Testament Urim and Thummim. He intentionally doesn’t make that clear
because he has implicitly rejected what Joseph Smith said about the term.

Obviously,
the term “Urim and Thummim” can apply to more than one object.

Joseph reported
that Moroni said “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;”

(Joseph
Smith—History 1:35)

As Oliver
explained, Moroni told Joseph it was his “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.”

Link:
Joseph
Smith Papers

To be clear:
Brant, like other SITH sayers, claim Joseph and Oliver were misleading
everyone by retroactively misquoting Moroni.

This is the
pattern. To promote their own theories, the SITH sayers say Joseph and Oliver
misled everyone by saying Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and
Thummim that came with the plates. They misled everyone by even using the
term Urim and Thummim. They misled everyone about the hill Cumorah in New York.

Brant’s
position is not irrational or counterfactual. It’s a deliberate choice to
reject what Joseph and Oliver claimed in favor of accepting what others said.

And that’s
fine, if people want to adopt that interpretation. It’s one of multiple working
hypotheses. But Brant should give people clarity about his position instead
of obscuring it with word thinking.

B: It was a
term that at least uh as early as W.W Phelps, we believe he was the earliest
one, applied to the Seer stones or the interpreters and then it became common
usage.

For a long
time scholars believed Phelps coined the term because his 1833 publication was
the earliest known reference.

But recently
an earlier reference was discovered in an 1832 Boston newspaper. It’s
surprising Brant doesn’t know about this. Maybe he does but he didn’t mention
it because it contradicts his narrative and he would just as soon leave his
readers and listeners ignorant of the reference.

We can all
read about it in the Joseph Smith Papers.

Link: Joseph Smith
Papers

“JS and other
church members began referring to the instrument as the Urim and Thummim by
1832.5”

Let’s pause
and look at the agenda-driven rhetoric in that sentence. The JSP editors
claim JS “began” using the term Urim and Thummim “by 1832.” But that’s not
what the historical evidence tells us.

Published
accounts can’t tell us when JS “began” using the term because we have few
accounts (and even fewer verbatim accounts) of what Joseph said between 1823
and 1832. All we can legitimately say is the first known published use of the
term was this article from 1832 in Boston. But just as the 1832 article contradicted
the long-held claim that Phelps coined the term, an earlier discovery would
contradict the claim that JS began using the term in 1832.

Besides,
unless Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith coined the term themselves for this
interview, they must have heard it from Joseph Smith previously. Samuel could
have heard it as early as 1823, actually.

If the JSP
editors were not promoting the SITH agenda, they would have factually reported
merely that this was the first known published account of the term Urim and
Thummim in connection with the translation.

But this is
not the only historical evidence. Joseph and Oliver both said that Moroni
used the term back in 1823. Scholars can reject their claim, but the interest
of clarity requires them to do so openly, not by rhetorical tricks the way
Brant does here.

Now, let’s
look at Note 5 in the JSP. It gives this citation, which isn’t all that
helpful because there is no link.

“Questions
Proposed to the Mormonite Preachers and Their Answers Obtained before the
Whole Assembly at Julien Hall, Sunday Evening, August 5, 1832,” Boston
Investigator, 10 Aug. 1832, [2]

It’s odd that
the JSP editors did not provide at least an excerpt from the content of the
article so readers could see it in context. Well, maybe not odd, given the
way they promote SITH throughout the JSP.

In that
article, Samuel Smith and Orson Hyde are quoted in this Q&A session:

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

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

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

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

Obviously, these
answers are another refutation of SITH. They even specifically explain what they mean by “Urim and Thummim.” Maybe that’s why Brant didn’t bring
it up during the interview.

For more
discussion of the U&T issue, see Link: Mobom.org

39:54

in the Book
of Mormon they’re interpreters. And so a Seer stone is one that Joseph had
before. The interpreters are the ones that came with the plates. The Urim and
Thummim is just a name that somebody applied later, frankly because by the
time they started getting members of the church uh there were a lot of people
coming where the shift away from that previous magical worldview was already
occurring and it was getting stronger and so people kind of wanted to
distance themselves from the seer stones and one of the ways you did it is
you biblicized them by giving them the name Urim and Thummim.

Here again,
Brant is reading the minds of the early members of the Church, accusing them
of wanting to “distance themselves from the seer stones.” In his version of
history, Moroni did not use the term the way Joseph and Oliver said.

Instead,
Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith “biblicized” the narrative by telling the people
in Boston that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim, which they described as spectacles
found with the plates.

Another
version of history (which I consider more congruent with the historical
record) is that Joseph, Oliver and their contemporaries did want to distance
themselves from the seer stone because Joseph never used the seer stone to
translate the plates. They related accurate history; i.e., that Joseph used
the Urim and Thummim, identified by Moroni, to translate the plates.

[here they
discuss the “gift of Aaron” for a while]

41:14 you
know the very fact that we think of dividing rods and Seer Stones as, you
know, unusual and strange, that is an opinion that was beginning early on and
it informed the way some of the early church members reacted to the

stories and
so you get things like renaming or re-labeling the interpreters and the Seer
Stones as Urim and Thummim which makes them much more palatable. But you also
get changes in the Doctrine and Covenants where you remove the rod because
that’s a little too strange and we want to make things a little more normal.

41:54

now you get
people who will say that Joseph never used the Seer Stone because they have
this belief, again coming from the occult, this other reaction to that, that
we were talking about, that says that this is black magic

Here, Brant
repeats the SITH sayers’ insistence that the term Urim and Thummim applied to
both the intepreters and the seer stone(s).

To repeat, in
case readers are skipping around through this discussion, there is no
historical record that anyone used the term Urim and Thummim to mean both the
Nephite interpreters and the seer stone people claim Joseph put in the hat. Mormonism
Unvailed, David Whitmer, Emma Smith and Marting Harris all made a clear
distinction between the two; i.e., there was the Urim and Thummim that came
with the plates, and there was a separate seer stone.

Nevertheless,
to avoid any confusion, Joseph specifically explained that he translated the
plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

Brant’s rhetoric
about the occult is a red herring intended to lead readers/viewers to think
past the sale.

42:08

M: people
like the Stoddards and things

The Stoddards
do focus on the black magic element, an area of disagreement between us,
which is fine.

B: yeah but
you get that still you know with people in, the church casts a wide net and
we get lots of different people with lots of different histories and beliefs
and some of those ideas that developed in later Evangelical Christianity have
come into the heritage of some of the people in the church but that whole
idea that they’re trying to distance themselves

42:39

that’s the
reason why it faded from church history. Not that they were trying, you know,
actively trying to hide it they were trying to sort of assimilate.

Which I think
if you really think about it is the same thing as hiding.

Brant’s
narrative that LDS leaders were hiding the actual church history “to sort of
assimilate” is a plausible narrative. It’s an essential narrative to support SITH.

However, an
alternative narrative has Joseph and Oliver stating facts to counter false
rumors and innuendo. That’s exactly how Oliver and Joseph explained their
efforts, and that’s also why they denounced Mormonism Unvailed.

Oliver
introduced his eight essays this way:

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
readears, assuring them that it shall be founded upon facts.

Link:
Joseph
Smith Papers

Joseph
introduced his own history this way:

1 Owing to the many reports
which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons,
in relation to the rise and progress of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to
militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the world—I
have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put
all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts, as they have
transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such
facts in my possession.

2 In this history I shall
present the various events in relation to this Church, in truth and righteousness,
as they have transpired, or as they at present exist, being now [1838] the
eighth year since the organization of the said Church.

(Joseph Smith—History 1:1–2)

We can all
see that Brant and the other SITH sayers reject what Joseph and Oliver wrote
about the translation and other topics. And that’s fine. People can believe
whatever they want.

But the SITH
sayers are promoting a particular interpretation of the historical record
based on choices they’ve made, informed by their own assumptions, inferences,
and theories. Their interpretations are not facts.

An
alternative narrative that corroborates what Joseph and Oliver said is also
supported by the historical evidence.

Those of us
who believe what Joseph and Oliver said have no problem with full disclosure
and consideration of all the evidence. But throughout this interview, Brant
obfuscates, misrepresents, and invents historical evidence, as we can all
see.

42:58

M: my
Impressions about looking at some of the quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith it
sounds to me like he probably genuinely believed there was accounts of the seer
stone that were hearsay. I think he just dismissed them. He didn’t believe
them. So I don’t know how much was an intentional covering or he just didn’t
um accept or believe it.

43:16

B: there were
several who, by the time they got around to looking at history, and they
didn’t have all the documents, they didn’t look at that thing seriously, they
just looked at the history and that

whole
dichotomy of saying uh you know we’re modern people but how do you account
for Joseph and the seer stone one of the ways of doing is by denying that he
had a seer Stone.

43:41

But the good
historical work that’s been done and encouraged by the church recently and
supported and then published by the church it’s very very clear that a Seer Stone
was used.

So yes there
was a historical time when they were trying to kind of distance themselves
from it and you know become part of the modern world and separate themselves
from that folk Magic.

History now
allows us to go back and not be as embarrassed about our history as we might
have been at one time.

Murph hits on
a key point: the credibility, reliability, and plausibility of the statements
of the SITH witnesses.

There are
lots of ways witness testimony can be impeached. Joseph Fielding Smith and
others recognized the clear distinction between hearsay and direct evidence,
between vague generalities and specifics, etc.

This has been
a main difference between my approach and that of the SITH sayers, as I’ve
explained in my books and presentations.

Brant’s claim
that people “didn’t have all the documents” is inexplicable.

Mormonism
Unvailed was not only well known, but specifically refuted by Joseph and
Oliver.

Emma’s “Last
Testimony” was not only published in the Saints’ Herald, but it was
discussed robustly at the time in the Deseret News in Utah.

David Whitmer’s
An Address to All Believers in Christ was published and widely
distributed and discussed.

Martin Harris’
accounts were published in the Deseret News before and after his death.

There are few
if any “new discoveries” in Church history. Joseph’s contemporaries understood these issues far better than modern historians looking back and speculating.

Nevertheless, the modern revisionists
such as Brant Gardner have resurrected long-known accounts to repudiate what
Joseph and Oliver taught.

44:10 Murph:
What would you say to those people who say the Seer Stone was never used?

Because I’ve
been sent a book by I believe it’s Jonathan Neville and James Lucas which I’m
going to read their book and bring them on. I think they enjoy the work I’m
doing but they disagree very much with the seer stone.

I, you know,
I said I’ll read the book and I’ll engage, but to me the thing that I always

find a little
bit strange is you know you have statements for Martin Harris, Emma Smith, David
Whitmer who are your faithful Witnesses, eyewitnesses who would have been around
who would have witnessed The Book of Mormon translation but they’re not
claiming that you know it was fraud or he’s making it up they’re claiming it
was miraculous you know by the gift and power of God using the stone.

Brant: yeah

Murph: they’re
faith promoting statements but then these people want to just reject them and
these are like prominent Witnesses of the restoration and they say like, no,
just trust, you know because Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith only mentioned Urim
and Thummim and I think they say that the Lord uses the word Urim and Thummim
in the doctrine and covenants so I’ve had one person said to me, well, who
you’re going to trust, the Lord, Joseph Smith or you know all these other
ones

Comment. Here
Murph explains that he doesn’t understand why my co-author and I don’t think
Joseph used the seer stone, although that is not our position.

We’ll get into
that when we do the podcast with Murph, but he seems to be conflating our
approach with that of the Stoddards.

We think the evidence
is clear that Joseph possessed and used seer stones, just not for translating
the plates.

In the book,
we discuss all the evidence, including Martin, Emma, and David, but I’ll save
that for the podcast.

It’s the
problem I mentioned in the introduction, that people take witness statements
at face value without examining credibility, reliability, veracity, etc.

45:24

Brant: they actually
don’t really know much about how the Doctrine and Covenants was put together.

This one is
funny, actually. In this very interview, Brant misquotes sources, demonstrates
that he doesn’t know much about what Joseph actually wrote, and omits
references that contradict his theories. Then he accuses me of not knowing
much about how the D&C was put together, even though in our book we
discuss the specific point of the addition of the U&T in the 1835
D&C.

And there’s
an entire article about it here:

Link: Mobom.org

45:30

The doctrine
covenants is heavily edited and changed and altered and you know as you
mentioned things like the rod are taken out

Brant’s
framing here seems intentionally misleading. Anyone can see that the 1835
D&C is not “heavily edited and changed and altered” from the Book of
Commandments (BOC).

Critics say
these relatively few edits were made to “hide” weird parts from the Book of
Commandments (BOC), but printed copies of the BOC existed at the time (and
still exist today), so hiding seems a futile effort.

Another interpretation
treats these edits as clarifications (my view).

The change to
D&C 8 regarding the gift of Aaron (replacing the gift of working with the
rod), which Brant and Murph discussed elsewhere in the podcast, supports both
interpretations, so people can believe whatever they want.

45:42

what happens
with those books, so the Stoddards have one and Neville has one,

 for some of the statements of the faithful
people who saw it those are late statements and they say, Well, they’re
apostates by then and they didn’t like the church and so therefore they must
be making that up yeah in other words they’re finding excuse to deny it

As much as I
like Brant personally and respect his scholarship, it is inexcusable for him
to misrepresent my views this way.

I disagree
with the Stoddards in several respects, including their claim that the SITH
statements came from apostates who made up the SITH narrative.

46:00 the
second thing is they just assume that urim and Thummim is real. You know,
when it says Urim and Thummim it means Urim and Thummim.

They don’t
understand that that was a generic term that was used for the interpreters.

46:10 and so
basically they’ll say it was always the interpreters and never a seer stone

M: because my
understanding it’s sort of like your mythology is the term used for both the

46:24

interpreters
or the Seer Stone because they’re both sort of seeric devices used in the
translation

Assume
it is real? Maybe Brant misspoke, but is he implying the U&T was not
real?

Next, he
claims I “don’t understand” that U&T is a generic term used for the
Interpreters, as if that is a fact instead of a weak theory promoted by the
SITH sayers.

Because the SITH
theory defies the statements from Joseph and Oliver, the SITH sayers
recognize they need to (i) redefine the term Urim and Thummim and (ii) read
Joseph’s mind to discern his true intent that contradicts the plain meaning
of his words.

However, we
can all see that Mormonism Unvailed clearly distinguished between the “peep
stone” and the U&T. We can all see that David, Emma, and Martin also
clearly distinguished between the two.

More
importantly, when Joseph used the term to describe the translation, he emphasized
that he used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. He left
no room for a seer stone he found elsewhere.

46:30 Basically
any of the books that are promoting that are promoting the idea are massaging
history without actually doing good history

In this
Orwellian statement, Brant claims that quoting actual historical sources
instead of mind reading is not “good history.”

As he demonstrates
throughout this interview, Brant claims “good history” consists of ignoring
sources that contradict his SITH theory while promoting as fact his weak
theory that the term Urim and Thummim was so generic it included the seer
stone Joseph found in a well.

As bad as Brant’s
theory is, it doesn’t matter because Joseph specified he used the U&T
that came with the plates.

46:40

yeah you
don’t have actual historians doing it.

When we were
talking in the other part about you know scholars uh you know people who know
what they’re doing uh looking at

geography or
geology. Now there’s a reason why we want to look at the people who have
training in those fields as opposed to people who are, you know, armchair
geologists and saying this looks like that we have the parallels we talked
about parallelism and the problems of that

Here is the
deference to the credentialed class that the SITH and M2C scholars play as
their trump card. “Trust me,” they say.

Except the
appeal to experts doesn’t work, for the same reason it doesn’t work in court;
i.e., there are experts on all sides with completely contradictory
conclusions.

If you polled
all the experts in geography, geology, anthropology, or any other field, how
many would conclude that the evidence in Mesoamerica proves, or even
corroborates, the Book of Mormon?

Only a
handful of LDS apologists such as Brant. The rest—the vast mainstream of
scholars and experts—find Brant’s propositions preposterous.

That said,
parallelism can problematic, a point I’ve made many times with respect to
John Sorenson’s “correspondences.”

47:13

yeah well
when you get into these books again you’re dealing with people who are not
trained historians who are complaining about what trained historians have
found

Again, Brant
might be referring to the Stoddards here because of their animus toward
Richard Bushman and other historians.

However, he
cannot point to any statement of mine complaining “about what trained
historians have found” because I appreciate the work of the historians and
discuss all of their findings.

I have no
problem with what the historians have literally found. But I do have problems
with some of what they have metaphorically “found” as they express their interpretations.

47:20

well the trained
historians have been through the Joseph Smith papers the trained historians
have been through all of the documents yeah why are they wrong and the people
who are not trained as historians and are pushing an idea that they had
before they started doing the research

why are they
right?

…

Brant commits
an obvious compound fallacy here.

First,
trained historians may be good at collecting and organizing historical
information, and we can all see that the Joseph Smith Papers (JSP) are
exemplary in this respect.

But “going
through” the evidence is merely the first step.

The
problems arise in interpreting the evidence.

Different
historians reach different conclusions from identical facts because
conclusions are subjectively based on assumptions, inferences, theories, etc.

The JSP
documents are impeccable, but the commentary is rife with speculation and
agenda promotion. I’ve shown many examples of this.

Second,
Brant asserts that I am pushing an idea I had before I started doing the research.
That’s an outright lie that I can show from my own publications. [see below]

47:49

you know if
you start looking for something you’ll find what you’re looking for. So you
know, in scholarly work if you start with a premise and you know, what I’m
going to do is I’m going to find something that that verifies my premise, well
you’ll find what you’re looking for because anything that doesn’t fit you
find an excuse for and you cast off.

M: Yeah, you
ignore.

This is an
amazing admission from Brant because it explains all of his work on both SITH
and M2C.

He started
and ended believing in and promoting both SITH and M2C. We all know he is heavily
invested in both theories due to his years of research, publication, and
activity with the organizations formerly known as the citation cartel.

In this very
interview, we’ve seen him find an excuse for historical evidence (such as
Zelph) that contradicts his theories, which he then cast off.

Unbelievable.

48:00

Historians
start with the reverse and they say where is the evidence? What does the
evidence say? And then I’ll collect and bring the theory.

M: That’s
important. Take all the sources into account and not just dismiss the ones
even if you don’t like the implication because some people may have trouble
with the implication of you know him using a seer stone and he used the same
stone in folk magic, treasure digging and they may not like that.

This
idealized theory of how historians work is contradicted daily by historians
everywhere. Critics and faithful scholars look at the identical evidence and
yet they disagree about the interpretation.

To be sure,
they have converged into a consensus on SITH, but in both cases they reach
that consensus by repudiating what Joseph and Oliver unambiguously claimed.

Faithful
scholars justify their SITH saying by simply omitting evidence that
contradicts their theories.

A good
example of this is From Darkness unto Light by MacKay and Dirkmaat,
who proposed the generic application of U&T but forgot to quote and discuss
the passage in Mormonism Unvailed that clearly distinguishes between
the two.

Another
example is the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation that never
once quotes or discusses what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation
(apart from a truncated out-of-context excerpt).

48:36

yeah and then
they also stop and don’t, you know, remember what happens with these sear
stones after the fact. That you know the Urim and Thummim was dedicated on
the altar but it was a Seer stone and you know the descriptions tell us that
it was a Seer Stone so you know we’ve got those same seer stones and their
history

This is more
sleight-of-hand, if not an outright lie. Brant appears to be referring to Wilford
Woodruff dedicating a seer stone on the altar of the Manti temple in 1887,
but he did not refer to it as the Urim and Thummim. See, e.g., Link:
LDSLiving

Brant should
provide a reference or citation when he makes claims such as this one.

yeah the history
itself is very strong that Joseph Smith had and did use the seer stone

This
assertion, oft repeated in this podcast, is a red herring distraction from my
approach.

I accept the
evidence that Joseph had and used a seer stone. That’s not the question. The
question is, what did he use it for?

I say the
totality of the evidence demonstrates that whatever he did with the stone, he
didn’t use it to produce the Book of Mormon.

49:09

B-it is an
apologetic for a particular idea where you say I’m uncomfortable with that
history and I

want it to be
different therefore I will find things that fit my premise.

And that’s
where those other books come from.

I’ve read
them both and both of them are basically starting with a premise and finding
any way they can to support the premise without actually doing the full
historical research

I can’t speak
for the Stoddards, but in my case, Brant’s accusation is demonstrably false. And
he would know that if he was a serious scholar. Yet he falsely represents my
views, either ignorantly or intentionally, it’s difficult to tell.

In my book Whatever
Happened to the Golden Plates, published in 2016, I proposed that Joseph
used the U&T in Harmony and the seer stone in Fayette. On page 99, I
wrote:

I think the best way to resolve these specific discrepancies is to
conclude that Joseph used both the interpreters and the seer stone. Some
people prefer to believe that he used only one or the other, but to do so
they must reject evidence purely because they don’t like it.

I also think Joseph returned the interpreters with the Harmony
plates when he gave them to the messenger before moving to Fayette. This
explains why witnesses in Fayette didn’t mention the interpreters.

When I wrote
that in 2016, I was still relying on the research and theories promoted by
the SITH scholars. Subsequently, I had some time to do independent research.
I discussed my findings with others and concluded that the evidence, taken as
a whole, does not support SITH as an explanation for the origin of the Book
of Mormon. That’s why I wrote A Man that Can Translate, why I have
revised Whatever Happened, and why I co-authored the book with Jim
Lucas.

This is the similar
process I went through when I changed my mind from accepting M2C, based on
deference to the M2C scholars, to rejecting M2C based on my own independent
research.

By contrast,
Brant and his fellow M2C scholars have not only never changed their SITH and
M2C views, but they don’t tolerate alternative faithful views in their
organizations. Like Brant in this very podcast, they misrepresent the evidence
and the views of those they disagree with.

Their work is
pure confirmation bias, dressed up as legitimate scholarship through their faux
academic organizations.

[the next
part of the podcast they speculate about why Joseph would use a hat and how SITH
proves Joseph wasn’t reading from a manuscript]

This is
exactly my point; i.e., David and Emma related SITH to refute the Spalding
theory that Joseph read from a manuscript.

For the rest
of the interview, you need to watch or read it yourself to see what else
Brant claims.

One last
comment. Based on the books he has published, Brant knows that every book
that proposes a scenario based on research is written to support that
premise. If the author’s research led him/her to a different conclusion, the
book would support that different conclusion.

This should
be axiomatic, but Brant describes it as a problem—even though that’s
precisely what he has done with every book and article he has written.

Maybe in Brant’s
case he never considered alternative scenarios, but that that doesn’t mean other
authors haven’t changed their initial ideas after doing research. As I’ve
shown, that’s what I did with respect to SITH (and also what I did with respect
to M2C, which I had accepted for decades because I relied on Brant and other
experts before taking another look at their evidence and rationales).

Brant also claims
I haven’t “actually” done “the full historical research.” If I’ve overlooked
any historical evidence, he should point it out. In my books I’ve cited all
the available evidence as well as commentary (such as Brant’s) that
contradicts my own interpretations.

I do this
because I seek clarity, charity and understanding. Clarity requires full
disclosure and openness, which I’ve done in all my work. Anyone watching this
podcast can see that Brant cannot say the same.

We can all
see the same approach taken by the organizations Brant works for: Book of
Mormon Central, the Interpreter Foundation, and FAIRLDS.

Hopefully
this podcast will help clear the air and open doors for Latter-day Saints and
people everywhere to learn that there are viable interpretations of the
historical and other extrinsic evidence that corroborate and support what
Joseph and Oliver said all along.

YouTube
transcript

Comments

3:19 Murph:
in the last episode there’s one um sort of pushback that I forgot to ask you
about that people would raise against the mesoAmerican geographical model so
we’ll talk about that briefly.

Zelph
the white Lamanite which I believe comes when Joseph Smith and some of the
church leaders are sort of marching in Zion’s camp and he points…

I think
he writes in a letter how they cross like the plains of the Nephites to his
wife Emma

Joseph’s letter to Emma
in the Joseph Smith Papers (JSP), describing his activities while traveling west
across Ohio, Indiana and Illinois:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-emma-smith-4-june-1834/2

The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a
company of social honest men and sincere men, wandering over the
plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionaly the history of the Book of
Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord,
picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine
authenticity,14 and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendour
and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed,

and
then there’s some

3:46

sources
or accounts of there being like a skeleton and he says that’s Zelph the white
Lamanite. I know heartlanders would use that to support oh The Book of Mormon
happened here in North America.

What’s
your take on that on Zelph the white Lamanite?

Note 14
above in the JSP:

On 3 June, the Camp of Israel passed through the
vicinity of what is now Valley City, Illinois, where several members of the
camp climbed a large mound. At the top, they uncovered the skeletal remains
of an individual JS reportedly identified as Zelph, a “white Lamanite.”
Archeologists have since identified the mound as Naples–Russell Mound #8 and
have classified it as a Hopewell burial mound of the Middle Woodland period
of the North American pre-Columbian era (roughly 50 BC to AD 250). (Godfrey,
“The Zelph Story,” 31, 34; Farnsworth, “Lamanitish Arrows,” 25–48.)

4:00

Brant: I
think first of all it’s important to note that it’s a lamanite and not a nephite

Brant is
correct that Zelph was identified as a Lamanite. However, the identification
was in the context of the larger identification of the Nephites and the great
last battle. E.g., Wilford Woodruff recorded this in his journal:

Zelph was a large thick set man and a man of God he was
a warrior under the great prophet ^Onandagus^ that was known from the hill
Camorah ^or east sea^ to the Rocky mountains. The
above knowledge Joseph receieved in a vision.

https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/b048a7c5-6b6b-438a-bce7-262d5ba297d8/page/b7e83f61-fb13-43c4-bee7-5ab95fb957f1

the
second thing is they talk about going over the planes of uh you know what is
it the plains of the lamanites they’re plains anyway I think if I
remember right but I yeah

4:19

but they’re
not mentioned in the Book of Mormon so this is not a book of Mormon
geographic location uh this is some

4:26

location
somewhere but it isn’t mentioned in the Book of Mormon

Comment: Brant
says JS referred to the “plains of the Lamanites.” Murph doesn’t correct him,
but we can all read the account above, where Joseph writes “plains of the
Nephites.” 

Maybe Brant simply misspoke, but in the context of his interview, this seems like deliberate misinformation to persuade unsuspecting viewers. 

Brant says the plains are “not mentioned” in the text. While the generalized phrase “plains of the Nephites”
is not specifically used in the current text (we can’t know what the 116
pages said), we have several references to Nephite “plains” that were significant
in the war chapters and during the destruction before Christ’s visit. In one passage, a specific “plains” is identified “the plains of Nephihah,” but in other passages the term is generalized, just as Joseph used the term to describe Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. 

There
were also Jaredite plains, supporting the idea that the Jaredites lived in the same area as the Nephites.

Nephite
plains:

I saw the plains of the earth, that they were
broken up;(1 Nephi 12:4)

20 And it came to pass they sent embassies to the army
of the Lamanites, which protected the city of Mulek, to their leader, whose
name was Jacob, desiring him that he would come out with his armies to meet
them upon the plains between the two cities. But behold, Jacob, who
was a Zoramite, would not come out with his army to meet them upon the plains. (Alma 52:20)

And it came to pass that when they had come to the city
of Nephihah, they did pitch their tents in the plains of Nephihah,
which is near the city of Nephihah.

 19 Now Moroni
was desirous that the Lamanites should come out to battle against them, upon
the plains; (Alma 62:18–19)

Jaredite
plains:

28 And it came to pass that Shared fought against him
for the space of three days. And it came to pass that Coriantumr beat him,
and did pursue him until he came to the plains of Heshlon.

 29 And it came
to pass that Shared gave him battle again upon the plains; and behold,
he did beat Coriantumr, and drove him back again to the valley of Gilgal. (Ether 13:28–29)

15 And it came to pass that Lib did pursue him until he
came to the plains of Agosh. And Coriantumr had taken all the people
with him as he fled before Lib in that quarter of the land whither he fled.

 16 And when he
had come to the plains of Agosh he gave battle unto Lib, (Ether 14:15–16)

Brant should explain why he misrepresented the scriptures this way.

4:33

we know
that uh you know some of the peoples came North there is no reason to believe
that we don’t have lamanites moving North after the end of The Book of Mormon

M: so
it’s like uh here you go the lamanite

B: yep

4:47

yeah I
mean having lamanites that are northward is not unusual,

Comment: Brant’s
point that Lamanites may have moved north is a red herring. Everyone agrees that the Lamanites likely migrated in all directions after the end of the Book of Mormon.

Brant simply doesn’t address the point that Joseph specifically
identified Nephites while crossing Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. They were roving
over their mounds and picking up their bones “as proof of the divine
authenticity” of the Book of Mormon.

Nor does Brant mention that Joseph also identified Jaredites in this area.

so you
know having him there uh the only thing you have to worry about is this

4:59

idea of
being a white lamanite and what does that mean and the definition that you
would get from The Book of Mormon would have been that he was a converted
lamanite

When he says “the only thing you have to worry about” he’s referring to the M2C advocates. Proponents of the North American setting (Heartland) don’t worry about anything regarding the Zelph account.

Brant’s idea
is congruent with what Wilford Woodruff recorded:

His name was Zelph he was a white lamanite, a large thick set man, and a man of God. The curse had been
taken from him because of his righteousness.

https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/7fa48660-76da-4b7d-be34-ec03b88b3d57/page/59f7b665-644c-418f-9338-1a1e8a67bacd

and
that must mean that somewhere as Mormon or Moroni is doing these travels he
managed to talk to some

people
and you know convert a few people perhaps some who uh you know kept that tradition
going

Brant’s
speculation here ignores the historical accounts and merely confirms his M2C
bias and worldview.

Instead of engaging in such raw speculation, we ought to look at the actual historical accounts.

For some
events in Church history, Wilford Woodruff is the sole source (much like Lucy
Mack Smith for JS’s early years). In the case of Zelph, there are multiple
accounts from different people who were present. Naturally, each recorded
different elements of the event. A good overview is here:

https://www.mobom.org/zelph-account

Woodruff’s
account is the most detailed, so I’ll include it here.

From his
journal, May 1834:

we visited many of the mounds which were flung up by
the ancient inhabitants of this Continent probably by the Nephites & Lamanites[.]

we visited one of these Mounds and several of the
brethren dug into it and took from it the bones of a man[.] Brother Joseph
had a vission respecting the person he said he was a white Lamanite the curs
was taken from him or at least in part[.] he was killed in battle with an arrow
the arrow was found among his ribs, one of his thigh bones was broken this
was done by a stone flung from a sling in battle years before his death his
name was Zelph some of his bones were brought into the camp and the thigh bone
which was broken was put into my waggon and I carried it to Missouri.

Zelph was a large thick set man and a man of God he was
a warrior under the great prophet ^Onandagus^ that was known from the hill
Camorah ^or east sea^ to the Rocky mountains. The above knowledge Joseph receieved
in a vision.

https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/b048a7c5-6b6b-438a-bce7-262d5ba297d8/page/b7e83f61-fb13-43c4-bee7-5ab95fb957f1

From the
History of Zion’s Camp:

On the tops of the mounds were stones which personated
the apperance of three altars, one above the other, according to the ancient
order, and the remains of bones were shown over the surface of the ground.

Wilford Woodruff says, “this mound was considered
three hundred feet above the Illinois river, we had a shovel and a hoe with
us, and while we were desending the mound, the Prophet Joseph stopped
suddenly and pointed to the ground and said. “Brotherin dig in
there.”

And when we had dug one foot we uncovered the skeleton
of a man, which was entire, and in a good state of perservation, and between
his ribs in the back bone was found the stone point of a lamanitish arrow,
whiched produced his death. Milton Homes took the arrow out of the back bone, also one of the thigh bones which had
been broken, and took it to camp, and put it into my wagon; and at noon while
resting in camp, the Prophet Joseph, while lying in his wagon, was rap[p]ed
in vision, and the history of this man whoes body we discovered,
was shown unto him.

His name was Zelph he was a white lamanite, a large thick
set man, and a man of God. The curse had been taken from him because of his righteousness.
He was a warrior, and a chiefton He fought under the prophet Onondagus, who held
domion from the east to the west sea including the Rocky-mountains. Zelph had
his thigh bone broken from the sling of a stone, while in battle, many years
before his death. He was killed in battle by the arrow found in his back
bone, dureing a great struggle with the Lamenites, and I Wilford Woodruff, carried
the thigh bone to Clay County and burried it in that country, I intended to have burried it in Jackson County, thinking that some
prophet might have prophisied to him that the members of Zions camp whould
have taken his bones with them to Zion and buried them their, when they went
up to redeem Zion; But not having the privlage of gowing to Jackson County, I
buried it in Clay County.

https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/7fa48660-76da-4b7d-be34-ec03b88b3d57/page/59f7b665-644c-418f-9338-1a1e8a67bacd

so we
don’t know how long after the Book of Mormon closed

5:30

that
that would have been there um if we actually had that skeleton and we dug it
up archaeologically we’d found that it… we would find that it came from time
period long after the Book of Mormon

The note in
the JS Papers quoted above explains otherwise:

Archeologists have since identified the mound as
Naples–Russell Mound #8 and have classified it as a Hopewell burial mound of
the Middle Woodland period of the North American pre-Columbian era (roughly
50 BC to AD 250).

In other
words, archaeologists date the mound to Book of Mormon time frames. They have
also sourced the artifacts in the mound to the Rocky Mountains and upper
eastern Midwest, corroborating what Wilford Woodruff recorded.

Brant the anthropologist surely knows this, but he misled his viewers here. 

M: okay
so you wouldn’t see that as necessarily undermining the Mesoamerican geographical
model and do you also think that this was Joseph Smith maybe guessing because
you know you don’t believe, we don’t believe that he knew uh where the Book
of Mormon took place

B:
yeah, we don’t

M: do
you think he was sorted guessing or speculating

Brant
claims that “we don’t” believe Joseph knew where the Book of Mormon took
place. He’s speaking on behalf of M2C proponents, of course.

I’ve
discussed this before:

The entire premise for M2C is that the scholars know what
Joseph Smith was secretly thinking, and that among Joseph’s thoughts was ignorance about the Book of Mormon and its setting (despite what Joseph actually said). This is how they deal with the extreme cognitive
dissonance they experience when they confront Joseph’s actions and statements.

Here is an example. In 2005, BYU and the Library
of Congress sponsored a two-day academic conference to commemorate the 200th
anniversary of Joseph Smith’s birth. I blogged about it here. The conference proceedings included these statements
about what Joseph was thinking in his inner thoughts:

– Joseph Smith did not fully understand the
Book of Mormon.
– One thing all readers share with Joseph
is a partial understanding of the book’s complexities.
– Over the last sixty years, Hugh Nibley,
John Sorenson, and other scholars have shown the Book of Mormon to be “truer”
than Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries could know.
– Consequently,  what  Joseph
 Smith  knew  and  understood about the book ought to be
research questions rather than presumptions.  Thanks  in
 large  part  to  his  critics,  it  is
 becoming  clear that Joseph Smith did not fully understand the
geography, scope, historical scale, literary form, or cultural content of the
book.
– In 1842, after reading about ancient
cities in Central America, Joseph speculated that Book of Mormon lands were
located there.
– Joseph did not know exactly where Book of
Mormon lands were… he considered their location  an  important
 question  addressable  through scholarship.

that
incident for some people has taken as you know Revelation and some

6:12

people
is just a discussion or speculation you know however you want to read that um
I would say that most of the scholars would not accept it as a revelation

“For some people” means those who were present at the time and those who accept what they said.

The M2C scholars
don’t accept it as a revelation, but Brant offers no rationale for rejecting
what Woodruff and others recorded except that Zelph contradicts their
theories.

As we saw
above, Wilford Woodruff explained Joseph had a vision:

The published history of Zion’s Camp gives an account
of the bones of a man which we dug out of a mound. His name was Zelph. The
Lord showed the Prophet the history of the man in a vision.

https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/093b0c5c-db84-40fa-96ea-b4185b18bf43/page/d4ceb072-2ecb-4e2f-a284-6b2d53344fcb

6:25

even in
the Heartland for the people who would say yes this was a revelation it would
be a revelation that’s so late that it wouldn’t have anything to do with the
Book of Mormon or a book of Mormon geography it would simply say you know
this is you know something that occurred after the Book of Mormon ended

Brant repeats his misstatement about the dating of Zelph’s mound and the artifacts there as we saw above.

B: Mark
Wright gave a paper at

6:46

Fair several
years ago called um Heartland is Hinterland he argued that after the Book of
Mormon there would have been a northern migration we know that there was a
northern migration of peoples from uh mesoamerica up into at least the
southeast uh so the fact that there is a lamanite that you might have known
something you know might have either

retained
something because of uh you know Heritage of the nephite because

they didn’t
all die you know the nation was gone but never not every single Nephite was
dead or somebody that Moroni had converted but still after the Book of
Mormon.

M: okay right
okay so it’s possible that Joseph Smith could have been uh not wrong then in
saying that that’s um Zelf yeah it could have been something that maybe came
from the book

B:  yeah I mean for those people who want to
believe that that was a revelation and

7:48

that that’s exactly
what happened there is a context of which we can see that happening

Wright’s
paper has lots of problems, but it was published anyway in the Interpreter
because all of the “peer reviewers” (if any) already agreed with Wright’s
premise. They are “peer approvers,” not reviewers.

I’ve written
about that paper quite a bit. Here’s a sample:

One of the most insightful articles on this topic is
“Heartland as Hinterland: The Mesoamerican Core and North American
Periphery of Book of Mormon Geography,” published here. It deals with a
few of Joseph’s actions that I listed above, such as the letter to Emma and
the Zelph account.

Of course, the article never mentions Letter VII or the
revelations in the D&C.

Instead, it relies on the anonymous Times and Seasons
articles, erroneously attributing them to Joseph and then using them to
reinterpret and invert the plain language of what Joseph actually wrote.

Here’s how the article handles Joseph’s letter to Emma
and his revelation about Zelph: “The individuals and geographic features
that are named in these accounts are nowhere to be found in the text of the
Book of Mormon. They are external to its history.”

Joseph explained that he had learned about the Book of
Mormon people even before he translated the plates, and his mother confirmed
this, but the M2C scholars reject what he Lucy said. Instead, they insist
Joseph knew nothing except what he translated.

The reason they take this position is obvious: it puts
them not only on an even playing field with Joseph (because they’re both
limited to interpreting the text), but (in their minds) it makes their
interpretations superior to Joseph’s because they have PhDs and decades of
more recent archaeological, linguistic, and other research.

___________________

When you consider theories about Book of Mormon
geography, consider whether the proponents are relying on actual evidence, or
instead on their subjective interpretations of what they think Joseph’s inner
thoughts were.

[the interview proceeds with a discussion of the translation]