The single most important question in Church history involves the translation of the Book of Mormon.
I recently did an interview about this topic on Mormon Book Reviews, which you can see here:
Here I’ll summarize the question and the alternative working hypotheses.
At the outset, I recognize that for many people, the origin of the Book of Mormon doesn’t matter.
– Some faithful LDS say the words themselves are evidence of their divine origin, regardless of how Joseph produced them.
– Others (most critics including both unbelievers and Christian ministers) say the words themselves are evidence that their origin is not divine.
I’m fine with people believing and teaching whatever they want to. I write this blog simply to explain how I approach these questions. I don’t care about persuading anyone or winning any arguments. Such a motivation would be pointless anyway, because people make up their own minds. I just encourage people to make informed decisions, based on all the available facts and after considering multiple working hypotheses.
_____
The origin of the Book of Mormon affects everything about the Book of Mormon because if Joseph Smith translated it (as he and Oliver said), then the criticisms are moot. For example, it’s a foolish argument to say that a 19th century translation is not an ancient text. No one claims the Book of Mormon is an ancient text; instead, it’s a translation of an ancient text. A 19th century translator would naturally use 19th century language, references, and concepts, including anachronisms, just as the KJV refers to candles and other elements that the original ancient texts don’t.
Although Joseph and Oliver always described the process as a translation with the Urim and Thummim (the Nephite interpreters), there are many historical references to Joseph use of a stone-in-the-hat (SITH). For some, these are irreconcilable alternatives. Others accept one and reject (or redefine) the other. For me, the simplest, most practical and most reasonable reconciliation is the demonstration scenario that I’ve discussed many times, including in the interview linked above; i.e., that Joseph translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim, but he also used SITH to satisfy the awful curiosity of his supporters, which they inferred was a translation experience that they later expanded for apologetic reasons. IOW, bad apologetics in the 19th century has led to worse apologetics today.
The topic has many threads, with dozens if not thousands of articles, books, blogs, etc. Here I attempt to summarize and systematize the issues.
_____
The translation narrative is a combination of naturalistic and supernaturalistic elements. Supernatural, because Joseph obtained the plates from a resurrected being (Moroni) and used divinely prepared instruments to learn the characters on the plates (as he explained), and natural because Joseph used his own lexicon and worldview to articulate the literal translation of the characters (except for the Title Page, which he explained was a literal translation).
There are two alternatives to the translation narrative: (i) a purely naturalistic explanation, that Joseph composed or copied the text he dictated, and (ii) a purely supernatural explanation, that Joseph merely dictated words that appeared on the stone-in-the-hat (the SITH theory).
The criticisms of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon depend on SITH; i.e., the idea that Joseph merely read words provided by a Mysterious Incognito Supernatural Translator (MIST).
And yet, LDS scholars such as Royal Skousen, Dan Peterson and Jack Welch agree with critics such as John Dehlin and CES Letter that Joseph Smith didn’t translate the plates but instead dictated words with his face looking at a stone in the hat (SITH). They disagree only about whether Joseph (i) read words that appeared supernaturally on the stone, or (ii) dictated words he composed or memorized.
Besides contradicting what Joseph and Oliver said, SITH creates a false set of expectations. If the MIST provided the words, they were divine and presumably should not have errors, anachronisms, etc.
The faithful SITH argument goes like this: We don’t know why the MIST provided errors and anachronisms (or why the text supposedly includes artifacts from Early Modern English).
SITH has generated various apologetic responses. Skousen claims Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone by referring to the Urim and Thummim. Peterson’s movie on the Witnesses portrays Joseph using SITH as a fact. Welch and his Book of Mormon Central “Kno-Whys” teach SITH as a feature, not a bug. Other apologists have used variations of these.
The critical SITH argument has two branches:
(i) The presence of errors and anachronisms proves that the words were not divine in origin; i.e., the MIST was not divine but a deception from the adversary.
(ii) The presence of errors and anachronisms proves that SITH was a ruse used by Joseph to claim a supernatural origin for a text he composed/copied.
Dehlin has done numerous episodes based on the SITH narrative, claiming that SITH is one of the major causes of the faith crises he documents. Most of the CES Letter objections to the Book of Mormon depend on SITH.
_____
Bottom line: there is evidence to support multiple working hypotheses, but in my view the best sources are Joseph and Oliver, and all the historical evidence can be reconciled by accepting what Joseph and Oliver said; i.e., that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient record.
Source: About Central America
4 thoughts on “Interview on SITH vs U&T”
I was wholly convinced SITH was nonsense, but now I’m more 50/50. With more than a few statements saying Joseph used a hat, it’s hard to just dismiss it as a singular demonstration. It also doesn’t make much logical sense to stick your head in a hat to translate a book either… But we also get a natural progression of Joseph’s spiritual abilities. He also translated portions of the bible “straight from the source”, i.e. pure inspiration, without any aides. I would still say he “translated” the bible, even without Greek or Hebrew source material to physically look at.
My current mental model goes something like this:
1. Joseph starts translation with the Urim and Thummim. Translation is looking at the actual plates through the Urim and Thummim, causing Joseph to see, feel and understand the text in his own language. Almost like the spirit made him an expert in reformed egyptian, so he sees the characters, understands the meaning in his own language, and is able to dictate that fluently. He dictates quickly, and the spirit corrects/notifies him of special phrases and/or words that need to be exact.
2. For some reason (I think there’s a quote about the urim and thummim hurting his eyes?), Joseph starts to use his own seer stone in a hat. Seems strange, but God is a God of miracles. I assume it’s still much the same, with Joseph seeing the characters of what’s on the actual plates, and continues to see, feel and understand the text in his own language.
3. Weird detail about Isiah, which he translated during his demonstration. It was nearly (or exactly?) identical to the KJV of Isiah. You would imagine the Nephite record would have been older/closer to the original text, so there would have been some differences. One explanation might be that the Book of Mormon simply said something like, “And then Nephi quoted Isaiah 18”, without actually copying over the text from the brass plates. Then the Urim and Thummim just showed Joseph Isaiah 18 as he had it, in the KJV of the bible.
4. Joseph continues to grow spiritually and no longer needs “crutches” to translate. We have ample evidence of this in the JST Bible and the Pearl of Great Price, where the original intent/message can be understood directly through inspiration.
I could be wrong on some or all of these points, but it’s certainly interesting to ponder! Either way I’m a firm believer that Joseph translated by the gift and power of God. I suppose stranger things than staring in a hat have happened in God’s dealings with men, but it’s still pretty strange!
Yes, there are multiple working hypotheses that each rely on the historical record.
Joseph and Oliver always and only said Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim which came with the plates, however. Those who say the term “Urim and Thummim” referred to both the interpreters and the stone he found in a well ignore the point that he used the instrument that came with the plates. For example, Joseph Smith said in the Elders Journal in 1838, “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.”
(Elder’s Journal, July 1838, 1:43)
The term “gift and power of God” first occurs in the Title Page, which Joseph said was a literal translation from the plates. The phrase occurs twice more in the Book of Mormon, both times referring to translation. The “gift” may refer to the U&T, while the “power” may refer to the workings of the U&T. I see it as God having conferred intelligence onto the U&T, similar to the way the Jaredite stones shined after the finger of God touched them.
Joseph didn’t use the phrase in connection with the Bible, the book of Moses, or the book of Abraham. He also never published those as scripture, which is another topic.
🙂
There are several references posted here: http://www.lettervii.com/p/translation-references.html
Interesting! Read through your references post as well as https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng again.
The Footnote for “Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.” doesn’t really have any references, so that’s fun 🙂
In your references both William Smith and Joseph Knight mentioned that he used a hat though (but with the Urim and Thummim rather than a seer stone). So wouldn’t that still support a Stones in a Hat theory? (but using the spectacles rather than his own stone). If the spectacles fit in a hat, I’d have a hard time believing he’d use his own stone, as the Urim and Thummim were “official” translating devices. On the other hand, if God made a loaf of bread a “translating loaf” that would also be official.
Still lots to think about! It makes a lot of logical sense that only the Urim and Thummim would be used, whether in a hat or otherwise. Do you have any blog posts about the Bible JST, Moses and Abraham not being published as scripture? I want to dive into that as well!
Neither William nor Joseph Knight saw the Nephite interpreters. Notice they did not say they saw Joseph do it; they were repeating hearsay, or their own inferences/assumptions. Joseph was forbidden to display them (except, arguably, to the Three Witnesses, although they didn’t mention it in their published testimony). The footnote is misleading because Joseph never referred to the stone he found in a well as the Urim and Thummim. It’s not clear that others did, either, although proponents of SITH often cite Wilford Woodruff’s brief journal entry.
You make a good point that if the spectacles fit in the hat, he would have no need to use the stone. We have no record of God ever preparing the stone Joseph found in the well, but we do have Moroni and Joseph explaining that God did prepare the Nephite interpreters, and that Joseph used the interpreters that came with the plates to translate the plates.
I don’t remember if I ever published a post about the JST, Moses and Abraham as scripture. JST was clearly not; Joseph never finished it. We have the Book of Moses and Matt. 24 in the PGP, along with the Book of Abraham, but the PGP was not canonized until 1880. Some of his annotations in the Bible he was using appear as notes in our scriptures, but Joseph never prepared a manuscript for publication. Even when the Book of Abraham was first published in the Times and Seasons, the introduction read simply “A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”
(Times and Seasons III.9:704 ¶1–2)
Notice the term “purporting” which was deleted when the Book of Abraham was published in the PGP. It currently reads “A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”
(Abraham)
So far as I can tell, Joseph never said he translated the Book of Abraham by the “gift and power of God.” The Book of Moses is described in the PGP today as “An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, June 1830–February 1831.” The original 1830 document is headed “A Revelation given to Joseph the Revelator June 1830.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/visions-of-moses-june-1830-moses-1/1
Moroni explained this: 4 Therefore I do not write those things which transpired from the days of Adam until that time; but they are had upon the plates; and whoso findeth them, the same will have power that he may get the full account. (Ether 1:4)
Whether Moroni meant that Joseph would have power to get the full account by revelation, or by consulting the original plates, or both, we can’t tell. Joseph didn’t move to Ohio until January 1831. Prior to that, he still had access to the Nephite repository, which he and Oliver visited on multiple occasions. Thus, he could have accessed the original plates for the account of Moses. Other than the manuscript itself, we don’t have documentation about these events, so we can only surmise based on what we do know.
Comments are closed.