The Sky Is Falling (Part II)

The Sky is Falling (Part II)

Kevin Christensen & Jeremy Runnells (Part II)


Part II: The “Perfect” Strawman
Part III: Lowered Expectations


Kevin Christensen (FAIRMORMON Apologist) has written a long rambling folksy sounding diatribe about how Jeff Lindsay’s “investigative approach” is far superior to that of my friend Jeremy Runnells, because Lindsay did not come to a negative conclusion about Mormonism. He compares the two men to two “seeds” who have produced different “harvests”. Of course he implies that Lindsay is the good seed, and Jeremy is the bad.

Part II: The “Perfect” Strawman

In this part I will focus on two more sections of Christensen’s article. The first he names,

Starting Position and What It Tells

Christensen writes,

So what does Runnells’s Letter to a CES Director disclose about his conceptual framework and his method? Start with the very first issue that Runnells raises in his letter, regarding the Book of Mormon translation and ”1769 King James edition errors. An ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?” He returns to this point in his website response to FairMormon:

The presence of 17th century kjv italics and 1769 kjv errors—word for word—in the Book of Mormon is its own damning evidence. These errors totally undermine the claim that Joseph “translated” the Book of Mormon and the claim that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth.

According to Thomas Kuhn, ”Anomaly (Abnormality) appears only against the background provided by the paradigm (pattern). The more precise and far-reaching that paradigm (pattern) is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly, and hence of an occasion for paradigm (pattern) change.”

According to Christensen this issue is just a small anomaly in his Book of Mormon “paradigm”, and therefore Jeremy should basically ignore it, because it is so trivial that it is just a silly anomaly. But what if it isn’t? As Edmund O. Acevedo writes, Kuhn also defines an anomaly as “nature’s failure to conform entirely to expectation”, which is what Christensen is trying to apply to Jeremy Runnells via the Book of Mormon. But Acevedo also writes,

Clearly not all anomalies result in progress. The vast majority are ignored. When an anomaly persists over an extended period of time, the most common effect is that scientists will attempt to alter their instrumentation in a way that makes the anomaly disappear or they will try to make the anomaly fit within the paradigm (i.e. modify the expectation and thus make the former anomaly seem expected).

This seems to be exactly what Christensen is doing and wants Jeremy to do. He is ignoring what he calls an anomaly and trying to make it fit into his Book of Mormon paradigm. But it doesn’t fit. This is when an anomaly becomes a “crisis”. As Acevedo writes,

The forces that can convert an anomaly to a crisis are many, and usually several of them must co-occur. For example, a persistent anomaly may call into question some of the most fundamental tenets of the paradigm. In other cases, the paradigm predicts that an application should be ineffective when long practice has clearly established its utility (or conversely, the paradigm predicts that an application should be effective when practice reliably demonstrates its failure). As a result of such discrepancies, the anomaly becomes more widely recognized (e.g., replicated and confirmed by a broader circle of scientists) and even catches the attention of prominent figures in the field. The anomaly then becomes “the new fixation point of scientific scrutiny” (Kuhn, 1962/1996, p. 83) and its resolution becomes a shared goal. One of the defining features of a field in crisis is the emergence of multiple divergent attempts to resolve the anomaly. As these attempts multiply, they also become more diversified. Although early attempts may follow the rules of the paradigm closely, the persistence of the anomaly begs “ad hoc adjustments” (p. 83) of the paradigm that are increasingly bold and unruly. Thus “the rules of normal science become increasingly blurred. Though there still is a paradigm, few practitioners prove to be entirely agreed about what it is. Even formerly standard solutions of solved problems are called into question.(p. 83). (Edmund O. Acevedo, The Oxford Handbook of Exercise Psychology, 297).

According to many, there are numerous anomalies in Christensen’s Book of Mormon paradigm. These anomalies are widely recognized, even by the faithful like B. H. Roberts, who Jeremy discusses in his work. Roberts called one of these anomalies “a menace to the Book of Mormon”. (Studies of the Book of Mormon, 240, CES Letter, 11).

David P. Wright, associate professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East, (Brandeis University) claims that Grant Palmer:

…is on absolutely firm ground for his conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient work and, with this, according to his last two main chapters, that Smith’s visionary experiences were more subjective than tradition claims. (Dialogue, Vol. 38, No. 1, 172-173).

As Jeremy himself wrote,

Here are the facts:

  1. There are 17th century KJV additions (denoted by italics in the KJV) in the Book of Mormon.
  2. There are 1769 KJV Bible edition errors unique to only that edition present in the Book of Mormon.
  3. FairMormon concedes below that while there are no reports from witnesses that Joseph used an open Bible, “it is entirely possible that Joseph had access to a Bible during the period of translation.”
  4. FairMormon awkwardly points to the Mormon god Himself as a possible source for putting unique 1769 KJV edition errors and 17th century italics in the “most correct book on earth” Book of Mormon: “…we do not claim to know why the Lord chose to reveal the Biblical passages in that manner.” (Debunking FAIRMORMON, Online here, Accessed April 1, 2015).

So this is just an “anomaly” to Christensen? It appears so. But there are many who think that this anomaly is one of many, a crisis point in the Book of Mormon. So, what does Christensen really focus on in this section?  Continue on, dear reader:

For Runnells the appearance of any imperfection in the Book of Mormon translation seems scandalous to the point of being overwhelming. Betty Edwards explains how our preconceptions inevitably influence our subjective perception of significance:

Most of us tend to see parts of a form hierarchically. The parts that are important (that is, provide a lot of information), or the parts that we decide are larger, [Page 180]or the parts we think should be larger, we see as larger than they actually are. Conversely, parts that are unimportant, or that we decide are smaller, or that we think should be smaller, we see as being smaller than they actually are.

If the question is the perfection of the Book of Mormon text, and if we can safely

Mormon Apologist Kevin Christensen

Mormon Apologist Kevin Christensen

assume that the beholder is infallibly capable of detecting it, imperfection is the only decisive information—indeed, it is the only information that answers the question. Therefore imperfection has crucial importance relative to the question and is actually perceived in our minds as being large and scandalously important. Even the appearance of imperfection will loom large in our consciousness. No matter how much information might exist to support the notion of a real translation by Joseph Smith, it does not and cannot answer the question of perfection, and therefore, relative to that question, it appears less important. That is why no favorable information regarding the Book of Mormon appears in the Letter to a CES Director. Evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith’s inspiration does not answer the question of perfection, so in setting the table with what counts most to Runnells, none of that kind of information appears.

This straw man (in bold above) is rather silly. The Book of Mormon text can’t be perfect so it doesn’t matter? Jeremy Runnells nowhere claims that the Book of Mormon text should be “perfect”. How does one who was a longstanding member of the Church and believed the truth claims about the Book of Mormon for many years have the “preconceptions” that Christensen speaks of?

It is not Jeremy Runnells but rather Mormon “authorities” that make the claim of perfection in relation to the Book of Mormon. Christensen just makes this up out of thin air about Jeremy. His expectations were created by their declarations about it. Of course, Mormon Apologists have been spinning those for years.

The current thing in Mormon Apologetics now is for them to claim that because critics don’t list and rebut every single Mormon Apologist argument (which they call “evidence”) then they are somehow at fault for not giving credibility to what they deem crucial evidence. And so, because they do not, they simply have preconceptions, are brittle and unyielding and are condemned for concerns about what these apologists call trivia. They want critics to waste their time listing and deconstructing all of their apologist spin or they claim that they are not balanced and only focus on the negative.  Christensen will employ a series of strawman arguments (including his accusation that Runnells is claiming that the BOM text should be “perfect”) throughout his long diatribe.  He then writes,

This also means that if we changed our question from the perfection of the Book of Mormon translation to the reality of the translation, then supposed imperfections would not be as crucially decisive, and would therefore have a smaller significance.

Whose question? Christensen’s? Why would he change his own question–because it certainly in no way, shape or form was Jeremy’s.  Jeremy does speak about the reality of the translation. That is what he addresses in the CES letter (see pages 13-14). The reality is that Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon by putting a rock in a hat and claiming that the text that he then dictated was given to him by the “gift and power of God”. The imperfections/anamolies  in the Book of Mormon are massive. Please see this article on MormonThink for a list of them.

Also, the reality of what translation? We have nothing to compare it to, so how do we know it is even a translation from an actual language? We don’t. This always has been the real issue. Christensen then claims:

The reality of Joseph Smith’s inspiration is a different question than the perfection of his inspiration and leads the inquirer to different information. That is why reading books by Hugh Nibley or John Sorenson or Richard L. Anderson or Richard Bushman, John Tvedtnes, John Welch, or Terryl Givens makes for a very different experience than does reading Runnells’s Letter. They ask different questions, work with different soil, nurture the seed in a different manner, and produce vastly different harvests.

Unfortunately one cannot separate the reality of Smith’s inspiration from it’s supposed perfection because of the claims that Smith himself made. Reading those claims (by Smith and other Mormon “Authorities”) is all the information one needs. And please excuse us if we don’t want to give credence to the spin of Mormon apologists like Nibley, Givens, Anderson, Tvedtnes, or Welch, when it was hard enough to read their claims. We would rather quote Joseph Smith who said,

I never told you I was perfect, but there are NO ERRORS in the REVELATIONS that I have taught.  (The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369).

Seems like it is Joseph Smith who is claiming perfection in revelation here, which Christensen strangely doesn’t address (and neither does FAIRMORMON).  But even Hugh Nibley said,

We can never prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be; but any serious proven fault in the work would at once condemn it. If I assume the Book of Mormon to be fraudulent, then whatever is correct in it is merely a lucky coincidence, devoid of any real significance. But if I assume that it is true, then any suspicious passage is highly significant and casts suspicion on the whole thing, no matter how much of it is right. (1953, 831; all but the first clause has been deleted in Nibley 1989, 56). (Stan Larson quoted in Brent Metcalfe, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, 238, added emphasis. See also the Improvement Era, LVI [Nov. 1953]:831, Online here, Accessed April 1, 2015).

Nibley’s quote here destroys Christensen’s argument. He claims that any suspicious passage in the Book of Momron is highly significant and casts suspicion on the whole thing. So why fault Jeremy for feeling the same way? This is one of Christensen’s chosen apologists, folks. The 1828 dictionary defines perfection as,

PERFEC’TION, n. [L. perfectio.] The state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting; as perfection in an art or science; perfection in a system of morals.

As Orson Pratt explains,

It is to be expected that when the angel restores the gospel it will be restored in fullness and in the most perfect simplicity and plainness so that every point of the doctrine of Christ shall be clearly revealed and expressed in such language that no two persons could understand it differently. Many things, connected with the doctrine of Christ, are not clearly revealed and dressed in the English translation of the Bible: this is owing, as we have already shown in number three to the loss of many of the inspired writings, and to the rejection of many sacred books by the third council of Carthage, together with those which have since been rejected by the Protestants: and also, as we have before proved, another great source of error is, that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from which the Bible was translated, had become so awfully corrupted in almost every text, that the translators were utterly at a loss to know which reading was correct. All these things, combined with the unavoidable errors of an uninspired translation have rendered the English Bible extremely uncertain and ambiguous. This uncertainty and ambiguity have been the principal cause of all the divisions of modern Christendom. The only way to remedy this great evil is to obtain another revelation of the gospel, free from all the corruptions and uncertainty which characterizes the English Bible. Nothing short of such a revelation can ever redeem mankind from their errors of doctrine; nothing else can be an infallible standard of the Christian religion; nothing else can reclaim them from divisions and strifes; nothing else will give certainty and stability so necessary to the happiness and salvation of man; and nothing else could be expected in the revelation of the gospel an angel. Such a revelation is the Book of Mormon; the most infallible certainty characterizes every ordinance and every doctrinal point revealed in that book. In it there is no ambiguity–no room for controversy–no doctrine so imperfectly expressed that two persons would draw two different conclusions there from. Such a revelation was greatly needed and such a revelation the angel has revealed.  (Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, 83, added emphasis).

Pratt defines the Book of Mormon as infallible, perfect in it’s doctrines. He claims that there is no doctrine “imperfectly expressed”. Jeremy quotes Joseph Smith in his CES letter, who said:

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book. (History of the Church, 4:461, added emphasis.)

The 1828 definition of the word correct is:

CORRECT, adjective [Latin , to set right; right, straight. See Right.] Literally, set right, or made straight. Hence, right; conformable to truth, rectitude or propriety, or conformable to a just standard; not faulty; free from error

It seems that Christensen may want to rethink his approach to those anomalies he claims are of no concern and put the claim of perfection where it rightly belongs. 

Fortunately at the “official”, they do address the issue of “translation” in one of the new essays. They write,

According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument. The process as described brings to mind a passage from the Book of Mormon that speaks of God preparing “a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light.”Joseph Smith The Whitmer Farm Winter 1830small

The scribes who assisted with the translation unquestionably believed that Joseph translated by divine power. Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” According to Emma, the plates “often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth.” When asked if Joseph had dictated from the Bible or from a manuscript he had prepared earlier, Emma flatly denied those possibilities: “He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.” Emma told her son Joseph Smith III, “The Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity—I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me for hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him.” (emphasis added)

As Russell M. Nelson stated in the July 1993 Ensign:

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12, added emphasis).

Joseph Knight wrote,

Now the way he translated was he put the Urim and Thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes, then he would take a sentence and it would appear in bright Roman letters, then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away, the next sentence would come, and so on. But if it was not spelled right it would not go away till it was right, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the whole translated. (added emphasis)

In January of 1833, W. W. Phelps wrote (per Joseph’s instructions) in The Evening and Morning Star:

The word of the Lord carries its own evidence with it. In vain have men attempted to counterfeit it. They may compass the earth with their knowledge, and look through the regions of space by their inventions, but death teaches them their frailty, and time covers their glory. The book of Mormon, as a revelation from God, possesses some advantage over the old scripture: it has not been tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an Italic word to supply deficiencies.-It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles-(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)… (The Evening and Morning Star, Vol. 1, No 8, January 1833, 58).

Here we see that the claim that Jeremy makes was addressed by Joseph Smith and that those italic words should not be in the Book of Mormon! If this is such a “minor issue”, then why did they feel it so important to address in 1833? Also, Joseph Smith himself was so confident in W. W. Phelps that he wrote to him in the same month and advised him that,

… we wish you to render the Star as interesting as possable by setting forth the rise progress and  faith of the church, as well as the doctrine for if you do not render  it more interesting than at present it will fall, and the church suffer  a great Loss thereby——(JS, Letter, Kirtland, OH to William W. Phelps, Jackson County, MO, 11 Jan. 1833; in JS Letterbook 1, pp. 18–20; handwriting of Frederick G. Williams; CHL).

Apparently God displayed on the stones all of the KJV errors that Smith then dictated to his scribes. He had no book or manuscript, and that would include the Bible. The English words simply “appeared on the instrument”.  Smith himself claimed that there were “no errors” in the revelations that he taught, and this would include the Book of Mormon as he also claimed that it was the “most correct book” and therefore free from errors. He had published in the Star, that the Book of Mormon was never “tinctured by the wisdom of man, with here and there an italic word to supply the deficiencies” but we know that Smith copied them right into the Book of Mormon text! The reality of their claims is far from what the truth of the matter is. And this claim (of the Book being error free or perfect) is made because it was claimed that it was translated by “the gift and power of God”.

This is not a claim by Jeremy Runnells, but one made by Joseph Smith himself and others associated with him. Not perfection in spelling, etc., but no errors in the “revelations”. Why then, are all the KJV errors found in the Book of Mormon? Why were they not corrected in subsequent editions like many other transcribing errors were? This folks, is not an “anomaly” or a minor issue because it was important enough for the early Mormons to address in an effort to establish Smith’s credibility as a prophet and seer.

God supposedly gave Smith lots of new text that wasn’t in the Bible. So why would he need to project on Smith’s stone the exact wording of the KJV with all the errors? This is an argument borne out of desperation, which no quaint anecdote can remedy.

Mormon “prophets” have always claimed to be doctrinally infallible. Conflating this with what they describe as character or personality flaws is where apologists like Christensen go off the deep end. He then waxes philosophical with another irrelevant anecdote:

Consider the difference between perfection and reality through one of the tales of Lancelot, Chrétien de Troyes’s The Knight and the Cart. The story involves Lancelot going on an elaborate adventure to rescue a captive Queen Guinevere. When, after overcoming many trials, dangers, and obstacles, he finally finds and frees her, she rejects him. Much later, after both the Queen and Lancelot endure more suffering and trauma due to that rejection, she finally refers to a moment, when, in order to obtain crucial information, he needed to travel via a prison cart, and thereby endure public shame. And he did so, after only a moment’s hesitation. The Queen’s only reaction was, “Why did you hesitate?” as though to her, only that imperfection mattered. And oddly enough, he agrees with her about the devastating significance of that single momentary lapse, based on the peculiar ideals he brings to the issue. A concern about the reality of Lancelot’s effort, or even just the success of his effort, rather than perfection relative to the unrealistic ideals of courtly love, would grant weight and significance to all of his actions during his adventure, including a recognition that he overcame his own hesitation in dealing with his pride versus the need to ride the cart. So questions regarding what is real, as opposed to what appears to be perfect and or ideal, raise different issues, and call for a different kind of processing, and consideration of a much wider set of information.

This is simply pseudo intellectual jargon that has nothing to do with the Mormon concept of revelation except in Christensen’s fertile imagination. These long-winded takeaways from the issues may appear to him to be charming, but they are simply tedious and ineffectual. This is what happens folks, when an author is trying to prop up their own red herring.

Still, what does this have to do with Jeremy Runnells’ criticisms of the Book of Mormon? Absolutely nothing. It is simply a diversion by Christensen to promote his own strawman argument, nothing more. He then writes,

In approaching the Book of Mormon, we could do what Runnells does; look for imperfection, and then display indignation and shock.

Again, this is a strawman of Christensen’s making. Jeremy never claimed that the Book of Mormon had to be perfect, so he’s not looking for imperfection, he is being critical of its historical authenticity and translation method (by the “gift and power of God”) based on what the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith actually say. It is Joseph Smith and his followers that have made the argument for perfection that Christensen puts on Jeremy. They sowed the seeds of that expectation which believing Mormons embrace and so is it any wonder that one might be indignant and shocked when this claim is proven false?

Christensen’s purpose here, is to try and make those criticisms trivial; and turn Jeremy into a villain for even bringing them up. Remember, Jeremy believed in the Book of Mormon for years before he began discovering the problems associated with the narrative that Joseph Smith authored. Indignation and shock are a natural reaction in someone who feels they have been duped for years. Christensen then asks a series of carefully worded questions that deal with Mormon apologetic claims:

Or we could ask, how does the Book of Mormon translation and treatment of internal scriptural quotation compare with scriptural quotation within the Bible [Page 182]and compared to the evidence of biblical transmission and translation? Does the Book of Mormon contain information consistent with eyewitness accounts of the times and settings that it claims for itself? Does it accurately describe conditions in Jerusalem, 600 bc? Does it accurately describe cultural and physical conditions in the Arabian desert? Does it accurately describe a Bountiful area at a coastal location east of Nahom? How does the Book of Mormon describe its New World setting? Are there indications of others? What cultures does it describe and what physical settings? Does the description of Cumorah in the Book of Mormon fit the New York hill “of considerable size,” or, traditional identifications notwithstanding, should we look elsewhere? What forms of government, politics, religion, and trade does it describe? What are the patterns of warfare, including seasonality, tactics, and weapons? Do the 28 verses describing the Sidon contain enough information to narrow the range of candidate rivers for an external correlation? Can we assume homogeneity and accuracy in all cultural descriptions, that is, can we assume that what Enos says about Lamanite culture from the outside also applies to what we see later when the sons of Mosiah actually travel and live among the Lamanites? What are the best sources of information against which to test its claims? If during the course of my investigation, I run across something that I did not expect, what happens if I then pause to reflect and ask, “What should I expect?” But just as Guinevere only asks about an imperfection in the Lancelot quest, Runnells looks only for imperfection in Mormonism. The eye of the beholder crucially influences the harvest.

This last claim by Christensen is simply not based in reality. Like me, Jeremy was a member of the Church for decades. His family are members. Does Christensen think that we are not familiar with such issues? That we haven’t asked such questions? Either he is extremely naive, or he is simply posturing for his audience. Did Christensen even listen to Jeremy’s podcast where he describes his life in the Church and his extended Missionary work? Does he even care what Jeremy knew before he began investigating deeper issues in the Book of Mormon?  Here is where Christensen fails, because he is basically saying that he knows what issues that Jeremy has studied and that in his eyes Jeremy doesn’t find impressive the apologist answers to the questions that Christensen raises all of which have been answered by them with only speculation.  I guess I’ll play the analogy game here.

You are a Doctor and a patient has died on your table from massive wounds that no one could have survived. The monitors have been flat-lined for many minutes and everyone in the E.R. tells you that your patient has died–but you can’t bring yourself to accept it. You had invested so much time and used all your skill to save the patient. In frustration at the announcement of your patient’s death you grab the defibrillator paddles and you use them on the patient. No response as the body jerks and twitches on the table. You do this over and over again, each time with absolute certainty that the patient’s heart will kick start and they will live. But this doesn’t revive them and still you can’t accept it. You check the vitals again, you perform CPR, you pound their chest and grab at the paddles again but someone pulls you away. You then are forced to realize that yes, the patient is really dead as they pull you back and take the defibrillators out of your hands. But deep down you still can’t believe it and look around with accusatory eyes for someone else to blame it on. You convince yourself that it wasn’t your fault, it was someone else’s. If only they would have believed things might have turned out different. They just didn’t look at things from the right perspective, from your perspective. Their preconceived notions (that when the heart has flat-lined for that long the patient is dead) led them down the wrong path and did not allow you to prove they were wrong and you could have saved the patient with more jolts of electricity.defib-dr.

What Christensen wants critics to do is keep defibrillating someone after they are long dead and can’t understand when someone is convinced by a reality they will not perceive.

Christensen wants critics to accept another Cumorah than the one Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery identified; to desperately cling to the notion that the Book of Mormon documents an historical reality; or that we can find some river or lake or portion of coastline that matches what is vaguely described there. One must also overturn every rock and hiding place and crazy theory that might somehow, someway verify that the Book of Mormon is something more than 19th century fiction before we can declare it to be a product of the 19th century and not a translation.

He acts like no critic has ever studied these issues before. He wants us to accept Nibley’s wacky parallelomania and false dichotomies, and take Warren Aston (the UFO “expert”) seriously. But when critics don’t, they are not as bending as Christensen is, they are brittle and shatter with the slightest breeze.  They didn’t study enough, they didn’t look at it with the right perspective. Christensen claims that Jeremy has not really studied the issues. But he has read and quoted FAIRMORMON and other Mormon apologists extensively and that still doesn’t seem to be enough for Christensen.   I too have studied all of these issues and find all of that “evidence” is simply made up apologist spin.

For example, let’s take Nahom and Warren P. Aston. Just google his name and you come up with articles like this one:  “UFO researcher hunting for truth,” which talks about how Aston believes the story of a man who claimed that aliens showed him the future which included the home computer and the rise of Nazi Germany.  This UFO “expert” also owns a travel agency called “Bountiful Tours”. We find on their webpage (from 2011),

“Bountiful Tours conducts unique tours of Lehi & Sariah’s path from Jerusalem to Bountiful. It also operates custom-made tours overland into the historical Hadramaut Valley and coast of Yemen, air-tours to the mystical island of Socotrain the Indian Ocean and tours of the ancient Frankincense Trail in Saudi Arabia.”

Here is the price info on the ‘tour’ from 2011:

The 2011 tour will be led throughout by Warren Aston. The tour itself commences on Sunday October 9th in Jerusalem and ends in Muscat, Oman on Friday October 21st.

Tour cost is $US 2835 per person, share-twin, Single Supplement is $560. The tour price includes all sightseeing, tours and entrances, all land and water transportation, first class hotels with breakfasts daily throughout, luggage handling, return domestic airfares within Oman, most dinners and a picnic lunch. All airport transfers are included for those traveling on the group flights.

Not included are visa fees and taxes, other meals, drinks and gratuities. Airfare – for those departing from the US, a special group airfare from New York City JFK – Saturday evening October 8th – and arriving back at JFK on the afternoon of Friday October 21st is available for $US 970, plus taxes and fuel surcharges (currently $352).

For 2015 it states that,

Price: tour cost is $3990 pp twin share. Single supplement is $755.

I find it disconcerting that the guy who is promoting evidence which “constitute[s] the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon,” is also trying to make a buck off of it. He is also selling a book and documentary to go along with it. Also, the man who claims to have found ‘proof’ for the Book of Mormon also believes there are extraterrestrials living among us. Here is a sample of Aston’s ‘proofs’ for their being “already among us”:

“Some of the physical differences between extraterrestrials and ourselves have been recorded by a noted medical doctor, Dr. Leopoldo Diaz, head of surgery at a major hospital in Guadalajara, who had occasion to examine a man in his office in 1976. Requesting a medical examination because he traveled much, the man was examined by Dr.  Diaz who quickly realized that he was not human. At this point his patient disclosed the real reason for his visit. He had seemingly chosen a well-respected and influential figure to pass on the information that “many” people from his planet were here living undetected among us, trying to help us avert catastrophe. In a long conversation he taught the doctor a great deal about religion, life after death and earth’s future before leaving and disappearing outside the building.” (See Photo for a picture of the Article, which can be read here.)Aston Mufon Article

Now I love the X-Files, it’s one of my favorite TV Shows. But if I want to be taken seriously, I do not go around telling folks that I actually believe in aliens living among us and that they are taking people for rides on spaceships and revealing the future to them. I also wouldn’t be trying to make a buck off of a discovery that I’m promoting as ‘proof’ for my religion. But that’s just me. This is all kinds of tacky, and questions the very motives for the whole thing. Ok, I think this is enough background on Aston. Now let’s take a look at his claims about NHM.

Here is Aston’s story as he describes it:

warren aston

Ashton promotes his UFO books along with his Book “In the Footsteps of Lehi”.

“In the Fall of 2000 I was one of three people leading a group of nearly 40 Latter-day Saints along the Lehi trail. We began in Jerusalem, then descended into the Arabah wilderness, traveling south until we reached the Red Sea. We next flew south to Yemen to pick up the trail. After visiting the Nahom tribal area we drove in convoy to the ancient ruins of Marib, the legendary city of the Queen of Sheba thousands of years ago. And there, in the midst of the desert, an unexpected and most extraordinary event took place.

Some time earlier, a series of museums in Europe began exhibiting a collection of treasures from Yemen’s past. One of the items in the catalog reported an inscription on an altar that had been excavated at the Barán temple in Marib. I had been to the site years earlier. There was little to be seen then other than five and a half very tall pillars standing above the sand on which local boys would pose for pictures. It was a desolate place. A German team had unearthed the entire temple complex including the altar, dated to around 600-700 BC. What was significant was that the altar inscription named a donor who was the grandson of a man from the Nihm tribe.

We already knew that the Semitic consonants NHM referred to a tribal area that seemed likely to be the place called Nahom, where Nephi’s father-in-law, Ishmael, was buried (1 Nephi 16:34). I had spent years documenting the name on old maps and writings back to within a few hundred years of Nephi’s day. Always the name was in the same location.

September 12, 2000.

Not long after arriving in Marib our group began visiting the spectacular remains of the past, beginning with the famous Great Dam. From there we went to the nearby temple of Barán where the altar had been recovered. For me, it was hard to reconcile the carefully excavated and restored complex with what I remembered. It was only a few minutes later that we realized that a stone altar stood a short distance away, one that looked the same as the altar in the catalog. Excitedly, several of us began to examine it. Around 26 inches high, a 3 inch high band of South Arabian script encircled it. To see an almost identical altar was something that exceeded our expectations, but the best was still to come.

We had hours of desert driving ahead of us to our overnight stop, so time was short. We hurriedly took some photographs and as we sent for a tape measure I asked our Yemeni guide if he could search the inscription for any mention of NiHM. Unbelievably, he quickly picked out the characters for the name, which I copied down. Stunned, we had our photographs taken with the altar and then it was time to leave. On board the bus we announced to the entire group what had happened and told them that they had probably just been a part of a significant event.

Such it proved to be. I returned to Yemen a few weeks later and secured permission to fully document the altar and the other structures. I found that around 20 altars had been recovered at the site and amazingly, amidst a cluster of damaged altars hidden behind a wall, sat a third identical altar. The donor of 3 altars with the same text was surely wealthy. Over following months one of the world’s leading authorities on early Arabia, Professor Kenneth Kitchen in England, provided us a more accurate translation of the inscription. Other scholars helped refine the dating and understand the context.”

His conclusion:

“For the first time, a unique Book of Mormon location had been plausibly located in the right location and period.”

 In an article called ‘Newly found Altars from Nahom’, Mr. Aston makes this comment:

“In a single verse, 1 Nephi 16:34, Nephi tells us all that he wished us to know about the place called Nahom: “And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.”

Mr. Aston makes these assumptions about the verse:

“From this and one other terse statement in the Book of Mormon we learn several facts about the location:

  1. The wording makes it clear that Nahom was not named by Lehi’s party but was already known by that name to local people. Thus other people were already settled in proximity to the Lehite encampment.
  2. Nephi’s Bountiful lay “nearly eastward” from Nahom (1 Nephi 17:1).
  3. Nahom was, or at least included, a place of burial. Note that Nephi does not state that Ishmael died there, only that he was buried there, implying that it included an established burial place.”

To answer Aston’s claims, here is the late Ted Chandler, courtesy of MormonThink:

In “Lehi’s Arabian Journey Updated” (Reynolds 1997), Noel Reynolds asserts that Mormon scholars now know the location of sites corresponding to the account of Lehi’s journey through the wilderness, after leaving Jerusalem. This is based on the work of Warren and Michaela Aston. The Astons identify Book of Mormon Nahom, where Ishmael died, with Nehem, located northeast of Sana’a in Yemen, while Bountiful, located near the Irreantum Sea, corresponds with Khor Kharfot, situated east of Nehem near Oman’s Dhofar coast. Reynolds thinks that Nephi’s account of Nahom and Bountiful correspond so well with the sites located by the Astons that it “could only have been written by one who had personally traveled the area” (Reynolds 1997, 382). Reynolds asks:

How did he [Joseph Smith] know that a group traveling due east from NHM [Nehem] would meet the sea at a uniquely fertile and hospitable spot that was suitable for building and launching a ship? How did he know that Oman had ample resources for ship building and sailing, and that there were mountains and cliffs on the sea shore itself?

These important details run directly counter to all knowledge of Arabia in Joseph Smith’s day and to most popular belief about Arabia even today. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that Joseph Smith and his contemporaries did not know these things . . . . (Reynolds 1997, 388)

Actually, people in Joseph Smith’s day knew more about Arabia than Reynolds supposes, as is attested by the following passages from Voltaire’s “The Philosoophy of History”:

. . . but Arabia Felix deserved that name, as being surrounded with thick woods and a tempestuous sea, it was sheltered from the rapacity of robbers . . . . This advantage is far above its aromatics, its incense, its cinnamon (which is of inferior quality) or even its coffee, which now creates its riches. . . .

As to that extensive part called Happy, half of it consists also in deserts; but upon advancing some miles into the interior parts, either to the east of Mocha, or to the east of Mecca, there is found the most pleasant country in the world. The air is continually perfumed, during a perpetual summer, by the odor of the aromatic plants which nature spontaneously produces. Thousands of streams flow from the mountains, and preserve an incessant coolness, which moderates the heat of the sun beneath the evergreen shades. It was particularly in this country, that the words garden and paradise implied celestial favor.

The gardens of Saana, towards Aden, were more famous among the Arabians, than were those of Alcinous among the Greeks. And this Aden or Eden was called the place of delights. . . .

This vast country of Yemen is so fine, its ports are so happily situated upon the Indian ocean, that it is said Alexander was desirous of conquering Yemen, in order to make it the seat of his empire, and the emporium of trade for the whole world. (Voltaire 1927, 400-401)

Edward Gibbon also gives this description of southern Arabia:

The high lands that border on the Indian Ocean are distinguished by their superior plenty of wood and water: the air is more temperate, the fruits are more delicious, the animals and the human race more numerous: the fertility of the soil invites and rewards the toil of the husbandman; and the peculiar gifts of frankincense and coffee have attracted in different ages the merchants of the world. If it be compared with the rest of the peninsula, this sequestered region may truly deserve the appellation of the happy . . . . (Gibbon n.d., 3:58)

As sources for his information on Arabia, Gibbon lists not only ancient writers like Pliny and Strabo, but also the works of Pocock, who published extracts and notes on Arabian antiquities in his Specimen Historiae Arabum. Gibbon also refers a number of times to books by Carsten Niebuhr and Jean Bourguignon D’Anville, who published maps of Arabia. Nephi’s account does not require any more knowledge of Arabia than was available in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

The Astons claim that Lehi’s group travelled in the same direction as an ancient trade route along the east shore of the Red Sea. However, there was another main trade route, in use at least as early as 336 B.C., which ran across central Arabia to Gerrha on the Persian Gulf. Gibbon refers to these two routes:

The treasures of Africa were conveyed over the peninsula to Gerrha or Katif, in the province of Bahrein, a city built, as it is said, of rock-salt, by the Chaldaean exiles; and from thence, with the native pearls of the Persian Gulf, they were floated on rafts to the mouth of the Euphrates. Mecca is placed almost at an equal distance, a month’s journey, between Yemen on the right and Syria on the left hand. The former was the winter, the latter the summer, station of her caravans; and their seasonable arrival relieved the ships of India from the tedious and troublesome navigation of the Red Sea. In the markets of Saana and Merab, in the harbours of Oman and Aden, the camels of the Koreishites were laden with a precious cargo of aromatics; a supply of corn and manufactures was purchased in the fairs of Bostra and Damascus . . . . (Gibbon n.d., 3:62)

Concerning Nahom, the Astons present two kinds of evidence: (1) the meaning of “Nehem,” and (2) a place in South Arabia named Nehem. Let’s consider each of these.

(1) The Astons state that there are two Semitic roots for Nehem. One means “to comfort, console, to be sorry,” while the other means “to roar, complain, or be hungry.” The Astons think that “both these roots relate in significant and very specific ways to the experiences of Lehi’s group while at Nahom. . . . It is hard to imagine any place-name that would be more appropriate in view of what Nephi tells us happened there. Not only do the two roots of Nahom refer unquestionably to both mourning and consoling (and perhaps also to fasting) in connection with Ishmael’s death and burial, but they seem to go still further and echo the complaining and the rebellion that followed his burial” (Aston 1994, 12-13). However, this is all quite irrelevant. Why? Because the text states and the Astons acknowledge that Nahom was already named before Lehi’s group arrived there (1 Nephi 16:34; Aston 1994, 10). The fact that Ishmael died at Nahom is purely coincidental and is not connected in any way with the meaning of Nehem/Nahom. This does not constitute evidence verifying Nephi’s account. Furthermore, the name Nahom is not remarkable, considering that the Bible contains the names Naham, Nahum, and Nehum. In addition, NHM is not the same word in South Arabian as it is in Hebrew and is not pronounced the same. In Hebrew, NHM is a verb, but in South Arabian, it is a noun meaning “pecked masonry,” referring to a technique of roughening the finish of the stone using chisels. Why would Lehi’s group insult the Arab inhabitants of the area by giving the place a Hebrew name with a different meaning?

(2) The Book of Mormon refers to a place called Nahom, and there was actually a place named Nehem in South Arabia along an ancient incense trade route. Nothing could be simpler. But is it really that simple? Actually, according to the Astons, the trade route passed through the Jawf valley. Nehem was not the name of a city in the valley, but was a remote burial place in the mountains south of the Jawf valley. The Astons state that Lehi’s group “could only have known about Nahom from someone outside the group,” and “Likely the Lehite encampment was in the Jawf valley and Ishmael was carried up into the hills for burial” (Aston 1994, 10, 13). But this is not all. The Astons also say that there was another larger burial place east of the Jawf valley in the mountains near Ruwaik. They then conclude that either Nehem or Ruwaik “may well have been the place to which local people led Lehi’s mourning party to bury Ishmael” (Aston 1994, 20). It seems then that it would have been quite possible for Lehi’s group to travel through the Jawf valley without ever being aware of Nehem and that in any case Ishmael may not have even been buried there.

The Book of Mormon says that Lehi’s group journeyed “many days” from Shazer to Nahom, and then after turning east from Nahom, they reached Bountiful, after spending eight years in the wilderness. However, according to the Astons’ interpretation, the group would have already traveled a large part of their journey upon reaching Nahom. In fact Reynolds says that the Astons have “persuasively” argued that the course followed by Lehi’s group to Nahom took “years to traverse what could have been covered in months” (Reynolds 1997, 381).

Reynolds says that one of the criteria used by the Astons in searching for the site of Bountiful is that “there must be a dangerous cliff where Nephi’s brothers could attempt to kill him by throwing him into the sea” (Reynolds 1997, 383). However, the text does not in fact refer to any cliff or state that Nephi’s brothers made an actual attempt to kill him; it merely states that Nephi’s brothers “were desirous to throw me into the depths of the sea” (1 Nephi 17:48). But when this occurred, Nephi had already made tools out of ore and was preparing to start building their ship. Nephi’s brothers “were desirous that they might not labor” (1 Nephi 17:18). It is hardly possible that Nephi planned to build the ship on a cliff above the sea. If the Astons are permitted to speculate, we could conjecture as well that “depths of the sea” implies open ocean, and that Nephi’s brothers planned to use a canoe or raft to take Nephi out to sea and throw him overboard. There may very well have been a cliff, but speculation should not be raised to the level of necessary criterion.

Neither Reynolds nor the Astons suggest an explanation for the strange name which the Book of Mormon confers upon the sea. Nephi states that upon reaching Bountiful, they beheld the sea, “which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters” (1 Nephi 17:5). Irreantum appears to be a name invented in imitation of the fact that at one time the Indian Ocean was called the Erythraean Sea. Greek “erythros” means “red,” so the Indian Ocean was actually called the Red Sea. The Book of Mormon merely applies a different name to the sea, with a different meaning.

The Astons’ interpretation fails to deal with certain peculiarities of the Book of Mormon account. I have argued that the Book of Mormon uses “Red Sea” with a special meaning, referring to what is now called the Dead Sea. The Book of Deuteronomy provides further evidence for this interpretation:

These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab. (There are eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea.) . . . On this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses to declare this law . . . . (Deut. 1:1-2, 5)

The text here refers to the plain on the east side of the Jordan “over against” the Red sea, which suggests that it is referring to the Dead Sea, which was perhaps thought to be connected with the Red Sea through the Gulf of Aqaba. Two other passages in the Bible refer to the Red sea, when the Israelites were travelling through the northern Sinai and Edom: “And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way” (Numbers 21:4); “Then we turned, and took our journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea, as the LORD spake unto me: and we compassed mount Seir many days” (Deut. 2:1). Nephi says that the river Laman “emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof. And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!” (1 Nephi 2:8-9). Nephi also says that when they left the valley of Lemuel, “we did take seed of every kind that we might carry into the wilderness” (1 Nephi 16:11). Josephus describes a deep body of water in a cave beneath a large mountain: “Now the fountains of Jordan rise at the roots of this cavity outwardly; and, as some think, this is the utmost origin of Jordan . . . .” Later he also describes “a fountain by Jericho.” Originally, this fountain of water had “a sickly and corruptive nature,” causing harm to vegetation and new-born children. Elisha prayed over the fountain and made it “wholesome and fruitful.” Josephus says that the ground watered by the fountain grew “most excellent gardens that are thick set with trees,” and that the area produced honey and balsam. In another work, Josephus says that after Samson repented of his pride, God “raised him up a plentiful fountain of sweet water at a certain rock; whence it was that Samson called the place the Jaw-bone, and so it is called to this day.” As William Whiston, the translator, pointed out, the Hebrew word for “jaw-bone” is Lehi: “This fountain, called Lehi, or the jaw-bone, is still in being . . . .” (See Josephus 1984, 1:77, 329; 2:334-35) I have argued that the use of “down” and “up” in the Book of Mormon indicates that Lehi’s camp in the wilderness was north of Jerusalem, and that parallels with the stories of Moses and Joshua reveal that Lehi’s group traveled a course opposite to that of the Israelites, when they crossed the Jordan and entered Canaan. Lehi may have camped near the “fountain by Jericho,” and his river Laman, which emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, would have joined with the Jordan, which Lehi may have considered to be this fountain of the Red Sea. When the Book of Mormon says that Lehi’s group traveled in a south-southeast direction, “keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea” (1 Nephi 16:14), it appears to be referring to areas east of the Dead Sea, not the long stretch of Arabia which borders the Red Sea. I have also suggested that Nahom, where Ishmael died, is a point east of Mount Hor, where Aaron died, and that after Lehi’s group turned eastward from Nahom, they reached a point near the mouth of the Euphrates River on the Persian Gulf. The name Bountiful may be connected with the meaning of “Euphrates,” which is “that which makes fruitful.”

And finally we can suggest a simple explanation for the name Nahom, which does not require a knowledge of Semitic roots or the geography and place-names of South Arabia. The author of Nephi’s record paralleled accounts of Moses, Joshua, and the Israelites, when they journeyed along the border of the Dead Sea and crossed the Jordan to Jericho (even the Astons acknowledge these parallels). But when he wanted Lehi’s group to turn eastward, he started thinking of the trek of Abraham and his family from Ur to Haran. Abraham’s brother was named Nahor, and it requires only the subsititution of one letter to change the name to Nahom. This I believe, is the real meaning and significance of Nahom, and it indicates that Lehi’s group did not travel to South Arabia.

Lacking any archeological evidence which definitely links Lehi’s group with specific sites, any suggested route of travel must remain speculative, and therefore it is difficult to take seriously Reynolds’ claim that Nephi’s account “must be seen as a powerful witness of the Book of Mormon’s divine origins and ancient authorship” (Reynolds 1997, 388).

As we see above, the Nahom claims are easy to dismantle, because they are all based on implausible speculation. As for names, this was posted by David Wright, Professor of Bible and Ancient Near East at Brandeis University, on ZLMB in 2002:

“A large number of BOM names and words have the suffixed element -om (Abinadom, Antiomno, Corom, Cumom, Curelom, Ezrom, Jacom, Jarom, Shiblom, Shilom [not necessarily Hebrew sh-l-m!; see the caution below], Sidom, Zeezrom). Those ending in -um may represent the same suffix: Antionum, Jeneum, Helorum, Mocum, which could include also the -antum and -ancum names: Antum, Coriantum, Irreantum, Moriancum, Moriantum, Ripliancum, Seantum, Teancum. (It is less clear that -em names/words Ethem, Gazelem, Sherem, Shelem, [+ ? Zara-HEM-la/nah?] and -am names/words Luram, Zeram, Seezoram, Zoram should be included.)

The large number of names or words with -om (-um) indicate that this element may not be part of the word stem or root in many cases, but a suffix separate or distinct from the root. Thus is it difficult to argue decisively, even from a traditionalist perspective, that Nahom derives from a Semitic root n-h-m (as in the Arabic place name Nehhem) or the root n-kh-m (connected with mourning). Just because there are Semitic roots with a final -m which can be correlated with Nahom does not mean that they are in fact to be correlated. The word stem or root may be Nah- with an -om suffix.”

“One could argue that -om names, which are found throughout the BOM (early Nephite, late Nephite, Jaredite), are an indication that a single mind conceived them all. Recall too that -e/antum (and related -ianton) type names appear in all three literary-cultural periods: Irreantum (early Nephite); Coriantum, Coriantumr, Coriantor (Jaredite); Corianton, Moriantum, Seantum (late Nephite). This is not what one expects from an ancient document which reflects discrete cultural-historical periods, but is explainable if Joseph Smith invented the names and wrote the BOM.”

1811 Map of Arabia Nehem

1811 Map of Arabia

Also, Nahom, (and it’s variation Nehem)  was on many maps that were circulating about since the mid-1700’s, right up to the time Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. Could one of those have fallen in the hands of Smith? Mormon apologists flatly deny it, but it cannot be ruled out completely. What we have here, is all speculation, with no basis of fact to tie anything to the Book of Mormon. What should concern Mormons is the fact that not one shred of evidence has been found in the New World to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon: that there was a massive population of Jewish-Christian peoples that inhabited the Americas, who left no evidence of their existence at all.

Here is Aston on You Tube, at a UFO Symposium

Christensen then informs us that,

A narrow test for perfection brings an ever-present danger that even the appearance of imperfection seems decisive. We risk coming to a false conclusion based on a misperception.

Is he still burning this strawman? Seems so. Who exactly is testing perfection? Not Jeremy Runnells. He is testing Joseph Smith’s claims to an error free Book of Mormon that doesn’t need italicized words. This (again) has all been invented in Christensen’s mind.  What misperception? Oh wait, here comes another–this time tragic–anecdote, this time dealing with William Shakespeare’s Othello…

This is the theme of Shakespeare’s tragedy, Othello. Because of the manipulations of Iago, the innocent Desdemona appears to be [Page 183]guilty of betraying Othello’s trust. Doubtless the mental pain, anguish, and feeling of betrayal that Othello suffers are real (at least within the world of the play). But while Othello is busy suffering angst and murdering his innocent wife, the last thing he needs is to be surrounded by understanding and sympathetic Iagos who only want to validate his pain, perhaps suggesting that if he suffocates her sooner and faster, he’ll suffer less in the long run. The tragedy of Othello is not that Iago is around to practice deception and manipulation, but that Othello’s faith in Desdemona’s fidelity is so fragile. He proclaims his love but makes far too little effort to come to her defense, shows no patience or tolerance or capacity for forgiveness or even simple faith, hope, and charity. He never thinks to say, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” and never stops to consider that the problem might be in his own misperception, at least, not until it is too late for Desdemona and for himself. It is also clear that after he has killed his wife, the last thing that he wants to discover is her innocence.

Wow, Christensen has read some Shakespeare. Too bad this is tragically irrelevant and diversionary, created only to feed Christensen’s own strawman. Moving on…

All of this calls for a careful examination of our own assumptions and background expectations, doing a little bit of checking our own eyes for beams before attempting mote removal on another person.

Christensen is assuming a lot here. If he has these problems, he should work on them. But don’t put them on others when you don’t know them at all. This is simply arrogance folks. Insinuating that Jeremy is a hypocrite because he doesn’t believe Mormon Apologist arguments with no proof?

Remember that Runnells’s very first point depends on the un-argued and unexamined assumption that any human error in the Book of Mormon translation is “damning,” and by itself sufficient to “totally undermine” Joseph’s claim to be a translator.

How could we forget when Christensen keep repeating this over and over again?  Here is what Jeremy actually wrote:

The presence of 17th century KJV italics and 1769 KJV errors – word for word – in the Book of Mormon is its own damning evidence. These errors totally undermine the claim that Joseph “translated” the Book of Mormon and the claim that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth.

Remember, claims that Joseph got the words on the stone directly from God, so how could there be human error involved? As we have seen from the evidence above, that is exactly what Smith taught. In the Book of Mormon preface written by Joseph Smith he claims that,

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

He then claims,

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

What is this directed at? We have no idea. He claims that the Book was written “by the spirit of prophecy and revelation”, and later claimed that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on earth (no errors) and that there were “no errors in the revelations I have taught.” So what errors does he speak of? Most likely printing errors. As John S. Dinger writes,

In 1837, LDS Church members Parley P. Pratt (1807-57) and John Goodson (1814?-74?) republished the Book of Mormon in Kirtland, Ohio. Though it took seven years for a second printing, Church leaders had discussed republication as early as 1833. On June 25, 1833, the First Presidency (composed of Smith and two counselors) wrote a letter to Church printer W. W. Phelps in Missouri regarding the reprinting of the Book of Mormon, and stated: “As soon as we can get time, we will review the manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, after which they will be forwarded to you.”9 Other printing-related projects and the subsequent destruction of the LDS Church-owned printing press in Independence, Missouri, by angry non-Mormons delayed the printing of a second edition of the Book of Mormon.

The second edition was financed by Pratt and Goodson, who were given permission to publish up to 5,000 copies; however, it is likely that only 3,000 were actually printed.10 Though published in the United States, many copies of the 1837 edition were taken to England, where they were distributed or sold by LDS proselyzting missionaries. This printing filled a need on both continents.

With this second edition, like virtually every edition that followed, changes were made to the text of the volume. As indicated by the letter to Phelps, Smith, and others–mostly Cowdery–worked to make the second edition of the Book of Mormon more closely follow the original manuscripts.11 Smith and Cowdery checked the 1830 edition against the Printer’s Manuscript in the winter of 1836 and into early 1837, marking up the Printer’s Manuscript in the process. As a result, Smith authorized more than 2,000 changes, mostly grammatical, to the text. The preface to the 1837 edition states: “Individuals  acquainted with book printings, are aware of the numerous typographical errors which always occur in manuscript editions. It is only necessary to say, that the whole has been carefully re-examined and compared with the original manuscript” (p. v).

These are the errors that Smith speaks of, not the revelatory part of the Book of Mormon, which Smith claimed was given by God and contained no errors. Significantly, he did not change the Isaiah plagiarisms found in the first edition.

Christensen continues:

Notice too that the closest Runnells comes to actually defining translate is when he complains that according to unnamed “unofficial apologists” the word “translate doesn’t really mean translate.”

Who is complaining? Again, Runnells is making observations. The only one whining here is Christensen, about the fact that Jeremy is not impressed with apologetic spin and pseudo intellectual word games. Are any Mormon apologists “official’? Not according to them. So what is Christensen objecting to here? We can’t figure that out. Perhaps this quote by FAIRMORMON might help”

Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a ‘translation’ as only the conversion of text in one language to another. But, Joseph used the term in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization. The JST is probably best understood in this light.

So here we see that translate doesn’t always mean translate in the dictionary sense of the word, exactly what Jeremy was getting at. Christensen then states:

This would be a good place to explain what the word means in the context of what Joseph Smith actually did.

We have done that above. Let’s see what Christensen’s take is:

We need to do a bit of eye checking here. What does it mean to translate? Runnells implies a circular definition in which translate should mean “translate,” which, if you actually stop to think about it, does not help much. Nor does it demonstrate any degree of introspection, self-reflection, or even inquiry.

What point is Christensen trying to make here? He wants to give the parameters of what he thinks translation meant to Joseph Smith.  To do this, he quotes Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

TRANSLATE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

  1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

  1. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death. Hebrews 11:15.

  1. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.
  2. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.
  3. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

[Page 185]6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another.

The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

  1. To explain.

Here, a single word—translate—has several definitions. I notice that the word perfect does not appear anywhere in this definition of translate.

Once again Christensen applies his “perfect” strawman to Jeremy without any citation or proof whatsoever that Jeremy even thinks this. Christensen folks, is basically arguing with himself here. Now this exercise (in giving definitions for the word translate) shows us that this is simply grandstanding. In the case of Joseph Smith does translate mean to carry? To remove to heaven? To convey from one to another? To transmit a disease? To change? Finally, we get to it at number 6. Of course it is pretty basic knowledge that words can mean different things. Still, Christensen presses his strawman:

Nor does even the sixth definition of translate say that expressing “the sense of one language in the words of another” requires that existing successful translations, with or without italicized explanatory words, should or must be completely ignored. To succeed in its purpose, a translation need not be completely original or unique or flawless.

Ok, that’s common sense. So? This is not the point that Jeremy was making.That definition nowhere includes the translation being done “by the gift and power of God”, now, does it? This is why Christensen’s whole argument is fallacious. Here is what Jeremy said,

When King James translators were translating the KJV bible between 1604 and1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they’re italicized in the KJV bible. What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record?

The issue is that Joseph Smith carried over all the King James additions to the text that was given to him by God. This has nothing to do with claiming perfection of Smith, but why God would include the KJV errors with the text he placed on Joseph’s stone. What purpose did that serve when it was claimed by witnesses that Smith never used any manuscript or book in his “translation”?

Let’s try and use some common sense to answer this translation issue in relation to the Book of Mormon. What did Joseph claim to do? He claimed to translate the “Reformed Egyptian” characters from the gold plates into English. How did he do this? By putting a stone in a hat and having God make the translation of each character appear on his stone. Therefore Smith could then claim that he “translated” the Book of Mormon “by the gift and power of God.” So in reality who really made the translation? God, not Joseph Smith.

In Kirtland, Joseph “translated” some of the Book of Abraham for Michael Chandler:

The morning Mr. Chandler first presented his papyrus to bro.—Smith, he was shown, by the latter, a number of characters like those upon the writings of Mr. C. which were previously copied from the plates, containing the history of the Nephites, or book of Mormon. Being solicited by Mr. Chandler to give an opinion concerning his antiquities, or translation of some of the characters, bro. S. gave him the interpretation of some few for his satisfaction.

Here Joseph claimed that some of the characters on the papyrus were like those which were copied from the plates and so Smith was able to translate them and give the interpretation. Thus, Smith translated characters from another language into English. There isn’t any broader meaning here. This is what Smith claimed to do with the Book of Mormon characters, except in that case he claimed that God gave him the translation on his stone.  On August 10, 1832 Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde answered some questions to the people of Boston:

           Q.-By what means did he discover the golden plates and who was with him when he made the discovery.
A.-The golden plates were discovered through the ministration of an angel of the Lord, by Joseph Smith-no one else was with him at the time of the discovery.
Q.-By whom was a fac simile of some part of the language and characters taken, and on what material.
A.-It was taken by Joseph Smith on paper from the original plates themselves.
Q.-By whom was this presented to Dr. Mitchell, and at what period?
A.-By Martin Harris, one of the witnesses who had seen the plates-do not exactly know at what time.
Q.-Is that fac simile, now in being, and if so where is it?
A.-It is, or it was in being-I have seen it.
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.

Here we see that Joseph translated “by the spirit of the Lord” through the stones. The same story that Smith told to everyone else.

The problem is with real documents that are translated from one real language to another, we have the documents that are/were translated. Do we have the Book of Mormon plates? No. So any argument that Christensen makes along these lines is pointless.  But here is his rant:

Does Runnells provide any real-world examples or evidence of inspired translations, or transmitted scripture that demonstrates the validity of his opening complaint about what I see as a minor, cosmetic aspect of the Book of Mormon translation? Are any of his complaints about Joseph Smith accompanied by any demonstration of how actual prophets have behaved or should behave? Does he have evidence that translation from ancient languages to a modern high language is more successful when it completely ignores existing translations of the same or related material? Does the New Testament demonstrate utter perfection in quoting the Old Testament or does it contain Septuagint errors? Does the King James Translation utterly ignore the earlier Tyndale translation? Would there be any advantage in ignoring existing translations of the same material? Would a use of a well-known, existing translation impede readers in the task of coming to recognize [Page 186]and comprehend what they encounter? Do the practical issues in the translation and transmission of writing from one culture to another through any human-involved means suggest that perfect translation is even possible? Does the Bible display this theoretical perfection either in its internal quotations, different accounts of the same events, or in the manuscript history or in the different translations? And, if Joseph was perpetuating a fraud, does it make sense that he would plagiarize the one source his readers were sure to recognize and regard with some heightened value?

We don’t know where Joseph got his translation from. We don’t know anything about it other than it was called “reformed Egyptian”.  With the Bible, we can see the Septuagint, compare it and know that it had errors because we can compare it to other translations. We know nothing about the Book of Mormon. These kinds of speculations are non productive and rather silly. All of the Bible translations are based on older documents or documents from other languages. Real documents that can be checked. This is not the case with the Book of Mormon so Christensen’s rant above is totally irrelevant to any discussion about translation. Christensen then asks:

For all these questions, the answer is no. But Runnells neither asks nor answers them. Does this save trouble, or cause it?

How can Christensen know what Joseph would or would not do? Why did he make John C. Bennett his Counselor in the First Presidency when he supposedly knew he was a scoundrel? That was pretty stupid. Why did he translate the Book of Mormon with the same peepstone he used to hunt buried treasure when he knew what people would think about that? Why do you think they renamed it the “urim and thummim” and Joseph invented the “interpreters”? Why did he give Martin Harris the 116 pages when God supposedly told him no three times?

Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was translated by the “gift and power of God”. Here is how the Joseph Smith Papers define the word “translate” in relation to what Joseph Smith supposedly did:

To produce a new text through a revelatory, rather than scholarly, process, by the “gift and power of God.” In the Book of Mormon, the ancient prophet Mosiah translated records into his own language using “interpreters,” or “two stones which was fastened into the two rims of a bow.” According to the account, the possessor of the instrument was called a seer. On 6 April 1830, a revelation stated that JS would be known not only as a revelator, but also as a seer and a translator. JS stated that he was directed to translate the Book of Mormon from gold plates buried in a hill near his home. Buried with the plates were “two stones in silver bows,” which fastened to a breastplate and were later referred to by the biblical term Urim and Thummim. JS was instructed to use these stones “for the purpose of translating the book.” As he translated, JS dictated to scribes.Emma Smith recalled that JS used the Urim and Thummim for the first part of the translation and another seer stone for the remaining portion. Other accounts reported that JS translated by looking at the stone or stones, which he placed in a hat to reduce exterior light. JS worked on the translation of the gold plates until summer 1829. From June 1830 to July 1833, he worked on a revision or translation of the Bible, using the King James Bible rather than ancient writings as his original text. His work included both revisions and, especially within the book of Genesis, lengthy expansions. There are no reports that JS used a stone in his translation of the Bible. In July 1835, after members of the church purchased several ancient Egyptian papyrus scrolls, JS commenced translating some of the characters and stated that one of the scrolls contained the writings of the biblical prophet Abraham. JS worked intermittently on translating some of the papyri for the remainder of the year, though his exact process of translating is unclear.Portions of this translation were first published in March 1842. JS and other church members, as encouraged by an 1833 revelation, also sought to gain more conventional translation skills through the academic study of other languages, including Greek, Hebrew, and German.

Nothing about how ancient prophets behaved. This only claims that Mosiah translated records into his own language using stone spectacles. Of course we don’t have any of the original documents to compare Smith’s translation to. Notice that they say that Smith translated through a “revelatory, rather than scholarly process”.  So why is what Christensen claiming relevant at all? It isn’t. He is describing a scholarly process and trying to apply that to a “revelatory process”. This is disingenuous and simply a diversion from the real issue. That is why he wanted to separate the two at the beginning of his essay.

Smith “translates” the King James Bible into what? Based on what? The JSP claim that “his work included both revisions” and “lengthy expansions. So how is this translating  in any sense of the word? Again, the 1828 definition states that translate means,

To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another.

How does one “translate” an English Bible into English? This is not translation, it is simply Smith adding his own words to the Bible, or in some cases subtracting what he didn’t like. He even wrote a whole chapter in Genesis about himself. This is not any kind of translation.

Part III: Lowered Expectations

On Prophets and Translations

Christensen starts off this section with,

Runnells complains about Joseph Smith as a prophet, but he never bothers to define what a prophet In should be, and therefore, he does not inquire into what we should expect from one. Based on the arguments he offers his implicit definition is that prophets ought to be perfect, God’s sock-puppets, and never ought to do or say or permit anything that violate Runnell’s own unexamined expectations from what he learned by attending Sacrament Meetings.

Wow. Where is he getting this stuff from? This is simply another one of Christensen’s many strawman arguments. In Debunking Fair, the word perfect isn’t used by Jeremy about the Book of Mormon translation, it is used by FAIRMORMON! Jeremy wrote,

FairMormon says…

If Joseph copied Biblical passages during the Book of Mormon translation to represent ideas expresses by Isaiah (as suggested in the September 1977 Ensign), then it is understandable that he changed or corrected some of these instances during his work on the “Joseph Smith Translation” of the Bible. Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically ‘perfect’ Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a ‘translation’ as only the conversion of text in one language to another. But, Joseph used the term in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization. The JST is probably best understood in this light.

Jeremy has never claimed that Smith restored a “perfect” Biblical text when he corrected the KJV of the Bible. Jeremy’s reply was,

Contrary to FairMormon’s assertion above that God himself revealed the 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, FairMormon is conceding here that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon.

According to the above-referenced September 1977 Ensign, Joseph Smith was sitting there translating the Book of Nephi when he recognized the text as Isaiah, stopped the translation, put down his hat and magical rock, picked up his 1769 KJV Bible, and copied over the Isaiah verses including its unique 1769 KJV errors and italics into the “most correct book” Book of Mormon.

Am I really supposed to take this seriously?

Why would Joseph need to do this? How does it make any sense that Joseph stops translation coming direct from God to grab errors and italics from a book that has been corrupted over the centuries through numerous translations? A Bible that Joseph later pointed to as needing correction and which he “corrected” in his “inspired” translation of the Bible?

In any event, this scenario is contradicted by eyewitness accounts of the translation process, as well as the process described by the Church’s December 2013 Gospel Topics article.

“Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a ‘translation’ as only the conversion of text in one language to another.”

This make sense, given the multitude of sources (including the Church-sanctioned Gospel Topics article) supporting a “tight” translation method, including the following account from David Whitmer:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.”

– Quoted in Elder Russell M. Nelson’s “A Treasured Testament”

If the Bible verses were good enough for the “most correct book,” there is no reason to change them in the JST of the Bible (other than to obfuscate the plagiarism). If Joseph was trying to make the Bible more correct, he would not change something that was correct according to Isaiah.

As I have stated in the CES Letter:

Joseph Smith corrected the Bible. In doing so, he also corrected the same identical passage in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is “the most correct book” and was translated a mere decade before the JST. The Book of Mormon was not corrupted over time and did not need correcting. How is it that the Book of Mormon still has the incorrect passage and does not match the JST in the first place?

Does Christensen deal with these issues? No. He goes off on a tangent of trying to define what he thinks a prophet should be. He then expounds on his own expectations:

For my part, I did spend considerable time figuring out what I should expect, and in the process I discovered twenty-eight Biblical tests for discerning true and false prophets. I find that they set my expectations in a very different way. For example:

We are men of like passions with you. (Acts 14:15)

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8)

Here is still another of Christensen’s straw men. It seems he doesn’t know the difference between personal infallibility and doctrinal infallibility when men speak by the “power of the Holy Ghost”, which is what Jeremy was getting at.

What does having sin have to do with translating something? What does having passions have to do with translating something? Remember, Smith said I never told you I was perfect (a man of passions, etc) but there are NO ERRORS in the revelations I have taught. Mormon apologists can’t seem to grasp that this is broken up into two parts: personal faults, and what they teach. Smith claims faults but does not extend that to his “revelations”.

At we read,

It is the making known of divine truth by communication with the heavens and consists not only of revelation of the plan of salvation to the Lord’s prophets but also a confirmation in the hearts of the believers that the revelation to the prophets is true. It also consists of individual guidance for every person who seeks for it and follows the prescribed course of faith, repentance, and obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ. “The Holy Ghost is a revelator,” said Joseph Smith, and “no man can receive the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations” (HC 6:58). Without revelation, all would be guesswork, darkness, and confusion. 

Here we see that the Mormon Church proclaims that what their “prophets” reveal is the opposite of any guesswork, darkness or confusion, and that “the revelation to the prophets is true.” It does not mention anything about men’s “passions” interfering with that revelation. In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants we read,

Because of the weakness and imperfections of human nature, and the great frailties of man; for such is the weakness of man, and such his frailties, that he is liable to sin continually, and if God were not long suffering, and full of compassion, gracious and merciful and of a forgiving disposition, man would be cut off from before him in consequence of which, he would be in continual doubt and could not exercise faith: for where doubt is, there faith has no power, but by man’s believing that God is full of compassion and forgiveness, long suffering and slow to anger, he can exercise faith in him and overcome doubt, so as to be exceedingly strong. (1835 Doctrine and Covenants, page 43)

Christensen then asks,

How does Joseph Smith himself set our expectations both for himself and for his translation?

I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.

But Joseph Smith also said, “I never told you I was perfect but there are NO ERRORS in the revelations that I have taught.” (I will keep repeating this until it sinks in). It is obvious that Smith separated his personal weaknesses from his “revelations”, something that Christensen is unwilling or unable to comprehend. He then tries to shift this to Smith’s ability to translate:

In discussing a passage in Malachi, Joseph Smith comments that ”I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purposes as it stands.” (D&C 128:18).

So? What was Smith “translating”? He writes,

And again, in connection with this quotation I will give you a quotation from one of the prophets, who had his eye fixed on the restoration of the priesthood, the glories to be revealed in the last days, and in an especial manner this most glorious of all subjects belonging to the everlasting gospel, namely, the baptism for the dead; for Malachi says, last chapter, verses 5th and 6th: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

The place  to make this change would have been Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible, but it reads:

1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord;

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

If there was a “plainer translation”, why didn’t Smith include it there? Because he hadn’t thought of Baptism for the dead at that time. Smith’s “plainer translation” didn’t come until 1838 when he began rewriting his history.  He has Moroni quoting this passage of scripture:

“And he shall plant in the hearts of the Children the promises made to the fathers, and the  hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers, if it were not so the whole earth would be  utterly wasted at his coming.”

Christensen throws things out there, but it is obvious that he is not familiar with the very argument he is trying to make here. (Which isn’t Jeremy’s argument, but I am responding to it anyway).

This is Smith’s “plainer translation” that he didn’t quote in 1842. But as you can see, it wasn’t in Smith’s “inspired version”. Christensen continues,

In D&C 1 as part of a formal statement of “the authority of my servants” (v. 6) God declares that the revelations “were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known.” (D&C 1:24–25). Notice that this formal statement of the “authority of my servants” describes the Church as in process, not as a stasis.

These passages introduce a different expectation, one that actually gives evidence of Joseph’s robust, tolerant, and open-ended attitude about himself and his own translations and revelations, which he felt free to edit. If a prophet can accomplish what is “expedient,” a word that appears many times in the Doctrine and Covenants, he can serve God’s purposes, which according to Isaiah 55:8–11, are concerned with long-term processes. If a translation is good enough, sufficient, it does not have to be perfect. If a translation is imperfect, then there is nothing wrong with improving it later.

Who is Christensen trying to kid here? All one has to do is read until the end of the “revelation” to see that Christensen is simply wrong. It states in Verse 37:

37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

39 For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen.

So is Christensen saying that God (who gave the translation to Smith) is not perfect and that the record is kinda true? Smith here states that “the record is true,” and that what the Lord has spoken through his servants is the same as Him speaking. Of course God is going to speak “in the manner of their language”. Is he going to speak to them in Arabic? Chineese? French? The “revelation” states that the commandments were given to His servants “in their weakness”. Compared to God, men are weak. So? Does that mean they were transcribed wrongly? Verses 37-39 dispel that notion. Christensen simply wants to have it both ways:

If we consider Joseph Smith’s productions against the real-world examples of purportedly scriptural texts, we have the advantage of building our expectations upon a solid foundation, rather than airy supposition. John Welch in Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount discusses several related translation issues.

Interesting that Christensen would relegate statements by Mormon “authorities” to “airy supposition”, because that it what he is ultimately doing. But what was Smith “translating” from? God did not give Smith his “revelations” in Hebrew and then have him translate them (actual translating) into English. Christensen’s whole argument here is ridiculous. We don’t have the Book of Mormon plates, nor do we have any discoveries of the language they were supposedly translated into, to make any kind of comparison as we do with the Biblical texts. He continues:

Hugh Nibley has suggested several other reasons that made the use of King James style important, if not necessary. One reason was Joseph’s audience: “When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the [Hebrew] scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? … No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament.”

So? It is what it is. Joseph claimed to have the actual record, but never produces it. God supposedly preserved it, but only for him alone to see? Why then, isn’t this a precedent for all of God’s scriptures? This was Joseph’s argument for the Book of Abraham, that God had preserved (miraculously) the very papyri that Abraham wrote on. We now know that Joseph simply made that up. When we have records of Smith’s “translations”, he fails miserably as a translator. They only reason why Christensen and other apologists can even make an argument with the Book of Mormon is that we do not have the original record, and there is no discovery anywhere that can confirm the “caractors” that Smith claimed came from the plates. Also, the argument isn’t about the style of the KJV. It is about why the errors were included in the Book of Mormon translation which Christensen still has not answered with any compelling argument. He then speculates:

Another reason for the use of the style of the King James Version was the nature of the record: “The scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down.”

How can he even postulate this when he has no way of knowing? This is simply speculation and his whole argument is based on it.

Furthermore, “by frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into ’modern English’ every thirty or forty years.”

This is simply irrelevant. The Book of Mormon has to be translated into dozens of other languages, doesn’t it? This is a very weak argument.

To such points, other explanations may be added, but the foregoing seem sufficient.

Hardly. But this seems to be all he’s got. We then have Christensen trying to prop up Smith’s “New Translation” of the Bible or the “Inspired Version”. He begins by stating:

The King James idiom yields a good translation of both the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon at the Temple. In fact, a study of the Greek vocabulary used in Matthew 5–7 will show that in most cases, the traditional English translation is rather straightforward. The syntax of most of the sentences is relatively simple, the expressions are direct, and most of the words and phrases have obvious and adequate primary choices in English as their translation [Page 189](although their meaning and implications still remain profound).

Again, irrelevant. If Christensen can show that this is why Joseph chose that style, then fine but there is no evidence that he wrote that way for those reasons. It is far more convincing that he simply copied passages out of the KJV and used that style to make the BOM appear more “scriptural”. We know this because Joseph Smith at that time was not familiar with Greek or Hebrew, so how could he make that determination? As Kevin L. Barney wrote,

Holding to the more traditional Mormon view that the JST provides a restoration of ancient text presents important difficulties. First, the restorationist view assumes that ancient texts can be restored by inspiration. Considering this claim is beyond the scope of this essay. A second problem is not so easily set aside. The restorationist view assumes that at some point the original text was substantially corrupted. Some LDS exegetes have hypothesized deliberate and widespread textual corruptions early enough to be incorporated into the earliest biblical manuscripts that have survived.5 Since the original autographs are irrecoverable, this assertion cannot be completely disproved, but it has been weakened by the discovery of Hebrew texts dating from the second century B.C., which support the basic integrity of the later Old Testament manuscripts. Some New Testament manuscripts date to the fourth, third, and even second centuries A.D. This means the window of time in which the textual corruptions could have occurred is increasingly narrow and the likelihood that the JST represents restorations of the original text extremely slim. (The Word of God, p. 145).

Still, Christensen claims:

If I approach Joseph’s translations with a view to finding evidence of real inspiration, rather than perfection, my attention will move in different directions. I might end up noticing and valuing this discussion by Welch in his next chapter.

Again, the “perfection” strawman.

In one important passage, manuscript evidence favors the Sermon at the Temple, and it deserves recognition. The kjv of Matthew 5:22 reads, “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause [eikei] shall be in danger of the judgment” (italics added). The Sermon at the Temple drops the phrase without a cause (3 Nephi 12:22). So do many of the better early manuscripts.

This favorable evidence for the Sermon at the Temple has the support of reliable sources.

Should we start listing from the Inspired Version all of the instances where Smith got it wrong? I can think of a dozen of them off hand. This shows that there was no consistency here with Smith and so this is simply an instance of where Joseph dropped a phrase that was not in the original manuscripts. He went over the whole Bible. There were bound to be some of these. Remember what Hugh Nibley said above?

While lacking unanimous consensus in the early manuscripts of the Sermon on the Mount (which is not unusual), the [Page 190]absence of the phrase “without a cause” is evidenced by the following manuscripts: p64, p67, Sinaiticus (original hand), Vaticanus, some minuscules, the Latin Vulgate (Jerome mentions that it was not found in the oldest manuscripts known to him), the Ethiopic texts, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, Justin, Tertullian, Origen, and others. One may count as compelling all readings that are supported by “the best Greek MSS—by the 200 ce p64 (where it is extant) and by at least the two oldest uncials, as well as some minuscules, [especially if] it also has some Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and early patristic support.” A survey of the list of manuscripts supporting the Sermon at the Temple and the original absence of the phrase without a cause in Matthew 5:22 shows that this shorter reading meets these criteria.

Moreover, this textual difference in the Greek manuscripts of the Sermon on the Mount is the only variant that has a significant impact on meaning. It is much more severe to say, “Whoever is angry is in danger of the judgment,” than to say, “Whoever is angry without a cause is in danger of the judgment.” The first discourages all anger against a brother; the second permits brotherly anger as long as it is justifiable. The former is more like the demanding sayings of Jesus regarding committing adultery in one’s heart (see Matthew 5:28) and loving one’s enemies (see Matthew 5:44), neither of which offers the disciple a convenient loophole of self-justification or rationalization. Indeed, as Wernberg-Møller points out, the word eikei in Matthew 5:22 may reflect a Semitic idiom that does not invite allowance for “’just’ anger in certain circumstances” at all, but “is original and echoes some Aramaic phrase, condemning anger as sinful in any case” and “as alluding to … the harboring of angry feelings for any length of time.” In light of Wernberg-Møller’s interpretation of the underlying idiom, the original sense of Matthew 5:22 is accurately reflected in the Sermon at the Temple whether eikei is included in the Greek saying or not.

Stan Larsen has adequately rebutted these claims by Welch in his article, from New Approaches to the Book of Mormon:

Welch argues that this passage fulfills my criteria and should be included with the eight examples: “While lacking unanimous consensus in the early manuscripts (which is not unusual), the absence of the phrase ‘without a cause’ from the Sermon on the Mount is evidenced by manuscripts p64, p67, Sinaiticus (original hand), Vaticanus, some minuscules, the Latin Vulgate (Jerome mentions that it was not found in the oldest manuscripts known to him), Justin, Tertullian, Origen, and others.… A check of the list of manuscripts supporting the Sermon at the Temple [Book of Mormon] and the original absence of the phrase ‘without a cause’ in Matthew 5:22 shows that this shorter reading meets Larson’s criteria” (1990, 162).

On the contrary, this passage does not meet the criteria which were used to select my eight examples: Augustinus Merk prints eike ‘without a cause’ with brackets in his text, and there is absolutely no support from family 1, the Syriac, and the Coptic. Welch is mistaken in citing [p.128] both p64 and p67 as different documents, since the “two” papyri are simply two numbers for different parts of the same papyrus (Roca-Puig 1962, 63-64). Thus Matthew 5:22 was eliminated from consideration with the eight secure examples. However, since it is the one Book of Mormon example which has been used as strong evidence for the Book of Mormon’s antiquity, it will perhaps be useful to examine it in detail (Welch 1977, 47; cf. Matthews 1975, 251).

The absence or presence of eike at Matthew 5:22 is a genuinely ambiguous case, with significant evidence on both sides of the question. Welch has already given the evidence for its omission. Its presence is supported by the remainder of the uncials and minuscules, most of the Old Latin manuscripts (including the important Codex Bobiensis), three manuscripts of the Vulgate, all the Syriac versions (including the important Sinaitic Syriac), both the Sahidic and the Bohairic versions, Irenaeus, part of Origen, and Cyprian (Black 1988, 5-6). Also, the presence of homoeoarchton, which is an accidental error caused by the eye skipping from the beginning of one word to the same beginning in another word, favors the original presence of eike. The skip would have been from the epsilon at the beginning of eike to the epsilon at the beginning of the next word, that is, from eike to enochos.

Due to this uncertainty, a decision concerning the reading remains tentative. Accordingly, Merk shows due caution in bracketing eike because there is not a clear-cut case concerning “without a cause” at Matthew 5:22. In view of the equivocal nature of the textual evidence the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament in their four-level system of grading the relative degree of certainty concerning the originality of a reading ranked the absence of eike as a C-rating. Consequently, though the case is not clear-cut and there is evidence that it may be an accidental omission in the Greek, on balance I would lean to the opinion that eike “without a cause” was not originally at Matthew 5:22.

The absence of eike was known before 1830 when the Book of Mormon appeared, since it was discussed by Desiderius Erasmus, John Mill, Johann Wettstein, Johann Gilesbach, and Andreas Birch in reference to the Greek text, not translated in William Tyndale’s New Testament from 1526 to 1535, and popularized by various English writers. For example, the Methodist writer, Adam Clarke, whose multi-volume biblical commentary was first published in London in 1810 with at least ten American printings and editions in New York from 1811 to 1829, suggested that it was a marginal gloss which later entered into the text (Clarke 1825). It is interesting that Clarke favors the omission of eike at Matthew 5:22 and the retention of the doxology at Matthew 6:13 and that the Book of Mormon follows Clarke’s decision in these two passages. However, not too much significance [p.129] should be attached to this agreement since Clarke appears to favor the omission of tois archaiois at Matthew 5:27 and the omission of en to phanero at Matthew 6:18, and the Book of Mormon does not have these omissions. However, the Book of Mormon omission of “without a cause” need not depend on any of these sources, since the phrase could have been deleted simply because it detracted from the strength of Jesus’ command against anger. It has been suggested that the ancient support which this Book of Mormon deletion received could be due to “a coincidence caused by a problem with the wording of the KJV” (Barney 1986, 89). Since there could be coincidental agreement, the same omission in two separate texts is not significant in establishing a connection between them. What is important in textual criticism is the same distinctive addition, peculiar error, or the same alternate reading.

It is significant to note that among the thirty-eight known variants and sub-variants of these eight secure examples, the Book of Mormon always aligns itself with the derivative text found in the Textus Receptus which was printed by Stephanus in 1550 and never agrees with either the original text or any of the other known variant readings. If the Book of Mormon were a genuinely ancient text, it would not always be expected to side with what modern scholarship concludes is the original text, but certainly there ought to be some agreement. Just as a careful comparison of Gabriel Sionita’s 1633 Harclean Syriac Apocalypse discloses his conjectural emendations, which were based on late Erasmian Greek and Clementine Vulgate texts, so an exhaustive examination reveals that this Book of Mormon sermon depends on the 1550 Textus Receptus, as relied on by the English text of the KJV. (Brent Metcalfe, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, p. 127-129)

Another example of Smith’s changes to the New Testament is Luke 10:22:

KJV: All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.(Luke 10:22)

JST: All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.(Luke 10:22, Joseph Smith Translation, emphasis mine)

Not one ancient manuscript agrees with this change. It radically changes the verse into something that it was never intended to say.  See Joel Groat’s analysis of the JST and the many errors that Joseph Smith made here.

In my estimation, this textual variant in favor of the Sermon at the Temple is very meaningful. The removal of without a cause has important moral, behavioral, psychological, and religious ramifications, as it is the [Page 191]main place where a significant textual change from the kjv was in fact needed and delivered.

Again, how many were not as Larsen states above? This is simply hit and miss with Joseph Smith and so cannot be taken seriously. As Stan Larson wrote in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon,

The comparison is complicated by the Book of Mormon’s connection to the King James Version of the Bible (KJV). Since about the turn of the twentieth century, Mormon writers have suggested that Smith quoted directly from the KJV of Matthew when dictating the Book of Mormon account of Jesus’ sermon. B. H. Roberts of the First Council of Seventy said that Smith “adopted our English translation” (B. Roberts 1904, 184; cf. Ostler 1987, 78). Sidney B. Sperry, Brigham Young University professor of religion, suggested that Smith used the KJV word for word “as long as the Sermon in the familiar rendering of Matthew 5-7 agreed substantially with the Nephite version” (1947, 190; 1967, 112). Hugh Nibley concurred that as long as the KJV “is correct there is every reason why it should be followed” (1961, 10; 1989, 215).

Such views imply that where the KJV has an incorrect text, it should not have been followed in the Book of Mormon. Thus Sperry maintained that in such cases Smith would have corrected the wording of the KJV “to conform with the text before him on the metal plates” (Sperry 1947, 190; 1967, 112). Roberts similarly affirmed that Smith first compared the KJV to the Book of Mormon records, and “when he found the sense of the passage on the Nephite plates superior to that in the English version he made such changes as would give the superior sense and clearness” (B. Roberts 1904, 191).

Sperry went on to argue that if the Book of Mormon should fail to make such corrections and instead copy corruptions or errors which accumulated over the centuries, then it “should be thrown out of court” because this “would be plain evidence that Joseph Smith did not translate from a really ancient text.” In this context Sperry asserted that textual criticism could cast considerable light on “the asserted antiquity” of the Book of Mormon, since “critical tests can be most subtle and powerful in probing for slips on the part of unlearned impostors who offer amended biblical texts for the examination of the public” (1947, 171; 1967, 91). Nibley concurred that “one of the best established disciplines in the world is the critical examination of written texts to detect what in them is spurious and what is genuine” (1953, 830; 1989, 55). This is [p.117] because the most significant indication used by textual critics in tracing relationships between documents is errors, since coincidental agreement is ruled out when two documents have the same telltale mistakes.

It is possible to identify places where errors, revisions, and additions have crept into the KJV. Published in 1611, the KJV relies on the Greek text of the New Testament available in the late sixteenth century. In the 381 years since then, hundreds of better and more ancient Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts have been discovered and brought us closer to the original Matthean text. This means that it is possible—given the opportunity of comparing the versions of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and 3 Nephi—to make tentative judgments about whether the Book of Mormon stands up to the tests of historicity Roberts, Sperry, and Nibley proposed. If the Book of Mormon varies from both the KJV and the earliest texts, one cannot pronounce judgment on the Book of Mormon version, since the Book of Mormon variation could be specific to its audience and setting in the New World. However, if the Book of Mormon text departs from the errors of the KJV and agrees with the most original Matthean texts, it supports the claim that the Book of Mormon is a genuine translation of an ancient document. On the other hand, if the Book of Mormon text sides with the later Greek text as seen in the KJV, this dependence would be strong evidence against its historicity. The reason for this is that the Book of Mormon on the American continent should know nothing of changes and additions to the Sermon on the Mount made in the Old World centuries after the original sermon, but should be a direct link to the real words of Jesus. (Brent Metcalfe, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, p.116)

Stan Larsen concludes,

We need not agree that Book of Mormon dependence on errors in the KJV Sermon on the Mount “casts suspicion on the whole” text of the Book of Mormon. My conclusions are confined to 3 Nephi 12-14. On purely text-critical grounds, the historicity of 3 Nephi 12-14 is suspect. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon version of Jesus’ sermon is there any indisputable evidence of its being a translation from an ancient document (Ashment 1980). One can never prove that something did not happen. All that can be said is that there is no evidence to substantiate the view that the Book of Mormon records a real visit by the resurrected Jesus to the place called Bountiful in the Book of Mormon. 56). (Brent Metcalfe, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, p.133),

Here is one scholar that has read Nibley and other Mormon apologists and comes to the same conclusion as Jeremy Runnells about 3 Nephi. Is Larsen also to be considered a “brittle Anti-Mormon”? Christensen writes,

Welch discusses some King James errors repeated in 3 Nephi but does so without scandal because, quite frankly, none of them change the meaning significantly. And the larger context of 3 Nephi 8-29 demonstrates remarkable inspiration in disclosing the temple background of the Sermon on the Mount. Welch’s approach was impressive enough that a non-LDS press published his work as applied to the Sermon in Matthew.17 Welch does not ignore the errors, but he doesn’t grant them the decisive status or sole focus that Runnells does. Plus Welch makes several observations that support the Joseph Smith claims of having provided an inspired translation, which need not be a perfect translation, nor oblige the reader to bring infallible perception and comprehension to their reading.

Several LDS writers have closely examined Joseph Smith’s translations, including John Tvedtnes, Royal Skousen, John Welch, Ben McGuire, and Brant Gardner. They have highlighted important information worth careful consideration. Runnells does not so much as mention the existence of their findings. It is not ad hominem to observe that Runnells treats a few King James errors as “damning” and “totally undermining” Joseph’s claims regarding a translation. He has decided that such apparent imperfections as he presents are, by themselves, decisively important. He completely ignores all LDS scholarship that gives any evidence suggesting authentic translation.

We have seen that Welch’s argument is not significant. How can one know if a text is “authentic” without the original document or no other writings to confirm that there was a language called “reformed Egyptian”?. We have the example of Larsen above. The best one can do is speculate. Apologists can speculate as to why Joseph copied whole sections of the Bible into the Book of Mormon, but that is all they can do. Though the “evidence” spoken of by Christensen produced by other Apologists may be interesting to some, it is ultimately just exercises in futility and a prop for the faithful. For example, there were many Bible critics that claimed that Isaiah was a conflated document even at the time of Christ. But with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls  we know that this isn’t the case. But that only advances our knowledge back to the time of Christ. But other historical events are verified in Isaiah, while there are none at all for the Book of Mormon, except where Smith copied or took information from the Bible. Again, Christensen:

Think about why. Where is there any manuscript evidence that demonstrates in practice, and not just in theory, that when God is involved to some degree in the transmission and translation of a sacred text, we can know this because all [Page 192]known manuscripts and transmissions are completely perfect, error free, never dependent on any previous translations, and are always mutually consistent without any variation or editing whatsoever? Does Runnells provide any hard evidence to back up the theory?

This is still Christensen’s strawman. Jeremy does not make this assertion. It is ridiculous at its core and is simply a caricature of what Jeremy states in his works. The Book of Mormon can’t be classed with those translations because it was claimed to have been given to Joseph Smith by “the gift and power of God” word for word.

But Christensen can’t shut up about it. He continues to hammer this point, this deceptive point throughout his long diatribe:

For that matter, is there any such evidence that he could have offered if he tried? Anywhere? It also turns out that had he paused long enough to clearly state that his argument depends entirely on these unstated conditions that he would also open them to critical examination. And that would not do. Who wants to publish a web document declaring that “Joseph Smith and various unofficial apologists have failed to live up to my completely unrealistic expectations.”

Let’s be clear here, these are actually Christensen’s and Joseph Smith’s unrealistic expectations that he puts on Jeremy. This may be his opinion of what Jeremy published, but that is not what he actually published. What Jeremy “expects” is really irrelevant. It is the substance of his concerns that warrants answers. Notice how Christensen keeps weaving in the stawmen arguments as he goes along.

The New Testament itself provides examples of how Jesus and his apostles and the occasional angel all quote the commonly used Septuagint, variants, errors, and all. As Nibley and Welch and others have pointed out, Joseph Smith’s modes and means of translation have ample biblical precedent.

Not really. Smith is actually quoting himself, a work that he produced, and for which there is no proof that it is genuine. Jesus was primarily a teacher, and expounded on the existing scripture of the day. Smith introduced new scripture that he wrote himself using a peepstone. Did Jesus and his apostles do this? No, they wrote letters and preached and quoted the Law and the prophets.

The Greek Septuagint was a translation from the Hebrew texts (Masoretic), and the Dead Sea Scrolls and fragments are closer to the MT than to any other texts that have survived. We have something to compare the Septuagint against. Joseph Smith’s was a translation from what? Mysterious gold plates that he claimed to discover by way of a peepstone that no one else ever saw (as is still being debated). What do we have to compare Smith’s translation with? Nothing.

As Thomas Kuhn says, ”In short, consciously or not, the decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.” What if the circumstances you are testing for are completely unfounded? What if, as Jesus says, the problem is the beam in your own eye? What if the experiment is poorly designed, due to unrealistic expectations? What if the focus on flaws-as-decisive has the effect of distracting a person from far more fruitful investigations and evidence?

Kuhn’s observation is one way to look at it but can be turned on Christensen and Mormon apologists as well. . But that was not Jeremys purpose. His purpose was to get answers to troubling questions about issues that concerned him. He was a believing Mormon that understood the “faithful” evidence”, because he had been a member for years and kept mostly to the correlated/approved material he was given. He was a returned missionary who served in New York during the 911 attacks, and 6th generation Mormon. He went to B.Y.U. Since he could get no answers to his questions from Mormon “authorities”, he went elsewhere to find them.  He sent a letter to a CES Director who promised to get back to him with answers, but never did.  Perhaps if Christensen wants to better understand Jeremy he should listen to his Mormon Stories interview with John Dehlin, where Jeremy explains how great his experience was in the Church and how he stayed faithful and believing even after being blessed by a Mormon General Authority that his hearing would be restored and it was not. This is not a person who is brittle and their faith shatters easily. Christensen would have you believe this, but it is not true.

Christensen’s invented narrative, that Jeremy is a brittle person who never really bothered to investigate the issues is patently false.

The Hicks “Caractors” Photo


David Whitmer at Hicks Photo Gallery 1867 by grindaelPart IV of 19th Century Photo of Joseph Smith’s “Caractors” Discovered

If you missed the Introduction or Part IPart II or Part III of this Article, just click on the respective link.

With the discovery of the “Caractors” photo in the Hicks Collection in December of 2012, we now know a little bit more about the “Caractors” document than we did before. Through an analysis of the handwriting found on the original (complete) document, it is possible to make some reasonable guesses about its origins, which I will provide below.

Joseph Smith employed many scribes who helped him write his “revelations” over the years. During the Book of Mormon dictation, Smith used his wife Emma as a scribe, along with Reuben Hale (Emma’s brother), Martin Harris, Samuel H. Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and a few that were “unidentified”.  According to H. Michael Marquardt,

There were a number of periods when Joseph Smith dictated or wrote the text of what became the Book of Mormon.

1. ca. January – April 1828 scribes:

Emma Hale Smith (wife of Joseph Smith Jr.)
Reuben Hale (brother of Emma Hale Smith)

2. ca. 12 April – 14 June 1828 scribe:

Martin Harris (farmer)
Note: About 116 manuscript pages were lost (ca. June – July 1828)

3. ca. September 1828 – March 1829 scribes:

Emma Hale Smith (wife of Joseph Smith Jr.)
Samuel H. Smith (brother of Joseph Smith Jr.) (farmer)

Note: Not known how many manuscript pages were written

4. ca. 7 April – 26 June 1829 scribes:

Oliver Cowdery (school teacher, printer assistant)
Unknown Scribe – Scribe 1
Unknown Scribe – Scribe 2[217]

In 1884 David Whitmer gave an interview to the Daily Missouri Republican recalling that,

The manuscript was written from the dictation of Joseph Smith by the following amanuenses: Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith; Christian Whitmer and Martin Harris, and it is supposed that Alva Hale was also employed as one of the scribes, but Hale only wrote a small portion.[218]  

Joseph Smith himself stated that “John Whitmer, in particular, assisted us very much in writing during the remainder of the work.”[219] More than likely David Whitmer confused Reuben Hale with Alva Hale, but he affirmed in many interviews that his brother Christian’s handwriting was to be found on the Manuscript that he had in his possession; and since David constantly claimed that the Printer’s Manuscript in his possession was actually the Original Manuscript (the one that Joseph had placed in the foundation of the Nauvoo House), it is a good assumption that Christian Whitmer is one of the “unknown scribes” on both manuscripts.  Dean Jessee wrote in 1970 that,

of the 144 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript in the Church Historian’s Office, 124 pages are in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery; eleven were probably written by John Whitmer; and twelve others are the work of an unidentified scribe.[220]

In a lecture given on February 26, 2013 titled “The Original and Printer’s Manuscript”, Royal Skousen proposed that the unknown scribes (from period 4) were Christian and John Whitmer. (The identification begins at the 31min mark).[221] 

In analyzing the Hicks Photo two things become clear. The first is that if the Book of Mormon characters had been written first on a blank sheet of paper, then there would have been plenty of room for the copyist of those characters to transcribe all of the them without bunching them up, or making some of them smaller, because the characters are actually written at the top of the sheet. The second is that the phrase “The Book of the Generations of Adam” is from the Book of Moses.[222]

OT Manuscript 1, pg. 12, first appearance of the phrase "The Book of the generations of Adam" handwriting of John Whitmer c. December, 1830

OT Manuscript 1, pg. 12, first appearance of the phrase “The Book of the generations of Adam” handwriting of John Whitmer, October 21, 1830.

These two observations generate a lot of questions. Unfortunately there will never be any sure answers to some of them unless more discoveries come to light, so we can only make guesses or reasonable conclusions.

The Book of Moses is part of the Joseph Smith New Translation (or revision), parts of which can be found on three manuscripts. The part of the Book of Moses that has the phrase the book of the generations of Adam was written between October and December of 1830, depending on the manuscript.

In January of 1831 the Church had a Conference in Fayette, New York and on January 2, Joseph dictated a “revelation” which was later to become Doctrine and Covenants Section 38, which elaborated on a previous command for the Church to move to Ohio. This is important for a number of reasons as H. Michael Marquardt explains,

After the January 1831 conference John [Whitmer] was commanded to go to Kirtland, Ohio, to preside over church members in the area. He copied more of Joseph Smith’s revelations including all of the revision of Genesis completed in New York. [223]

The text worked on in New York that Whitmer copied included the introductory revelation of June 1830, RLDS D&C 22; LDS Moses 1 and Genesis 1:1-5:32 (KJV); LDS Moses 2:1-8:12; RLDS Holy Scriptures, Genesis 1:1-7:85. [224]

Concerning the New Translation and the Manuscript now designated OTman3, Kent Jackson writes that,

When John Whitmer traveled for the first time to the Kirtland, Ohio, area in January 1831, Joseph Smith instructed him to “carry the commandments  and revelations” with him.  Among them was a manuscript copy of Joseph Smith’s new text of the early chapters of Genesis. The manuscript was a transcription, in Whitmer’s hand, of all of Joseph Smith’s Bible revision that had been produced to that point. It corresponded with Genesis 1B5 and with Moses 1:1B8:12 in the current Latter-day Saint Book of Moses.

Joseph Smith had begun the process of preparing a corrected translation of the Bible in June 1830. It is now commonly called the Joseph Smith Translation, but the Prophet and his contemporaries referred to it as the New Translation. Over the course of about three years, he dictated the text to his scribes, the final product eventually totaling 446 pages. Whitmer was an important contributor to the project, both as a scribe and as a transcriber (copyist) of previously dictated pages. Altogether, his handwriting appears on 136 of the pages. The manuscript Whitmer took to Ohio is now known by the archival designation Old Testament Manuscript 3 (OT3). It was a copy of Old Testament Manuscript 1 (OT1), the original dictated text of the Genesis translation. Whitmer probably made the transcription at about the beginning of January 1831. It appears that he made it for the purpose of the trip, but it soon became his private copy, and it remained with him throughout his life. [225]

If one analyzes the Hicks photo, it is obvious that it had been folded in the same way that John Whitmer’s OTman3 was folded (into fourths). Here is a comparison of the two:

OTMan3 and the Hicks Photo of the "Caractors" Document

OTMan3 and the Hicks Photo of the “Caractors” Document

As you can see from the photos, the right hand side of OTMan3 is very frayed, as is the document in the Hicks photo.

One possibility is that the document in the Hicks photo was a cover that had been made for John Whitmer’s OTMan3; and that perhaps while Whitmer was copying other documents he added the Book of Mormon characters also.

Joseph initially misspells the word “character” (leaving out the “h”) in his 1832 History,[226], so it is possible that Joseph in 1829 may have misspelled the word when he prepared the original document, and then when John Whitmer copied it, he kept the original spelling.[227]

Another possibility is that the top portion of the document was created by Joseph Smith, and was then used as the cover for OTMan3. Why would they do so? Possibly because of the wipe erasures[228] that are in the document; that may have caused Joseph to discard it and so it was never finished. This scenario though, seems very tenuous, because Joseph Smith’s handwriting can’t be matched to the document. [229]

Wipe Erasures on the "Caractors" Document

Wipe Erasures on the “Caractors” Document

So why are the characters so large at the top, but then smaller at the bottom? It may be that they were originally this way on the copy made by Smith and given to Harris in 1828. In March of 1831 an article appeared in the Palmyra Reflector, which has David Whitmer describing the Book of Mormon characters:

This witness [David Whitmer] describes the book as being something like 8 inches square; (our informant did not recollect precisely,) the leaves were plates of metal of a whitish yellow color, and of the thickness of tin plate; the back was secured with three small rings of the same metal, passing through each leaf in succession; — that the leaves were divided equi-distant, between the back & edge, by cutting the plates in two parts, and united again with solder, so that the front might be opened, as it were on a hinge, while the back part remained stationary and immovable and in this manner remained to him and the other witnesses a sealed book, which would not as yet be revealed for ages to come, and that event the prophet himself was not as yet permitted to understand. On opening that portion of the book which was not secured by the seals, he discovered inscribed on the aforesaid plates, divers and wonderful characters; some of the large and some small, but beyond the wisdom of man to understand without supernatural aid.[230] 

When Martin Harris showed the BOM characters to John Clark in the fall of 1827 (before his trip to New York City), Clark recalled that the paper “contained three or four lines of characters .”[231]

It may be possible then, that the smaller characters were added in later, from the document that Joseph had finished which supposedly included both columns and concentric circles as described by Orasmus Turner and Charles Anthon.

This scenario presupposes that Harris would have been showing a long piece of foolscap paper with only four lines of characters on it, which Joseph may have discarded because of mistakes in copying, and that later the other characters were added to it from the one taken to Charles Anthon, and then it was used as a cover for John Whitmer’s OTMan3. This scenario also seems very tenuous.

These (of course) are only conjectures; but one thing is certain, Joseph had his own copy of the characters that he kept with him that he showed to various people until shortly before his death.

I have often thought that like the Whitmer “Caractor” document (which was kept by John Whitmer as a cover for OTMan3), Joseph may have kept the original “Anthon Transcript” with the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, and that when he placed it into the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House in 1841 it was destroyed along with a large portion of that manuscript. [232]

Charles Anthon described the document he was shown as,

a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived.[233]

Orasmus Turner wrote that “an informant” described the document that Harris showed to them as “the manuscript title-page” and that “on it was drawn, rudely and bunglingly, concentric circles, between, above, and below, which were characters, with little resemblance to letters, apparently a miserable imitation of hieroglyphics.” [234]

This description seems to agree with the one made by Charles Anthon, but since Turner’s book was published long after the Anthon letters were written, there is a chance that he may have borrowed from them, but again, that seems very tenuous.

As for the calendar that Anthon mentions, there are actually two calendars in Alexander Von Humbolt’s books, one called the “Calendrier Lunaire des Mayseas” or the Lunar Calendar of the Muiscas, who were an ancient people that inhabited the northern Andes in Columbia, Central America, and the other the more famous Aztec Sun Stone discovered in 1790 in Mexico City.

Humboldt's Mexican & Musica Calanders pp. 104, 276.

Humboldt’s Mexican & Musica Calanders pp. 276, 104.

In 1795, Dr Jose Domingo Duquesne, a priest of the church of Gachancipa in Columbia published a paper detailing the Muisca calendar, which information he claimed to have received from the Indians themselves. His paper was later ridiculed as being nothing but an invention of his.[235]

In his description of the Muisca numbers, father Duquesne says that they used written signs to denote them, and gives a plate showing the graphic symbols for each name and number.[236]

Joseph Smith was familiar with this work and published an article in 1842 in the Times and Seasons titled ““Traits of the Mosaic History, Found among the Aztaeca Nations,” which quoted from Humboldt’s books.[237]

The Musica Calander is depicted with concentric circles divided into compartments, not unlike the magic circles on the Holiness to the Lord Parchment, one of three “lamans” inscribed with signs and names of ceremonial magic which were found among Hyrum Smith’s possessions after his death.[238] D. Michael Quinn writes in his groundbreaking work, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View that,

Smith Family Ceremonial Magic Parchment

Smith Family Ceremonial Magic Parchment

The three magic parchments attributed to the Joseph Smith family have three different, but interrelated, purposes. The “Holiness to the Lord” parchment is a lamen of ceremonial magic, the “Saint Peter bind them” parchment is a talisman for personal protection, and the faded “Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah” parchment is a talismanic house charm. [239]

Pages 334-335 of the "Discoverie of Witchcraft" by Reginald Scot, published in 1584 (1886 reprint)

Pages 334-335 of the “Discoverie of Witchcraft” by Reginald Scot, published in 1584 (1886 reprint can be viewed here)

Quinn also notes that,

At the lower right quadrant of the “Holiness to the Lord” lamen is an emblem of five points and seven internal spaces that combines the Jehovah (JHVH) “Tetragrammaton” with “Adonay”. Whoever put this symbol on the “Holiness to the Lord” lamen incorrectly drew it with seven internal compartments, for as early as 1656, an English translation of Paracelsus’ writings specified that the figure should have “six spaces, and outwardly five angles, wherein are written five syllables of the supreme name of God; to wit, Tetragrammaton” .[240]

One could describe the Smith lamans as drawn, rudely and bunglingly, with concentric circles, between, above, and below”, which were “divided into various compartments, [and] decked with various strange marks, to quote Anthon and Turner.

Another possible scenario is that Joseph gave Martin a document in the fall of 1827 with only four lines of characters on it. Harris took this to John Clark, which according to Lucy Smith were copied by his future son-in-law Flanders Dyke at the behest of his wife Lucy Harris.[241]

Reuben Hale supposedly later helped Joseph prepare the transcript that was to be presented to Charles Anthon and Samuel L. Mitchill which would have included more of the characters.[242]

Then, when Martin Harris returned to Harmony, Pennsylvania, three additional lines of characters were added to the first copy, written smaller than the first four lines. A few years later in 1831, John Whitmer made an exact copy of that document, while Joseph Smith kept the original; which he subsequently showed to various people in Kirtland and Nauvoo, from which the 1844 broadside characters were copied.

If Joseph did place the transcript shown to Anthon with the Book of Mormon manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House in 1841, then he would have been left with a copy of the characters that was almost exactly like the Whitmer copy, and from which the 1844 Stick of Joseph Broadside was produced.

These are of course conjectures that may or may not bear out in the light of further discoveries.

In analyzing the characters from the last three lines, I noticed something peculiar. There are a lot of “stand alone” dash like characters between groups of characters.  There are quite a few in between groups of characters, which I reproduce below:

Dash like (--) Characters within the last three lines of the "Caractors" Document

Dash like (–) Characters within the last three lines of the “Caractors” Document

These “stand alone” dash like characters do not appear to be found on the first four lines of the larger drawn characters.[243] Perhaps these smaller groups of characters were originally within the concentric circles (the two larger groups around the outside or inside edges) or were in vertical columns on the document taken to Anthon, and the dashes were inserted to separate them.

Grouping of Characters, lines 5-7

Grouping of Characters, lines 5-7

These are intriguing possibilities, and perhaps someone will someday see a pattern in the numbers.  It does though, seem hard to believe that this document is one that took Joseph “a whole week to copy” as David Whitmer later recalled,[244] but it must also be remembered that Whitmer was prone to exaggerate and that he clung tenaciously to his erroneous testimony that he had both the Original Manuscript and the original Anthon Transcript .

It is very clear though, from analyzing the Hicks photo, that whoever copied the document would have had plenty of room to enlarge the bottom four lines of characters or copy more of them (if there were more), even if the document had already been folded, but only if the characters were drawn before the Cover Title.

Cover Title is left justified

Cover Title is left justified

During my study of the photo below, I noticed that the Cover Title was not written out in one line, but in three, and that it is “left justified”. This may indicate that the “Caractors” portion of the document was written first, or that the paper was folded before the Cover Title was written and Christian used the fold to the left to justify the Title. If the Cover Title was written before the “caractors”, then why not just write the Title across the entire page? This (to me) is a good indicator that the Cover Title and the “Caractors” were written after the page was folded in an effort to fit them in between the folds.

Hicks photo of "Caractors" Document

Hicks photo of “Caractors” Document

Would someone who thought those characters so important to copy and keep – only copy some of them? And why wasn’t the document that Harris took to Anthon reproduced in it’s entirety? Was Whitmer directed not to reproduce the circles? If so, why?

Or did Joseph (by 1831) only have a copy of the Book of Mormon characters that looked like the one that Whitmer copied? If so, what happened to the “Anthon Transcript”? Was it the copy that Harris took to New York that Flanders Dyke made a copy of? If so, was Joseph leery of keeping the original “Anthon Transcript” for the same reason that he did not “retranslate” the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon that were lost by Martin Harris? Could Joseph have produced another copy of the characters after this that were entirely different from the ones that Harris took to Anthon to thwart the designs of Lucy Harris?

This line of thought brings to mind what Anthon himself said, that the copy that he saw was “evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived.” If this criticism was related to Joseph by Martin Harris, perhaps Joseph destroyed the document, or entombed it with the Original Manuscript to avoid having to answer such criticisms. Perhaps in the light of facing such criticism, (and the problems he might encounter because of the Flanders Dyke copy) Joseph made another copy with the changed format and absence of concentric circles and other symbols.

Also, if the ‘Caractors’ document had been folded, it would have been newly folded and so it probably would have been easy to write over the fold and include more characters if there were any – if it was created before the Cover Title had been written.

One thing that lends credence to the theory that this document was created in 1831 or later is the handwriting on the document itself.  For many years those who only could analyze the top portion of the document have speculated about who may have written it.

Some, like Dean Jessee, thought it might have been Joseph Smith’s handwriting, possibly because of the spelling of the word “Caractors” which was initially misspelled by Joseph in his Summer 1832 History.[245]

Others thought it might have been John Whitmer who wrote the word. With the publication of the Book of Mormon Original Manuscript pages and other items in the Church of Christ Archives, I believe I can identify the handwriting on the document.

As I mentioned above, Royal Skousen identifies the two unknown Book of Mormon scribes from the Original Manuscript as John and Christian Whitmer.[246] Since there is a large body of evidence which identifies John Whitmer as one of the scribes, I will focus here on identifying the other one.

Christian Whitmer Marriage Notice, Geneva Gazette, March 9, 1825, which misspells his name as "Wilmer" instead of "Witmer".

Christian Whitmer Marriage Notice, Geneva Gazette, March 9, 1825, which misspells his name as “Wilmer” instead of “Witmer”.

Christian Whitmer was born on January 18, 1879, in Pennsylvania, and was the oldest son of Peter Whitmer Sr. and Mary Musselman Whitmer. Christian moved from Pennsylvania to Seneca County New York, and in 1825 he married Anna Schott[247] and took of the trade of shoe making.

In that same year Christian joined the New York State Militia and received the commission of an Ensign with the 102 Regiment of the Seneca County Grenadiers. His brother-in-law, Daniel Schott[248] was made a Captain of the same Regiment a few days earlier. Christian’s brother David Whitmer would join the Grenadiers a month later as a Sargent.[249]

February 26, 1825 Christian Witmer, "Ensign of Grenadiers in the 102d Regt. of Infantry (Seneca County)

February 26, 1825 Christian Witmer, “Ensign of Grenadiers in the 102d Regt. of Infantry (Seneca County)

There are few accounts that mention Christian Whitmer  during the New York period of the church, and most are the later reminiscences of his brother David Whitmer. In this interview from 1878, he spoke to Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith about how his family became involved with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon:

Before I knew Joseph, I had heard about him and the plates from persons who declared they knew he had them, and swore they would get them from him. When Oliver Cowdery went to Pennsylvania, he promised to write me what he should learn about these matters, which he did. He wrote me that Joseph had told him his (Oliver’s) secret thoughts, and all he had meditated about going to see him, which no man on earth knew, as he supposed, but himself, and so he stopped to write for Joseph.[250]

In 1881 David gave a more expanded account of how Joseph came to reside at the home of Peter Whitmer, Sr.:

Peter Whitmer Reconstructed Log Cabin

Peter Whitmer Reconstructed Log Cabin

“I first heard of what is now termed Mormonism in the year 1828. I made a business trip to Palmyra, New York, and while there stopped with one Oliver Cowdery. A great many people in the neighborhood were talking about the finding of certain golden plates by one Joseph Smith, Jr., a young man of the neighborhood. Cowdery and I, as well as others, talked about the matter, but at that time I paid but little attention to it, supposing it to be only the idle gossip of the neighborhood. Cowdery said he was acquainted with the Smith family, and believing there must be some truth in the story of the plates, he intended to investigate the matter. I had conversation with several young men who said that Joseph Smith had certainly golden plates, and that before he had attained them he had promised to share with them, but had not done so and they were very much incensed with them. Said I, ‘how do you know that Joe Smith has the plates?’ They replied, ‘we saw the plates [sic, place] in the hill that he took them out of just as he described it to us before he obtained them.’ These parties were so positive in their statements that I began to believe there must be some foundation for the stories then in circulation all over that part of the country. I had never seen any of the Smith family up to that time, and I began to inquire of the people in regard to them, and learned that one night during the year 1827, Joseph Smith, jr., had a vision, and an angel of God appeared to him and told him where certain plates were to be found, pointing out the spot to him, and that shortly afterward he went to that place and found the plates which were still in his possession. After thinking over the matter for a long time, and talking with Cowdery, who also gave me a history of the finding of the plates, I went home, and after several months Cowdery told me he was going to Harmony, Pa. — whither Joseph Smith had gone with the plates on account of persecutions of his neighbors — and see him about the matter. He did go, and on his way he stopped at my father’s house and told me that as soon as he found out anything, either truth or untruth he would let me know. After he got there he became acquainted with Joseph Smith and shortly after, wrote to me telling me that he was convinced that Smith had the records and that he (Smith) had told him that it was the will of heaven that he (Cowdery) should be his scribe to assist in the translation of the plates. He went on, and Joseph translated from the plates and he wrote it down. Shortly after this, Cowdery wrote me another letter in which he gave me a few lines of what they had translated, and he assured me that he knew of a certainty that he had a record of a people that inhabited this continent, and that the plates they were translating gave a complete history of these people. When Cowdery wrote me these things and told me that he had revealed knowledge concerning the truth of them, I showed these letters to my parents, brothers and sisters. Soon after I received another letter from Cowdery telling me to come down into Pennsylvania and bring him and Joseph to my father’s house, giving as a reason therefore that they had received a commandment from God to that effect. I went down to Harmony and found everything just as they had written me. The next day after I got there they packed up the plates and we proceeded on our journey to my father’s house, where we arrived in due time, and the day after we commenced upon the translation of the remainder of the plates. I, as well as all of my father’s family, Smith’s wife, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. The translation was by Smith and the manner was as follows:  “He had two small stones of a chocolate color, nearly egg-shape and perfectly smooth, but not transparent, called interpreters, which were given him with the plates. He did not use the plates in the translation, but would hold the interpreters to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light, and before his eyes would appear what seemed to be parchment, on which would appear the characters of the plates in a line at the top and immediately below would appear the translation, in English, which Smith would read to his scribe, who wrote it down exactly as it fell from his lips. The scribe would then read the sentence written, and if any mistake had been made the characters would remain visible to Smith until corrected, when they faded from sight to be replaced by another line. The translation at my father’s occupied about one month, that is from June 1 to July 1, 1829.”[251]

When George Q. Cannon visited David Whitmer in 1884 he reported that David told him that his brother “Christian” was one of those “who assisted the Prophet Joseph” in transcribing what was dictated by Joseph.[252]

?????????????????A year later in another interview for the Chicago Tribune, David related that “The work of translating the tablets consumed about eight months, Smith, acting as the seer and Cowdery, Smith’s wife, and Christian Whitmer, brother of David, performing the duties of amanuensis…”[253]

From these statements it is clear that David believed that his brother Christian was involved as a scribe for Joseph Smith during the translation of the Book of Mormon. In 1887 David wrote that while “the Book of Mormon was still in the hands of the printer” his “brother, Christian Whitmer, had copied from the manuscript the teachings and doctrine of Christ, being the things which we were commanded to preach.”[254]

Christian Whitmer and his wife Anna were baptized on April 11, 1830 according to Joseph’s 1839 History,[255] just a few days after the organization of the church. When Hiram Page was receiving “revelations” through a peep stone like Joseph did, the whole Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery believed the revelations were of God. Joseph later declared them to be of Satan [256] and according to Joseph’s account of the matter it was Christian Whitmer that helped convince the others to side with Joseph in the matter.[257]

Christian Whitmer like his brother John, was sent to Jackson County Missouri in 1832, where he was called as President of the Elders Quorum there. With the expulsion of the Mormons in 1833 he moved into Clay County and was chosen to be one of the high council on July 3, 1834. He died there in 1835 “of severe affliction upon one of his legs, which he bore for a long time with great patience.” [258]

As I mentioned above, there are many examples of John Whitmer’s handwriting and so it is relatively easy to identify him as Unknown Scribe 1. Identifying Unknown Scribe 2 has been a bit more difficult because that handwriting is very similar to John Whitmer’s handwriting; and there are few known samples of Christian Whitmer’s handwriting. Still, the signature of Christian Whitmer from 1825 has some striking similarities with Unknown Scribe 2.

Christian Whitmer Signature comparison with Unknown Book of Mormon Scribe

Christian Whitmer Signature comparison with Unknown Book of Mormon Scribe

It is immediately apparent that Christian Whitmer has some common style characteristics in his signature that John Whitmer does not. For example, his ‘s’ is very elongated in his signature, he makes his “i” and “t” stand alone, and there are other unique style characteristics documented in the photo above.

Though John Whitmer has some of them, and used some of them in his handwriting, (like the elongated first “s” in his double “s” combos), he does not consistently do so as Christian Whitmer does. I am therefore very confident that the unknown scribe’s handwriting from the Book of Mormon (sampled above) is that of Christian Whitmer, and that using those handwriting samples, Christian can also be identified as the author of various “revelations” authored by Joseph Smith and the Cover Title for OTMan3.

Since this article has taken me longer than I anticipated to finish and get up on the Blog, I now know a bit more about what others who have been working on this have concluded about the document. Brent and Erin Metcalfe have concluded that the entire document was written by Christian Whitmer. [259]

In the current issue of Mormon Historical Studies, Michael Hubbard Mackay, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, and Robin Scott Jensen have concluded that the entire document was written by John Whitmer.[260]

They write, “Upon examination, the title exhibits significant signs that it was not written by Joseph Smith but by John Whitmer.” [261]

John Whitmer's Handwriting compared with "Caractors" Document. Samples Taken from Revelation Book 1.

John Whitmer’s Handwriting compared with “Caractors” Document. Samples Taken from Revelation Book 1.

I concur with this conclusion (in part), as my own comparison shows. This would include the characters themselves, of which they write,

Because it seems likely that there was one continuous flow of the document, the characters were also likely in John Whitmer’s handwriting. This was confirmed by x-ray florescence done in September 2012 at the Community of Christ Library – Archives by the authors. [262]

Since the bottom half of the document is not extant, no ink tests can be done, and therefore it is impossible to determine if the entire document was written at the same time. We must therefore rely on handwriting analysis for the portion of the document which contains the Cover Title, “The Book of The Generations of Adam”. It is here where I diverge with Mackay, Dirkmatt and Jensen.

When I first studied the handwriting on the Hicks photo, I thought the entire document was written by John Whitmer.  The reason I thought so, was because John Whitmer always writes his capital “A” in the traditional way. Christian, on the other hand, always makes his capital “A” as a large lowercase “a”. But a document in the Community of Christ archives, (JST185) has helped to clarify this important distinction between John and his brother Christian and provide a scenario that explains my two authorship theory.

But there was another problem with identifying John Whitmer as the person who wrote “The Book of the Generations of Adam” on the “Caractors” document, which has to do with the style characteristics of the capital “G”. In all of the samples of John Whitmer’s handwriting, he never makes his capital “G” in the same way it appears on the “Caractors” document.  But Christian Whitmer does, very consistently.

I was helped in my identification of the handwriting by a number of documents from the Community of Christ archives supplied by H. Michael Marquardt via Dan Vogel, who was kind enough to provide them when I asked him for anything written by the Whitmer brothers or unknown scribes that could be one of the Whitmers.

Having the phrase “The Book of the Generations of Adam” to go on, Rachel Killebrew at the Community of Christ Archives was contacted,[263] and she found a document in the Joseph Smith Translation Collection (JST185) that has two sentences written on it.  On one side is written,



The bok of the Generations of adam
The Book of the generations of Adam

Analysis of the top line from the document above has yielded the following result:

JST 185 Top Line Comparison with Christian Whitmer Handwriting

JST185 Top Line Comparison with Christian Whitmer Handwriting

I believe that John asked Christian to write the cover for OTMan3. This document (pictured above) is (I believe) the Title chosen for the cover that John Whitmer asked his brother Christian to write for OTMan3, which Christian then wrote down on this sheet of paper.

The top line is written by Christian, and below that is what I believe is the corrected way that John wanted it written. The handwriting on the top line matches the handwriting of the same phrase on the “Caractors” document, while the bottom line does not, but that line does match John’s handwriting from other documents. John’s capital “T” has a distinct style characteristic which is different from Christian’s, and John does not make his capital “G” in quite the same way as the person who wrote the top line.

JST185 Bottom Line Comparison with John Whitmer Handwriting

JST185 Bottom Line Comparison with John Whitmer Handwriting

In comparing the two sentences with the known handwriting samples of Christian and John Whitmer, it is obvious (to me) that Christian wrote the top line, and John the bottom one.  It may be possible that John asked Christian to write the Cover Title for OTMan3, and Christian wrote it down, (the top line) and John then corrected it with what Christian eventually wrote on the Cover Page (Note that the word “book” is misspelled, and “Adam” is written with a lower case “a”, which Christian was prone to do with names). [264]

Why did John ask Christian to write the Title for the cover of his manuscript? That remains a mystery. Perhaps he was busy with other projects and so assigned this task to his brother. But I believe that both of them contributed to the document because the similarities between John’s handwriting and the word “Caractors” are significant, and John’s handwriting can’t be matched to the sentence “The Book of the Generations of Adam” that appears below (or to the right of depending on how the page is displayed) the Book of Mormon characters.

Also, When Christian wrote Titles to documents, they look nothing like the “Caractors” Line, but John Whitmer’s title lines do. If the document was entirely written by Christian Whitmer, then why are the style characteristics of the two title lines (“Caractors” and “The Book of the Generations of Adam”) so different?[265]

After Christian wrote the Cover Title, John most likely added the “Caractors” which he copied from another document to the Cover of OTMan3 so that he would have them with his personal manuscript of the Book of Moses. I believe that this was done hurriedly and on impulse by John, to preserve a copy of the “caractors” before the move to Ohio.

This seems, to me, like the most likely scenario, because the word “Caractors” is more like the style of John Whitmer’s writing, and they seem to have been made to fit in the section above the first fold of the document.

Also, Christian Whitmer’s Cover Title was justified to fit between the folds of the document, and so the manuscript was probably already folded into fourths, and the Cover Title was positioned in a way to display it within the middle fold – as was done with a later “revelation” penned by Christian Whitmer which he titled “Commandment to the Churches”. (See picture of June 15, 1831 “revelation” below).

John & Christian Whitmer Title Comparison

John & Christian Whitmer Title Comparison

But why would John Whitmer put the characters there, on the cover, when he had a whole blank sheet of paper that only had two sentences on it (The book of the generations of Adam), which could have easily been flipped over and used, and then inserted inside the manuscript?

It may well be that the “Caractors” part of the document was made first, and then the title was added. The smaller characters may have been copied smaller because that was the way they appeared on the document that John Whitmer was copying. I find this scenario less likely, and only present it as a possibility.

If you look closely as JST 185, (click to enlarge) you can see some faint writing that looks like it was transferred (from being kept together) from another document.  H. Michael Marquardt was told by Rachel Killebrew (the Librarian at the Church of Christ) that this has been identified by Brent Metcalfe as the January 2, 1831 “revelation” that is now Doctrine and Covenants Section 38. The flip side of this “unnumbered flyleaf” (as it is catalogued by the COC) is completely blank.[266]

On December 9, 1830, Joseph Smith dictated a revelation to Edward Partridge which is now known as Doctrine and Covenants Section 35 (COC) or 36 (LDS).[267] This document was copied (as were many others) by one of Joseph’s scribes and taken to Missouri where Joseph and others traveled to “lay the foundation of Zion”. [268]

Part of "revelation" given on Dec. 9, 1830. Handwriting of Christian Whitmer

Part of “revelation” given on Dec. 9, 1830. Handwriting of Christian Whitmer

Some of those revelations were inadvertently left in Missouri or unattended for a time, and came into the hands of Symonds Ryder, possibly by way of Ezra Booth, who had been sent on a mission there with Isaac Morley.[269] Ryder was an early convert to the Church in Ohio who became disaffected with Joseph Smith after reading those revelations; then allegedly participated in an 1832 assault upon the persons of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon.[270] In a letter written to A.S. Hayden in 1868, Ryder wrote:

“* * * To give particulars of the Mormon excitement of 1831 would require a volume — a few words must suffice. It has been stated that from the year 1815 to 1835, a period of twenty years, ‘all sorts of doctrine by all sorts of preachers had been plead;’ and most of the people of Hiram had been disposed to turn out and hear. This went by the specious name of ‘liberal.’ The Mormons in Kirtland, being informed of this peculiar state of things, were soon prepared for the onset.

Symonds Ryder

Symonds Ryder

“In the winter of 1831 Joseph Smith, with others, had an appointment in the south school-house, in Hiram. Such was the apparent piety, sincerity and humility of the speakers, that many of the hearers were greatly affected, and thought it impossible that such preachers should lie in wait to deceive.

“During the next spring and summer several converts were made, and their success seemed to indicate an immediate triumph in Hiram. But when they went to Missouri to lay the foundation of the splendid city of Zion, and also of the temple, they left their papers behind. This gave their new converts an opportunity to become acquainted with the internal arrangement of their church, which revealed to them the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Joseph Smith the prophet. This was too much for the Hiramites, and they left the Mormonites faster than they had ever joined them, and by fall the Mormon church in Hiram was a very lean concern.

“But some who had been the dupes of this deception, determined not to let it pass with impunity; and, accordingly, a company was formed of citizens from Shalersville, Garrettsville, and Hiram, in March, 1832, and proceeded to headquarters in the darkness of night, and took Smith and Rigdon from their beds, and tarred and feathered them both, and let them go. This had the desired effect, which was to get rid of them. They soon left for Kirtland.

“All who continued with the Mormons, and had any property, lost all; among whom was John Johnson, one of our most worthy men; also, Esq. Snow, of Mantua, who lost two or three thousand dollars.


Scott Faulring believes that Ryder stole the documents himself, which were hidden by Ryder and found years later and returned to the church by Ryder’s descendants:

Ryder was in Kirtland on June 6, 1831, when he was ordained an elder by Joseph Smith. Two weeks after Symonds’s ordination, the Prophet, accompanied by many of the leading brethren in Ohio, departed from Kirtland on their first visit to Independence, Jackson County, Missouri—the site of the prophesied city of the New Jerusalem and the land designated as Zion. Allegedly, with the Church leaders away, Symonds Ryder traveled north from his farm in Hiram, Ohio, up to the Church headquarters in Kirtland. Somehow, without being discovered, he accessed the Church records. Symonds apparently knew what he was looking for. He secured a certain group of manuscript revelations. The documents he took detailed, in one way or another, the organization, procedures, or laws of the Church. Included in these materials was Oliver Cowdery’s 1829 Articles. Ironically, also among the manuscripts was a copy of the revelation in which Ryder’s name was misspelled. More than 125 years later, in 1958, Symonds Ryder’s descendants discovered these manuscript revelations tightly rolled up in a linen handkerchief inside the drawer of a dresser that had been in the Ryder family for many years. The family believes that Ryder himself hid these documents for unknown reasons and they remained untouched until being discovered in 1958. It was his great-great-granddaughter who unrolled the precious old documents and flattened them in books. Two years later, the Ryder family, assisted by a Latter-day Saint family living in the community of Ravenna, Ohio, forwarded these priceless historical revelation documents to the Church historian in Salt Lake City.[272]

June 15, 1831 "Revelation" (D&C 56) Handwriting of Christian Whitmer

June 15, 1831 “Revelation” (D&C 56) Handwriting of Christian Whitmer and the cover title for this document, made to fit after it was folded.

Using these “revelations” that have now been identified as having been written by Christian Whitmer, one can see that they are the same handwriting as the Cover Title for John’s OTMan3.

Christian Whitmer Handwriting Comparison with Cover Title from the "Caractors" Document

Christian Whitmer Handwriting Comparison with Cover Title from the “Caractors” Document

Another mystery that begs to be solved is when the document was photographed and cut from the larger page.  Mackay, Dirkmatt and Jensen write,

“…a recent discovery has helped clarify the format and content of the original “Caractors” document and provides a more likely time frame for its creation. Sometime before early 1886, a photographer from Clay County, Missouri, Jacob T. Hicks, photographed the “Caractors” manuscript in David Whitmer’s possession. His photograph reveals that the currently extant portion of the document is only between one-fourth or one-third the size of the original document it was once attached to. …The 1886 image opens the possibility that the copies of the characters were written onto the document as a secondary thought and that the original document had a completely different purpose initially than to capture a copy of the characters.[273]

Modern Photo of cut off 'Caractors' Document

Photo of cut off ‘Caractors’ Document

To support this theory that the document was photographed in 1886, they reference George Edward Anderson’s[274] diary entry for May 12, 1907, which contains an interview Anderson had with Julia Schweich, the daughter of David Whitmer.[275] The entry reads,

Mrs. Julia [Whitmer] Schweich says they promised her father [?], David Whitmer, a nice Book of Mormon. She would like to have it. “Considerable Thomas about me. I must see before I believe.”

“Oh, he never deviated from what he told us at first. What he taught us that high [blank?]. No one could harm my father. I could knock him down and drag out.”

Reporter called. She would not admit him. Shut the door in his face. Wrote an article saying David Whitmer died in his arms.

Jacob T. Hicks, Liberty, Missouri, Clay County, photographer, made picture when he, [David Whitmer], [was] 82 years old. “The day I am at my own table am eighty-two years old and can carve my own turkey.” [p. 33]

Mrs. Josephine [Helen Schweich] Van Cleave lives in Springfield, Illinois. Josie, her daughter, has the trunk the manuscript was kept in. Mrs. Van Cleave’s mother is a relative of Lew Wallace, who wrote Ben Hur.

Parties came to purchase the manuscript and said it would help Father Whitmer in his old age and his grandchildren and others. He said, “they could work for their living as he had. I have never wanted for bread.”

“Name your price.”

“Would I sell my soul?”

The characters that Martin Harris took to Professor Anthon of New York were with the manuscript.

Once, Father WHitmer had not looked at the manuscript for a long time, and when they opened the trunk, found it was mouldy. But on examining the manuscript, it was not mold. Tied with the same yarn strings for years.[276]

Mackay, Dirkmatt and Jensen seem to be unaware that David Whitmer sat for two portraits by Jacob Hicks, one in 1867 when he was mayor and the other probably between 1880 and 1882, as you can see below, and so the document could have been photographed anytime during that period, but was most certainly not photographed by Hicks after 1884.

Photos of David Whitmer by Jacob Hicks. Left Photo taken in 1867 when David was 62 years old, Right Photo taken in 1882 when David was 77 years old.

Photos of David Whitmer by Jacob Hicks. (Left Photo) taken in 1867 when David was 62 years old, (Right Photo) probably taken in 1882. (See Note#276)

Why? Because there are witnesses who, well before 1886, attest that the “Caractors” document was the same size when they examined it as it is today, about 3 1/4 inches by 8 inches.[277]

One witness was James H. Hart who wrote in 1884:

James H. Hart

James H. Hart

I was shown the reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics, that were copied from the plates by the Prophet Joseph, and taken by Martin Harris to Profesors Anthon and Mitchell, of New York City, in Febuary, 1828. They are written on unruled paper, about three and a half inches by seven, and fill up seven lines, making about thirty-five inches of writing. [278]

Another was a reporter for the Daily Missouri Republican who interviewed Whitmer in 1884 and wrote that,

Mr. Whitmer showed those present a specimen of the characters copied from the plates. It is on a piece of strong paper about four by eight inches, and covered with one hundred or more hieroglyphics and figures. [279]

So when was the document cut? My guess is shortly after David acquired it from his brother John after his death in July of 1878.[280] Remember, P. Wilhelm Poulson interviewed John and David just a few months prior to this, and wrote that,

John Whitmer was in possession of copies from the plates with the translation below, and showed that to me, and also of other valuable records.[281]

Then, when he asked David about the engravings on the gold plates, Poulson was told that,

They were characters. We copied some, and if you visit my brother John, one of the eight witnesses, who wrote for Joseph, John can show you some of the old manuscript which he borrowed from me. I must have it returned to me again, as it belongs to the Church, in connection with other records. [282]

Two things about these statements are striking. David doesn’t relate the later claim that the characters were the original paper that Martin Harris took to Professor Anthon. If there were more than one character document in possession of the Whitmers as some have speculated, why didn’t David show him his document? David instead tells Poulson that “we copied some” (of the characters), and links them with an “old manuscript”.

He then says that John could show him “some of the old manuscript”. What manuscript? Perhaps it was OTMan3, which had the copy of the characters David spoke of written on the wrapper. If Poulson saw that, he would have seen the phrase “The Book of the Generations of Adam” which he could have mistaken for a “translation below”, and which he may have concluded was continued in the short manuscript of less than 20 pages.  David Whitmer had told others that just one character could generate a whole sentence or more of translation material,[283] and this may also have been related by Whitmer to Poulson.

The evidence does not bear out that this was David’s manuscript that he “loaned” to John. It was John’s manuscript, written in his own hand. It may be that John loaned the wrapper to David for a brief time and that David had Jacob Hicks take a photo of it when he posed for his portrait in 1867.

David then returned the wrapper to John, but still thought of it as his. It was quite the feather in his cap to have both the Original Manuscript to the Book of Mormon and the original transcript of the “Caractors” in his possession, and David stuck to this story for the rest of his life, even when faced with evidence from the Utah Mormons that this was incorrect, and knowing that his copy of the characters was not the original. It may have been the reason that the document was cut, to give David’s story more credibility. John may have also promised his papers to David, as the new head of the church (Church of Christ) they had established in 1876.

It is also possible that David had Hicks take a photo of the “Caractors” document sometime after 1878, when he posed for the second portrait. So why did David cut the document? I believe that it was to bolster his story that it was the original “Anthon Transcript”. Others believe that it was done to keep people (like Poulson) from thinking that the line below the characters was translated from them. [284]

But why cut the document when it would be very easy to just explain that they were not a translation of the characters? Perhaps because Whitmer had started telling others that he had the original “Anthon Transcript” and he did not want to change his story, or have others (like Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt did) claim that because it was only a copy, it was less valuable than an original.[285]

It certainly must have been frustrating to Whitmer to have the Utah Mormons come to Missouri, correct him, and then devalue his Printer’s Copy of the Book of Mormon manuscript as they did in 1878.

It may be of interest to note that Hicks took two photos of the “Caractors” Document.[286] Here is the other one:

Alternate Photo of 'Caractors' by Jacob Hicks

Alternate Photo of ‘Caractors’ by Jacob Hicks

It looks as if Hicks tried to focus on the characters themselves in this photo, (perhaps at the behest of David Whitmer) but still got some of the Manuscript Cover Title in the picture. This photo is centered better, but it is darker and some of the characters on the right edge are hard to see. It is impossible to know in what order the two photos were taken.

There is also the possibility that David actually believed that Joseph Smith had authored the “Caractor” portion of the document and that it was taken to Anthon, but if this is so, why did he tell Poulson that “we copied some of them”, and how could Whitmer reconcile his copy to the description that Anthon gave of the transcript shown to him by Martin Harris, of which David was well aware of and had quoted in his Address to All Believers In Christ?[287]

David Whitmer’s own knowledge about the “Anthon Incident” and his penchant for exaggeration discredit his later statements about the “Caractors” document and give credence to the theory that he cut the document to bolster those later statements.


Understanding the history behind the characters supposedly copied from the gold plates that Joseph Smith claimed to have found in the fall of 1827 has been difficult, but also of great importance to many.

This was well understood by Mark Hoffman who created his famous forgery of the “Anthon Transcript” in 1980. For almost two centuries historians have been trying to add pieces to the puzzle of historical accounts left behind; and discover more evidence that will bring answers to the many questions that still linger about the “Caractors” that Jospeh Smith claimed were “Reformed Egyptian” writing.

We now know that the document that was in the possession of John and David Whitmer was not the original transcript that was taken to Charles Anthon in 1828 by Martin Harris, but that it was a copy made by John and Christian Whitmer a few years later.

What we still don’t know is what happened to the original “Anthon Transcript”, or some of the other copies that are mentioned in various accounts during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, and how they relate to the reproductions produced after his death.

The Hicks Photos are important pieces of evidence that answer some of those questions; but as with other discoveries generate even more. Still, finds like this one give hope to future historians that answers can be found, and that more discoveries are still out there waiting to be uncovered by diligent researchers and students of Mormon History.


[217] Online here, accessed August 30, 2013.

[218] Daily Missouri Republican, July 16, 1884. Online here, accessed August 30, 2013. In an interview with by her son in February, 1879, Emma Smith answered some questions about the Book of Mormon scribes,

Q. Who were scribes for father when translating the Book of Mormon?
A. Myself, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and my brother, Reuben Hale.
Q. Was Alva Hale one?
A. I think not. He may have written some; but if he did, I do not remember it.… (Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, p. 541).

In another interview with the Chicago Times in November 1881 David Whitmer said,

“Christian Whitmer, his brother, occasionally assisted Cowdery in writing, as did Mrs. Joseph Smith, [Jr.], who was a Miss Hale before she was married.”

[219] History of the Church, 1:49.

[220] Dean C. Jessee, “The Original Book of Mormon Manuscript,” Brigham Young University Studies, 10:3, Spring 1970, page 276.

[221] Royal Skousen, “The Original and Printer’s Manuscripts” (Book of Lecture, 1 of 3), The Maxwell Institute YouTube Page, published on July 17, 2013. Online here, accessed August 20, 2013.

[222] Moses 6:8

[223] H. Michael Marquardt, “John Whitmer and the Revelations of Joseph Smith”, Web Version © 2009 by H. Michael Marquardt, Online here, accessed August 20, 2013.

[224] ibid, note 11.

[225] Kent P. Jackson, “The Sword of My Indignation”: John Whitmer’s Genesis Manuscript and 1861 Revelation, Mormon Historical Studies, Spring 2008, page 119. Online here, (PDF), accessed August 30, 2013.

[226] Revelation Book 1, page 11, Online here, accessed August 30, 2013.

[227] For more on the spelling issue and its possible ramifications about who may have authored the document, see note #259.

[228] Dan Vogel brought this to my attention during our email discussions about the document last summer, which was pointed out to him by Brent Metcalfe. He wrote,

Those are called wipe erasures and are done while the ink is still wet. Note that one of them is an erasure of a repeated character. These tend to show that the document was visually copied from another document. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t JS copying his own material. It may be because of these erasures that the document was discarded and restarted and when complete included the circle. Although Anthon says the characters were arranged in columns, he adds that the “whole ended” with the circle. (Email, July 7, 2013)

Note: at this time we were discussing possible scenarios for the authorship of the document before all of the handwriting samples were analyzed; therefore it doesn’t mean that Dan thinks that Joseph authored the document.

[229] See “The ‘Caractors’ Document: New Light on an Early Transcription of the Book of Mormon Characters, by Michael Hubbard MacKay, Gerrit J. Dirkmatt, and Robin Scott Jensen, Mormon Historical Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2013, pp. 140-141.

[230] “Gold Bible No. 6”, The Reflector, Palmyra, New York, March 19, 1831.

[231] Gleanings by the Way, p. 227.

[232] There is an amazing amount of historical documents that were kept, copied and saved by the efforts of Joseph Smith and those that he put in charge of Church records during his time. Smith himself developed a theology which made the saving of documents imperative, (See D&C 127), and Joseph had always stressed the importance of writing down the minutes of meetings as he explained to the Kirtland High Council in 1835:

Here is another important idea. If you assemble from time to time, and proceed to discuss important questions, and pass decisions upon the same, and fail to note them down, by & by you will be driven to straits, from which you will not be able to extricate yourselves because you may be in a situation not to bring your faith to bear with sufficient perfection or power to obtain the desired information, or perhaps, for neglecting to write these things, when God revealed them, not esteeming them of sufficient worth the Spirit may withdraw and God may be angry, and here is or was a vast knowledge of infinite importance, which is now lost. What was the cause of this? It came in consequence of Slothfulness, or a neglect to appoint a man to occupy a few moments in writing all these decisions. Here let me prophesy. The time will come, when, if you neglect to do this thing, you will fall by the hands of unrighteous men. Were you to be brought before the authorities, and, be accused of any crime or misdemeanor, and be as innocent as the angels of God, unless you can prove yourselves to have been somewhere else, your enemies will prevail over you, but if you can bring twelve men to testify that you were in a certain place at that time, you will escape their hands. Now, if you will be careful to keep minutes of these things, as I have said, it will be one of the most important records ever seen for every such decision will, ever after remain as items of doctrine and covenants. I have now placed before you these items, for your consideration, and you are left to act according to your own judgments. The council then expressed their approbation, concerning the foregoing remarks of President Smith, and proceeded to appoint Elders, Orson Hyde & Wm. E. McLelin, to serve as clerks for the meeting. (Kirtland Council Minute Book, February 27, 1835)

Still, Joseph was not above having church records destroyed, as William Clayton records in a diary entry from June of 1844:

Joseph whispered and told me either to put the r[ecords] of K[ingdom] into the hands of some faithful man and send them away, or burn them, or bury them. I concluded to bury them, which I did immediately on my return home. (George D. Smith, An Intimate Chronicle; The Journals of William Clayton, p.135, June 22, 1844).

The next day, Clayton recorded that “ I went to Joseph and got all the public and private records together and buried them.” (ibid, June 23, 1844).

Concerning the Book of Mormon Original Manuscript, Ebeneezer Robinson would later write that,

The foundation [of the Nauvoo House] was prepared, and the ceremony of laying the corner stone was attended to on the 2nd day of October, 1841. One thing transpired on that occasion worthy of note.

After the brethren had assembled at the southeast corner of the foundation, where the corner stone was to be laid, President Joseph Smith said: ‘Wait, brethren, I have a document I wish to put in that stone,’ and started for his house, which was only a few rods away, across Main Street. I went with him to the house, and also one or two other brethren. He got a manuscript copy of the Book of Mormon, and brought it into the room where we were standing, and said: “I will examine to see if it is all here,” and as he did so I stood near him, at his left side, and saw distinctly the writing, as he turned up the pages until he hastily went through the book and satisfied himself that it was all there, when he said: “I have [had] trouble enough with this thing,” which remark struck me with amasement, as I looked upon it as a sacred treasure.

It was written on foolscap paper, and formed a package, as the sheets lay flat, of about two or two and a half inches thick, I should judge. It was written mostly in Oliver Cowdery’s handwriting, with which I was intimately acquainted, having set many pages of type from his handwriting, in the church printing office at Kirtland, Ohio. Some parts of it were written in other handwriting.

He took the manuscript and deposited it in the corner stone of the Nauvoo House, together with other papers and things, including different pieces of United States’ coin. I put in some copies of the Times and Seasons; all were carefully encased in sheet lead to protect the contents from moisture, and a stone had been cut to closely fit into the cavity which had been made in the corner stone to receive these things, which stone was fitted in its place and cemented, when it was thought the papers and other articles would be preserved without decay or injury for ages, if not disturbed.

From this circumstance we know there must have been at least two manuscript copies of the Book of Mormon, which necesssarily must have been the case, as the printer who printed the first edition of the book had to have a copy, as they would not put the original copy into his hands for fear of it being altered. This accounts for David Whitmer having a copy and Joseph Smith having one. They were both mostly written in Oliver Cowdery’s hand writing, as I have seen both. He was scribe for Joseph most of the time he was translating the Book of Mormon. (Ebeneezer Robinson, The Return, Vol. 2, No. 8, August, 1890, pp. 314-315, online here, accessed August 20, 2013, bolded italics mine).

Dean Jessee in his article “The Original Book of Mormon Manuscript” for some reason does not quote Robinson in full, but leaves off before Joseph’s statement that he had “had enough trouble” with the manuscript. He does quote Warren Foote who wrote in his diary that,

“I was standing very near the cornerstone, when Joseph Smith came up with the manuscript of the Book of Mormon and said he wanted to put that in there, as he had had trouble enough with it. It was the size of common foolscap paper, and about three inches thick.” (Dean C. Jessee, “The Original Book of Mormon Manuscript”, B. Y. U. Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1970, pg. 4. Online here, accessed August 20, 2013.)

In his footnote to the Foote citation Jessee writes,

This statement agrees with that of John Brown, who also witnessed the proceedings. He quoted Joseph Smith as saying: “I have had a great deal of trouble to preserve it. I now deliver it up to the Lord and will not have the care of it any longer.” (ibid, pg. 14)

Unfortunately, these two statements do not agree, for Foote and Robinson say nothing about Joseph having trouble preserving the manuscript or that he wanted to “deliver it up to the Lord”. Brown’s statement was written in a letter to John Taylor on December 20, 1879 and seems to want to interpret the event in a different, or more faith promoting light. If Joseph had actually placed the manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo house with the intention of simply “delivering it up to the Lord” to preserve it, Ebeneezer Robinson’s account surely would have reflected this, as would Warren Foote’s journal entry for that date. One also wonders why Joseph could not have simply given it to an angel to “preserve”, as he claimed to have done with the gold plates. (See, Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials In Church History, p. 68).

[233] See Note #92.

[234] Orasmus Turner, History of Pioneer Settlement of Phelps And Gorham’s Purchase, 1849, page 215.

[235]“Cracking the Muisca Calendar”, online here, accessed, August 25, 2013.

See also, Manuel Arturo Izquierdo Pe~na, “The Muisca Calendar: An approximation to the timekeeping system of the ancient native people of the northeastern Andes of Colombia,” Dissertation presented to the Departament d’Anthropologie, Faculte des etudes superierures, Universite de Montreal, as prerequisite to obtain the diploma of Maitre es Sciences en Anthropologie, v. 3, 2008. Online here, accessed August 25, 2013.

[236] ibid, pp. 28-29. These are the Hieroglyphs given in Humboldt’s Researches Concerning The Institutions & Monuments of The Ancient Inhabitants of America, published in 1814.

[237] Times and Seasons 3, no. 16, June 15, 1842, 818–20, See also, “An Analysis of Joseph Smith’s Statements Associated with the Origins of the Aztecs in the Country of Aztlan”, by Ted Dee Stoddard, Online here, accessed, August 25, 2013.

[238] D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Chapter 4. An excerpt from this book may be found here, accessed, August 30, 2013.

[239] ibid, p.97.

[240] ibid. The page taken from “The Discoverie of Witchcraft” by Reginald Scot, first published in 1584 may be found here. Part of the ritual for conjuring the dead reads,

“And about eleven a clocke in the night, go to the place where he was buried, and saie with a bold faith & hartie desire, to have the spirit come and thou doost call for, thy fellow having a candle in his left hand, and in his right hand a CHRISTALL STONE, and saie these words following

And I will sweare to thee an o[a]th, by the perill of my soule, that if thou wilt come to me, and appeare to me this night, AND SHEW ME TRUE VISIONS IN THIS CHRISTALL STONE, …

[241] Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Vol. I, pg. 352. See Note 64. Vogel writes,

Lucy Harris (?-c. 1841), oldest daughter of Martin and Lucy Harris, was evidently born in Palmyra, New York. She married Flanders Dyke, probably in the late 1820s. She had seven children (Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine 26 [July 1935]: 108).

According to Lavina Fielding Anderson, Dyke was reported to have died in the Civil War. (Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s family memoir, Signature Books, 2001, pg. 814.)

[242] See Note #53.

[243] There are four possible instances of the dash like character that appear in the first four lines, but they all appear to be part of another character (except perhaps No. 2), not “stand alone” characters. I include them here for study.

BOM Dash Characters

Left to Right: A. Line 1, 4th character; B.Line 1, 17th & 18th character; C. Line 2, 1st character; D. Line 2, 13th character

[244] See Note #212.

[245] See Note #259. Stanley B. Kimball wrote in 1970:

One interesting, and possibly very meaningful, detail about the RLDS transcript is the word “Charactors” written across the top. Four students of early Church history, R.D. Webb, Ariel Crowley, Dean Jessee of the LDS Church Historian’s Office, and the anti-Mormon writer, I. Woodbridge Riley, think that this word is in the hand of Joseph Smith. If so, the authenticity of the RLDS transcript would be strengthened greatly. (Stanley B. Kimball, “The Anthon Transcript: People, Primary Sources, and Problems,” B.Y.U. Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3, Spring, 1970, p. 349).

[246] See Note #221.

[247] The Geneva Gazette, March 9, 1825.

Anne [Anna] Schott was probably born at Fayette, Seneca, New York about 1804. She was the daughter of Frederick Schott and his wife Anne. They had moved from the vicinity of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1802 to Fayette. Anne married Christian Whitmer on 22 Feb 1825 in Seneca County. Anne was baptized on 11 Apr 1830 at Seneca Lake by Oliver Cowdery, along with her husband. Moved to Ohio and then Missouri in 1831, settling in Jackson County. From there the couple moved to Clay County where Anne’s husband died 27 Nov 1835. After this Anne returned to New York to live with her parents. She married Francis Hulett, but later divorced him. She died in Seneca County, New York. There is no indication in any records of any children being born to Anne and Christian. (Lyman D. Platt, “Members of th Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints baptized by September 26, 1830,” (PDF) p. 23, Online here, accessed August 20, 2013.

At the time of Christian Whitmer’s marriage, he was spelling his name “Witmer” without the “h”. I am grateful to Brent Metcalfe who informed me that he has seen the signature of Christian’s grandfather and that he also spelled his last name without the “h”. I discovered the marriage notice of Christian and Anna Witmer while doing research for this article.

[248] Frederick Schott (1766-1858) was married to Anna Rathfon, (1752-1853) and had 7 children, Mary Esther, Anna, Elizabeth, Edwin, Sally, Vincent, and Daniel who was born in 1799 and died the same year as John Whitmer, in 1878. He joined the Seneca County Grenadiers in 1825 and became a Justice of the Peace in 1829. (See the Geneva Mercantile Advertiser, Dec. 9, 1829)

[249] The Seneca Farmer, March 23, 1825.

[250] “Report of Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, Millennial Star 40 (9 Dec 1878):771-7.

[251] Kansas City Daily Journal, June 5, 1881.

[252] Juvenile Instructor 19 (1884):107

[253] Chicago Tribune, 15 Dec 1885.

[254] David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, p.33.

[255] Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents Vol. 1, p. 99.

[256] Hiram Page was,

Born in the state of Vermont in 1800, little has been Iearned of his earlier life. He became a physician, traveling through New York and Canada before locating in Seneca County, New York. Here he married Katherine Whitmer 10 Nov 1825. He became one of the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. He and his wife were baptized by Oliver Cowdery at Seneca Lake on 11 Apr 1830. They moved to Kirtland in 1831 and to Jackson County, Missouri in 1832. During the persecutions in Jackson County, Hiram was brutally whipped by the mob. In 1836 he was one of the settlers at Far West. In 1838 he left the church and moved to Ray County. He died near the present site of Exelsior Springs, some fourteen miles northwest of Richmond, 12 Aug 1852. He and Katherine were the parents of nine children. (Platt, op. cited, p. 22-23)

Michael Quinn writes,

The Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon were also involved in folk magic. Oliver Cowdery was a rodsman before he met Smith in 1829 and was soon authorized by divine revelation to continue the revelatory use of his “rod of nature.” David Whitmer revered Smith’s use of a seer stone, may have possessed one of his own, and authorized a later spokesman for his own religious organization to obtain revelations through a stone (figs. 11-12). Martin Harris endorsed Smith’s use of a seer stone for divination and treasure seeking, and participated in treasure digging himself after the discovery of the gold plates. Of the remaining Eight Witnesses, John Whitmer possessed a seer stone which his descendants preserved (fig. 13), his brothers Christian, Jacob, and Peter were included in their pastor’s accusation of magic belief, and Hiram Page, their brother-in-law, had a stone for revelations.

The influence of magic was equally pervasive among the twelve men [p.195] who comprised the first quorum of apostles in 1835. As will be seen, almost half of the first apostles—Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, Luke S. Johnson, and Orson Pratt—gave specific evidence of a belief in various magical practices, while William Smith, Parley P. Pratt, and Lyman E. Johnson may have shared the views that their brothers expressed and implemented. Thus, at least two-thirds of Mormonism’s first apostles may have had some affinity for magic. (D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, pp. 194-195).

Page’s continued use of his stone created a problem for Joseph in September 1830 when Page claimed that he was receiving “revelations” about Zion and other matters concerning the new church. In 1864, George A. Smith recounted that,

When the Church was organized, persons came into it bringing along some of these enthusiastic notions individuals who professed to have revelations on every subject, and who were ready to banish every moral principle under the guidance of false spirits. Joseph the Prophet had also to learn by experience, and to teach the Elders and the early members of the Church, how they should judge of the manifestation of spirits. (Book of Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 17, Par. 7.)

“Wherefore it shall come to pass, that if you behold a spirit manifested that you cannot understand, and you receive not that spirit, ye shall ask of the Father in the name of Jesus, and if he give not unto you that spirit, that you may know that it is not of God: and it shall be given unto you power over that spirit, and you shall proclaim against that spirit with a loud voice, that it is not of God; not with railing accusation, that ye be not overcome; neither with boasting, nor rejoicing, lest you be seized therewith,” and refers to Hiram Page who began to get revelations through the medium of a black stone, certain characters appearing on that stone which he wrote down.

Joseph Smith in his history wrote thus:

“To our great grief, however, we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive, and seeking whom he might devour. Brother Hyrum Page had got in his possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained revelations concerning the up-building of Zion, the order of the Church, &c., &c., all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God’s house, as laid down in the New Testament, as well as our late revelations. As a Conference had been appointed for the first day of September, I thought it wisdom not to do much more than to converse with the brethren on the subject, until the Conference should meet. Finding, however, that many, especially the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone, we thought best to inquire of the Lord concerning so important a matter; and before Conference convened, we received the revelation to Oliver Cowdery given at Fayette, New York, September, 1830, in the 4th paragraph of which the Lord says:[p.3] “And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hyrum 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 deceived him; for, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this Church contrary to the Church covenants, for all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the Church, by the prayer of faith.”

Joseph’s history continues:

“At length our Conference assembled. The subject of the stone previously mentioned, was discussed, and after considerable investigation, brother Page, as well as the whole Church who were present, renounced the said stone, and all things connected therewith, much to our mutual satisfaction and happiness.” (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11, p.3, November 15, 1864).

Emer Harris brother of Martin Harris, would later recount that,

…the Apostle said we have to fight against principalities and powers in high places. Bro. Hiram Page dug out of the earth a black stone [and] put it in his pocket. When he got home, he looked at it. It contained a sentence on paper to befit it. As soon as he wrote one sentence, another sentence came on the stone, until he wrote 16 pages. Bro. Joseph was told of the fact. One person asked Joseph if it is right. He said he did not know, but he prayed and got revelation that the stone was of the devil. Then it was broke to powder and the writings burnt. It was a work of the power of darkness. Amen.” (Emer Harris statement, 6 Apr. 1856, Utah Stake general minutes, archives, Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah).

Quinn writes that,

In this instance, Smith’s move away from instruments of folk magic as church president contributed to the apostasy of early Mormon folk believers. Members of the Whitmer family were so devoted to the importance of seer stones that David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Hiram Page later dated the beginning of ,their own disenchantment with Mormonism at the time when Joseph Smith stopped using the seer stone as an instrument of revelation. (D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p.201).

For more on Page’s stone see “Hiram Page’s Seer Stone and Checking Your Sources,” found here, accessed August 20, 2013.

[257] Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents Vol. I, p. 129, see also Times and Seasons, Vol.4, No.7, p.109, which account reads,

Shortly after we had received the above revelations, Oliver Cowdery returned to Mr. Whitmer’s, and I began to arrange and copy the revelations which we had received from time to time; in which I was assisted by John Whitmer, who now resided with me. Whilst thus (and otherwise at intervals) employed in the work appointed me, by my heavenly father, I received a letter from Oliver Cowdery, the contents of which gave me both sorrow and uneasiness. Not having that letter now in my possession, I cannot, of course, give it here in full, but merely an extract of the most prominent parts, which I can yet, and expect long to remember. He wrote to inform me that he had discovered an error in one of the commandments: Book of Doctrine and Covenants, Sect. 2d, page 7th-“And truly manifested by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of sins.” The above quotation, he said, was erroneous, and added, I command you in the name of God to erase these words, that no priestcraft be amongst us!! I immediately wrote to him in reply, in which I asked him by what authority he took upon him to command me to alter or erase, to add or diminish to or from a revelation or commandment from Almighty God. In a few days afterwards I visited him and Mr. Whitmer’s family, were I found the family, in general, of his opinion concerning the words above quoted; and it was not without both labor and perseverence that I could prevail with any of them to reason calmly on the subject. However Christian Whitmer at length got convinced that it was reasonable, and according to Scripture, and, finally, with his assistance, I succeded in bringing, not only the Whitmer family, but also Oliver Cowdery, to acknowledge they had been in error, and that the sentence in dispute was in accordance with the rest of the commandments. And thus was their error rooted out, which having its rise in presumption and rash judgment, was the more particularly calculated (when once fairly understood) to teach each and all of us the necessity of humility and meekness before the Lord, that he might teach us of his ways, that we might walk in his paths, and live by every word that proceedeth forth from his mouth.

In an interview given in 1881 David Whitmer related that “The first good suit of clothes he [Joseph Smith, Jr.] had ever worn was presented to him by (my brother) Christian Whitmer.” (“David Whitmer Interviewed,” Saints’ Herald, November 15, 1881, 347.)

It may also be of interest that in 1829 Solomon Chamberlain published A Sketch of the Experience of Solomon Chamberlin, and mentioned that he had stopped in Palmyra and visited the Smith Farm where he met Christian Whitmer and Hyrum Smith:

I soon arrived at the [Smith] house, and found Hyrum walking the floor; as I entered the room, I said peace be to this house; he looked at me and said “I hope it will be peace.” I then said is there any one here that believes in visions and revelations. He [Hyrum] said yes, we are a visionary house. I then said I will give you one of my pamphlets, (which was visionary and of my own composition). . . .
* * *
They then called the people together, which consisted of five or six men who were out at the door. Father Smith was one and some of the Whitmer’s. They then sat down and read my pamphlet. Hyrum read first, but was so affected he could not read it, He then gave it to a man, which I learned was Christian Whitmer, he finished reading it. I then opened my mouth and began to preach to them, in the words that the angel had made known to me in the vision, that all Churches and Denominations on the earth had become corrupt, and [that] no Church of God [was] on earth but that he would shortly raise up a Church, that would never be confounded nor brought down and be like unto the Apostolic Church. They wondered greatly who had been telling me these things, for said they we have the same things wrote down in our house, taken from the Gold record, that you are preaching to us. (Marquardt & Walters, Inventing Mormonism, Ch.6, p.129).

This incident would probably have made a strong impression on Christian Whitmer and may have helped him overcome any doubts raised about Joseph Smith by others.

But Smith was to have further problems and challenges to his desire to be the president and spokesman for the Church. A year before the Church was organized, Joseph penned a “revelation” to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris which stated that they should not go “beyond things which are written; for in them are all things written, concerning my church, my gospel, and my rock,” and that they “had received the same power, the same faith, and the same gift like unto him [Joseph Smith].” (Book of Commandments, Chapter XV:1,3, History of the Church, Vol. I., p. 53)

David Whitmer later wrote that,

I was present when Brother Joseph received it [the above “revelation”] through the stone. It is Chapter 15 Book of Commandments, Sec. 16 Doctrine and Convenants. In the Book of Commandments it reads thus:

“Behold I give unto you a commandment, that you rely upon the things which are written; for in them are all things written, concerning my church, my gospel, and my rock. Wherefore if you shall build up my church, and my gospel, and my rock, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.”

But in the Book of Doctrine and Convenants it has been changed and reads thus: “Behold I give unto you a commandment, that you rely “upon the things which are written; for in them are all things written, concerning `the foundation of’ my church, my gospel, and my rock; wherefore, if you shall build up my church `upon the foundation of’ my gospel and my rock, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.”

The change in this revelation is of great importance; the word “them” refers to the plates–the Book of Mormon: We were commanded to rely upon it in building up the church; that is, in establishing the doctrine, the order of offices, etc.: “FOR IN THEM ARE ALL THINGS WRITTEN CONCERNING MY CHURCH, my gospel, and my rock.” But this revelation has been changed by man to mean as follows: That therein is not all things written concerning the church, but only all things concerning “the foundation of” the church–or the beginning of the church: that you must build up the church, beginning according to the written word, and add new offices, new ordinances, and new doctrines as I (the Lord) reveal them to you from year to year: As a Seer to the Church; High Priests; Three of the First Presidency; Baptism for the Dead; Polygamy, etc., etc. When the Book of Doctrine and Convenants was compiled in 1834, the church had then received many revelations to establish new offices and doctrines that are not even mentioned in the New Convenant of either of the two sacred books. They changed this revelation in order to sustain these new doctrines: If they had not made this change, the plain language of the original revelation would have condemned the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. I want to repeat that I was present when Brother Joseph received this revelation through the stone: I am one of the persons to whom it was given, therefore I know of a surety that it was changed when printed in the Doctrine and Convenants in 1834. Likewise concerning all these changes of which I will speak, I know that these changes were made. I was present when nearly all the early revelations were received. There are several of the old Books of Commandments yet in the land; bring them to light and see for yourselves that these revelations were changed just as I tell you.

These changes were made by the leaders of the church, who had drifted into error and spiritual blindness. Through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, Brother Joseph was led on and on into receiving revelations every year, to establish offices and doctrines which are not even mentioned in the teachings of Christ in the written word. In a few years they had gone away ahead of the written word, so that they had to change these revelations, as you will understand when I have finished. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, p.58-59).

[258] The Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Vol.2, No.3, December, 1835, p.240.

[259] Brent and Erin Metcalfe have discovered another signature of Christian Whitmer from a petition that he signed in 1834, which Brent assure me “exhibits an evolution in style that even more closely resembles” the “Caractors” ms. and Scribe 3 in the Book of Mormon Original Manuscript and other documents. Since I have not seen this discovery, I can’t make any kind of determination about it, other than to give some evidence of what I feel may bolster the fact that Christian may have written the word “Caractors” in addition to the Cover Title. One strong reason that bolsters Brent and Erin’s conclusion (without their additional discovery) is that Christian Whitmer was a notorious bad speller. Below are some examples, (and this is only from four pages of material and it isn’t all of them):
Christian Whitmer Handwriting spelling mistakesThe reason I bring this up, is that I feel it is a weak spot in my analysis. John Whitmer also had misspellings, but not near as many as Christian Whitmer did. When Joseph Smith initially misspelled the word characters in his 1832 Summer History, he did not do so with an “o” in it. He merely left out the “h”. Now, it is possible that by 1832 his spelling had improved, and that he may have had problems misspelling the word. But this is not definitive proof, and my conclusion that it is John Whitmer who wrote the word “Caractors” depends on him copying a misspelling, which even I have problems with, given that John corrected Christians rendering of the Cover Title (JST 185).

But the handwriting analysis to me, still weighs in the favor of John Whitmer for the word “Caractors” and Christian Whitmer for the Cover Title.

[260] Mormon Historical Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2013, p. 138.

[261] ibid.

[262] ibid, p. 144.

[263] I would like to thank Don Bradley for his help with this, and his encouragement and interest in this project.

[264] See Note #259.

[265] Even though I have great confidence in Brent and Erin Metcalfe’s research and conclusions, I am still troubled by the obvious differences in those style characteristics. The word “Caractors” and the fact that it is misspelled seem to point towards Christian Whitmer, yet the style of writing seems to point to his brother John. One possible explanation may be that there was an original document with that spelling on it penned by Joseph Smith himself, and John Whitmer wanted to preserve the original as it was written (which I’m not entirely convinced of, but have no better explanation at this time).

If Christian penned the entire “Caractors” document, why would John not have his brother write it out first and spell check it (if he did not want to preserve an original spelling of the word that way), when he went to the trouble to do so with the Cover Title? If the whole document was indeed penned by Christian Whitmer at the same time, then why is the word “Caractors” not included with the Cover Title on JST185?

[266] The identification of D&C 38 was related by H. Michael Marquardt to Dan Vogel, who gave me this information in an Email on July 22, 2013.

[267] For more on Edward Partridge, see D. Brent Collette, “In Search of Zion: A Description of Early Mormon Millennial Utopianism as Revealed Through the Life of Edward Partridge.” M.A., Brigham Young University, 1977, Online here, accessed August 20, 2013.

[268] Thomas G. Alexander writes,

In August 1831 Joseph Smith and a group of Mormon converts originally from Colesville, New York, met near Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, to lay the foundation for an American Zion. Designated as a place of refuge where church members could escape the tribulations preceding Jesus Christ’s second coming, Jackson County was to be the location of a communitarian enterprise called The Law of Consecration and Stewardship or the United Order of Enoch and as a site for a temple for the most sacred rites associated with Mormon worship. (Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth, The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet, p.26).

The Smith family was to be immortalized and instrumental in bringing this to pass, as a portion of a blessing by Church Patriarch John Smith to his son George A. Smith emphasizes, according to Irene Bates and E. Gary Smith:

In a blessing to his eldest son, George A., on September 20, 1853, he promised that “all the inhabitants of the earth shall know that the Lord did choose the Smith family to build up Zion & did by them lay the foundation of this Church which shall never be overthrown neither shall the name of the Smith family be blotted out under Heaven.” (Irene M. Bates, E. Gary Smith, Lost Legacy: The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch, p.117).

Concerning the events that took place in Jackson County Missouri in August 1831, John Whitmer wrote,

I hereby give a copy of the proceedings of the laying of the first logs of the City of Zion. As written by Oliver Cowdery. “After many struggles and afflictions, being persecuted by our enemies, we received inteligence by letter from our brethren, who were at the East. That br[others] Joseph and Sidney, and many others elders, were commanded to take their journey to this land, the Land of Missouri. Which was promised unto us should be the land of the inheritance of the Saints, and the place of the gathering in these last days. Which inteligenc cheered our hearts, and caused us to rejoice exceedingly. And by the special direction protection of the Lord, br Joseph Smith Jr. and Sidney Rigdon, in company with eight other elders, with the church from Colesville New York, consisting of about sixty souls, arivd in the month of July and by Revelation the place was made known where the Temple shall stand, and the City should commence. And by commandment twelve of us assembled ourselves together Viz. Elder Joseph Smith Jr. the Seer, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Newel Knight,4 William W. Phelps, and Ezra Booth who denied the faith.

On the second day of August 1831, Brother Sidny [p. 32] Rigdon stood up and asked saying: Do you receive this land for the land of your inheritance with thankful hearts from the Lord? answer from all we do, Do you pledge yourselves to keep the laws of God on this land, which you have never have kept in your own land? We do. Do you pledge yourselves to see that others of your brethren, who shall come hither do keep the laws of God? We do. After prayer he arose and said, I now pronounce this land consecrated and dedicated to the Lord for a possession and inheritance for the Saints, (in the name of Jesus Christ having authority from him.) And for all the faithful Servants of the Lord to the rimotest ages of time Amen.

The day following eight Elders viz. Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Peter Whitmer Jr., Frederick G. Williams,6 Wm. W. Phelps, Martin Harris, and Joseph Coe. assembled together where the temple is to be erected. Sidney Rigdon dedicated the ground where the city is to Stand: and Joseph Smith Jr. laid a stone at the North east corner of the contemplated Temple in the name of the Lord Jesus of Nazareth. After all present had rendered thanks to the great ruler of the universe. Sidney Rigdon pronounced this Spot of ground wholy dedicated unto the Lord forever: Amen.

Some of the Elders who travelled to the land of Missouri and preached by the way tarried here in this land, among whom is the Bishop E[dward] Partridge[,] Isaac Morley[,] and John Corrill. Some were sick on their way to this land but all were restored to health[.] among those who were sick was John Murdock Parley P. Pratt and Thomas B. Marsh—They all tarried until after they attended a conference in this land. They have since all gone to preach [p. 33] the gospel and call sinners to repentance.

There were some churches built by the way as they journeyed to this land (Mo.) and the people were warned of the danger they were in, if they did not repent.

And now when the Elders had returned to their homes in Ohio,9 the churches needed much exortation in the absence of the Elders[.] many apostitized: but many have returned again to from the fold from whence they have strayed—And many mighty miracles were wrought by the Elders—one in particular which I shall here notice—which was wrought by Elders Emer10 Harris Joseph Bracke[r]berry11 and Wheeler Baldwin.12 [This] Is [an incident regarding] an infirmity in an old lady who had been helpless for the space of eight years confined to her bed. she did not belong to this church but sent her request to the Elders who immediately attended to her call, and after their arrival praid [prayed] for her and laid their hands on her, and she was immediately made whole and magnified and praised God. and is now enjoying perfect health[.]

And thus the churches again prospered and the work of the Lord spread[.]

Shortly after Joseph Smith Jr[,] Oliver Cowdery[,] and Sidney Rigdon Returned [to Ohio] Sidney wrote a discription and an epistle according to commandment.13 And Oliver Cowdery and Newel K. Whitney14—were commanded to go and visit the churches speedily—as you will see by reading the Revelation given August thirty at Kirtland15— The following is a copy of the Epistle written by S. Rigdons own hand.

I sidney a servant of Jesus Christ by the will of God the Father and through the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ unto the Saints who are scattered abroad in the last days, may grace [p. 34] mer[c]y and peace, rest upon you from God the father and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who is greatly to be feared, among his saints and to be had in reverance of all them who obey him.

Beloved brethren,

It has pleased God even the Father to make known unto us m these last days, the good pleasure of his will concerning his Saints; and to make known unto us, the things which he has decreed upon the nations even wasting and destruction until they are utterly destroyed, and the earth made desolate by reason of the wickedness of its inhabitants according as he has made known in times past by prophits and apostles, that such calamities should befall the inhabitants of the earth in the last days, unless they should repent and turn to the living God. And as the time is now near at hand, for the accomplishment of his purposes and the fulfilment of his prophesies, which have been spoken by all the holy prophets, ever since the world began, he has sent and signified, unto us by the mouths of his holy prophets, that. he has raised up in these last days—the speedy accomplishment of his accomplish ment purposes which shall be accomplished, on the heads of the rebellious of this generation—among whom he has been pleased in much mercy and goodness, to send forth the fulness of his gospel in order that [p.89] they might repent and turn to the living God, and be made partakers of his Holy Spirit[.]

But by reason of their wickedness and rebellion against him and wicked and unbelieving hearts the Lord withdrew his spirit from them, and gives them up to work all uncleanness with greediness, and to bring swift destruction on themselves—[p. 35] and through their wickedness to hasten the day of their calamity, that they may be left without excuse in the day of vengeance.
But it has pleased our heavenly Father to make known some better things, concerning his Saints and those who serve him in f[e]ar and rejoice in meekness, before him, even things which pertain to life everlasting, for godliness has the life promise of the life, that now is, and that which is to come; Even so it has pleased our heavenly Father to make provisions for his saints in these last days of tribulation that they through faith and patience, and by continuing in well doing may preserve their lives; and attain unto rest and endless felicity—but by no other means, than that of a strict observance of his commandments and teachings in all things as there is and can be no ruler nor lawgiver in the Kingdom of God save it be God our Saviour himself—and before him he requires that all his saints & those who have named the name of Jesus, should be carful to depart from iniquity—and serve him with fe[a]r and rejoicing and trembling least he be angry and they perish from their way.
According to the prediction of the ancient profits that the Lord would send his messengers in the last days, and gather his elect. (which is the elect according to the covenant, viz. those who like Abraham are faithful to God and the word of his Grace.) from the four winds even from one end of the earth to the other as testified of by the Savior himself—so in these last days he has commenced to gather together, into a place provided before of God and had in reserve in days of old, being kept by the power and providence of of God, for this purpose and which he now holds in his own hands, that they through faith, and patience may inherit the blessings promises—A land which God by his own [p. 36] commandment has consecrated to him self where he has said, that his laws shall be kept, and where his saints can dwell in safety, through their perseverance in well doing and their unfeigned repentance of all their sins, our heavenly Father has provided this land himself because it was the one which was [best] adapted, for his children, where Jew and Gentile might dwell together: for God has the same respect to all those who call upon him in truth and righteousness whether they be Jew or Gentile; for there is no respect of persons with him.

This land being situated in the center of the continent on which we dwell with an exceeding fertile soil and ready cleared for the hand of the cultivator bespeaks the goodness of our God, in providing so goodly a heritage, and its climate suited [to] persons from every quarter of this continent. wither East West North or South yea I think I may say, for all constitutions from every part of the world and its productions nearly all varieties of both grain and vegitables which are common in this country together with all means, [for] clothing: in addition to this it abounds with fountains of pure water[,] the soil climate and surface all adapted to health[.] indeed I may say that the whole properties of the country invite the Saints to come and partake their blessings[.] but what more need I say about a country. which our Heavenly Father holds in his own hands[,] for if it were unhealthy he could make it healthy and if barren he could make it fruitful. Such is the land which God has provided for us, in these last days for an inheritance, and truly it is a goodly land, and none other as well suited for all the saints as this and all those who have faith and confidence in God who has ever seen this land will bear the same testimony. In order that you may understand the will of God respecting this land and the way and means [p. 37] of possessing it, I can only refer you to commandments which the Lord has delivered by the mouth of his Prophet which will be read, to you, by our brethren Oliver Cowdry and Newel K. Whitney whom the Lord has appointed, to visit the churches and obtain means for purchasing this land of our inheritance that we may escape in the day of tribulation which is coming on the earth. I conclude by exhorting you to hear the voice of the Lord your God, who is speaking to you in much mercy and who is sending forth, his word and his revelation in these last days, in order that we may escape impending vengeance; and the Judgements which await this generation, and which will speedily overtake them—Brethren pray for me, that I may be counted worthy to obtain an inheritance in the land of Zion and to over come, the World through faith, and dwell with the sanctified, forever, and ever Amen.

Written at Kirtland Ohio Aug. 31, 1831. (Bruce N. Westergren, From Historian to Dissident:The Book of John Whitmer, pp. 86-91).

[269] For more on Ezra Booth, see H. Michael Marquardt, Ezra Booth on Early Mormonism: A Look at His 1831 Letters , John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 28 (2008):65-87. He writes,

Ezra Booth was an early convert in the Church of Christ. At the June 3, 1831, church conference he was ordained to the high priesthood. Called by revelation to go to Missouri he witnessed the laying of the foundation of the latter-day Zion including the cornerstone of the proposed New Jerusalem temple. Ezra wrote nine letters explaining his experiences with Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon. He also touched on what he regarded as failures in prophetic leadership. The letters to Rev. Ira Eddy were written during the period of September 12 through December 6, 1831. As an eye witness and participant Booth explores some of the earliest teachings of church leaders. (page 31)

That Booth had some early “revelations” in his possession is attested to in his letters. For example, Marquardt mentions that,

In his eighth letter Booth discussed the Book of Mormon. He wrote, “We now know that the Natives who inhabit the forests of America, are a ‘branch of the House of Israel;’ and by the means of this blessed book, they are soon, even in this generation, to be restored to the knowledge, and the true worship of the God of Israel.”

Booth then reproduced two documents written before he joined the church. One was an early text of a September 1830 revelation for Oliver Cowdery to preach the gospel to the Lamanites and “cause my Church to be established among them.” The second item was two covenants made by the four missionaries that they would bring the gospel to the Lamanites and is dated Manchester, October 17, 1830. Also mentioned was the New York episode relating to Hiram Page having revelations that appeared and disappeared from a stone, this being termed a satanic fraud. (pages 42-43)

For a debunking of the Mormon myth that Symonds Ryder left the church simply because of a misspelling of his name in a “revelation” dictated by Joseph Smith, see “Symonds Ryder and a Crisis of Faith,” found online here, at the Mormon Matters Blog.

[270] I will have more on this subject in an upcoming article scheduled for publication in 2014.

[271] A. S. Hayden, Early History of the Disciples In the Western Reserve, Ohio, (Cincinnati: Chase & Hall Publishers, 1876), pp. 220-221. Online here, accessed August 20, 2013.

[272] Scott H. Faulring, “An Examination of the 1829 ‘Articles of the Church of Christ’ in Relation to Section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants”, B.Y.U. Studies 43, No. 4, (2004) pg. 76. Faulring’s scenario that Ryder somehow accessed Church records in Kirtland and stole a few “revelations” is a tenuous allegation.

On July 20, 1831 Smith dictated a “revelation” which stated that,

And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William W. Phelps be planted in this place, and be established as a printer unto the church. And lo, if the world receive his writings—behold here is wisdom—let him obtain whatsoever he can obtain in righteousness, for the good of the saints. And let my servant Oliver Cowdery assist him, even as I have commanded, in whatsoever place I shall appoint unto him, to copy, and to correct, and select, that all things may be right before me, as it shall be proved by the Spirit through him. (Revelation, 20 July 1831, in 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Section 27:5).

Also during the summer of 1831 “Edward Partridge purchased a lot near the center of town upon which the building that likely became the printing office already stood”. (The JSP Website, see also, Berrett, LaMar C., ed. Sacred Places: A Comprehensive Guide to Early LDS Historical Sites. 6 vols. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1999–2007, 4:51–52).

Since Kirtland was to be a temporary refuge for the church until the move to Missouri as attested to by many statements from the period, and the “revelations” were soon to be published there, it is entirely feasible that Smith carried them with him to Missouri, and that some were inadvertently left unattended for a time, (or left behind as Ryder thought) giving Ezra Booth the opportunity to read them and take several of them.

In March of 1831 Martin Harris was reported to have declared “that all who believed the new bible [The Book of Mormon] would see Christ within fifteen years, and all who did not would absolutely be destroyed and dam’d. (Painsville Telegraph, March 15, 1831)

On June 14, 1831 the Painesville Telegraph (edited by Eber D. Howe) reported that,

After all the good followers of Jo. Smith from York state had got fairly settled down in this vicinity, which Rigdon had declared to be their “eternal inheritance,” Jo must needs invent another ‘command from God.’ At a meeting of the tribe on the 3d. inst. the fact was made known to them that 28 elders must be selected and ordained, to start immediately, for Missouri. Jo accordingly asked the Lord in the assembly whom he should select, and the Lord named them over to him, as he made them believe. The ceremony of endowing them with miraculous gifts, or supernatural power, was then performed, and they were commanded to take up a line of march; preaching their gospel, (Jo’s Bible) raising the dead, healing the sick, casting out devils, &c. This squad comprises Jo himself, Rigdon, Martin Harris, Gilbert, Morley, Murdock, Partridge, and all the other leading and influential men among them. The flock are to be left to shirk for themselves the best way they can. It is said they are about to commence an establishment some 500 miles up the Missouri, where they contemplate building the New Jerusalem, and they have expressed doubts whether few if any of them will ever return to this “land of promise”; but in due time a command will be sent for the remainder of their deluded and infatuated followers to move — we opine however, that very few will obey the summons. The chosen few are to be off during the present week, going by pairs in different routes, all on foot, except Jo., Rigdon, and Harris, the contrivers and commanders of the expedition. (Painesville Telegraph, June 14, 1831)

A month later it was reported by the same source that “the leaders have already departed,” and that,

Before Jo left, he had a special command for all those of his followers who had located themselves in the township of Thompson, to depart forthwith for Missourie, and all those who did not obey were to be deprived of all the blessings of Mormonism. There were in that township about twenty families, the most of whom started last week for the Ohio River, leaving their spring crops all upon the ground. Those who preferred staying to following Jo any farther, were handed over to the devil. It is verily a melancholy spectacle to view with what facility the human mind may be enslaved, under the name of religion. The main object of the Mormons leaders appears now to be, to drag their deluded followers from pillar to post, leaving behind all those who presume to doubt the infallibility of Jo Smith or question any thing he may say as being a command of God — thereby obtaining in the end a certain set of slaves who will obey most implicitly every thing which is suggested. Many have left them on account of the various, diversified, and contradictory commands which Jo has given out to his slaves. (Painesville Telegraph, June 28, 1831)

Those “followers” were mostly immigrants from the New York Colesville Branch of the Church, who were promised by Smith that they could settle on land owned by Elder Lemon Copely, who, when they arrived in Thompson refused to settle them on his land.

On September 13, 1831 the Telegraph published a “revelation” (Doctrine and Covenants Section 42) which the article titled the “Secret Bye Laws Of The Mormonites,” which Howe claimed he received from “a responsible and intelligent individual, who has devoted much time to make himself acquainted with the principles, practices and objects of the Mormon leaders…” In a note at the end of the article Howe wrote,

(We have no hesitation in giving our unqualified belief that the above is a true extract from the Mormon records. We have had the same communicated to us verbally from other sources. They have also manuscripts among them sufficient to make several [copies] of similar [ones], which are, however, kept from the view of the weaker brethren. Jo Smith pretends that they are communicated to him by the Deity. Smith dictates to another, who writes them down, generally but a few sentences at a time. All among them who make bold to even doubt that these “commands” are the words of God, [who] made known to them, are immediately expelled as heretics. Such is human nature. (Painesville Telegraph, Sept. 13, 1831)

It is of interest to note that if Symonds Ryder had stolen the “revelations” he had in his possession sometime after the leadership of the church left for Missouri in June of 1831, why did he then wait until the fall, when Ezra Booth had returned from Missouri, to have them published? In the very next issue of the Telegraph, Howe publishes Booth’s first letter to the Reverend Ira Eddy.

Evangelist Nancy Towle interviewed some of the Mormon leadership in Kirtland on October 15, 1831 and wrote in 1832 that,

They believe, according to the Book: “That a day of great wrath, is bursting upon all the kindred, of the earth; and that in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, alone, shall be deliverance in that day,”(even in the land, which the Lord Jesus had given to them, for a dwelling-place, and an everlasting possession). The place where they then had their stay, was not the “Land of Promise;” – but that, lay, on the western boundary of the State of Missouri; In which place, they were then assembling; and where they believed, In process of time, they should have a temple; and a city, of great magnificence, and wealth; and that shortly, they should increase, and tread down all their enemies, and bruise them beneath their feet. After which period, Christ Jesus should descend and reign with them, personally one thousand years upon the earth. And then their enemies should be loosed for a season; (or, as one said to me, for the space of three months,) when, — should take place, the General Judgment; and the “final consummation of all things.” (Anna Nancy Towle, Vicissitudes Illustrated, Charleston, 1832, p. 153. (2nd Edition, 1833).

By 1832 the Mormons were preaching that they, “should never die, but be translated, after the manner of Enoch, and that in eighteen months Mormonism would be the prevailing religion; and, that in five years the wicked were to be swept from the face of the earth.” (The Liberal Advocate, April 14, 1832).

By the end of 1832 many had gathered to the “New Jerusalem” in Missouri, and were observed by Alexander Evans, a Baptist Missionary who wrote about the Mormons in a letter from the Shawnee Mission on December 20, 1832:

Among the wonders of the present day, you may record the following. Many of the people called Mormons, have arrived at this place, and it is said, more are on the way. The condition of those that are here, must be very unpleasant, and their sufferings are, in no small degree, from the want of comfortable houses, and something on which to subsist. Their settlement extends to the West line of Missouri State, two miles and a half from this place; they manifest a disposition to, and no doubt soon would, go among the Indians, were they permitted; which by the way is not the case. They call this place the Mount Zion, or New Jerusalem, so often spoken of in Scripture; — though it is not more elevated than the common face of the country, nor yet is there in it any thing strange or peculiarly prepossessing in its favor, more than any other portion of the West.

Here, they tell us, will be gathered the Gentiles from the east, and the Jews (the Indians) from the west, to their temple, which shall subsequently be built on the very spot now selected by them, to which, they say, their God will come in person, destroying all who shall be so daringly wicked, as to reject their Gospel; when Christ comes, which at most will not be more than fifteen years, he will bring all the Apostles, and old saints, and will reign with them here a thousand years; during this reign, the rest of the dead, shall not live (that is, all who are not Mormons,) for this is the first resurrection. To support the idea of their Christ suddenly coming to their temple, to purify and refine them, they read Malachi, 3d chapter to the 6th verse inclusive, with other Scriptures found in Zephaniah, Zechariah, and elsewhere, all of which refer to the coming of Christ.

They have a revelation of their own, which, they affirm. was given to the people of this continent, (the Indians,) on plates and deposited in the earth and kept concealed in the earth of the Lord, till the fulfilment of its time, which has now been accomplished; and to prove that Joseph Smith is that wonderful prophet, to whom these marvelous plates and their profound mysteries should be revealed, they recite the 29th chapter of Isaiah, saying that the prophet Smith is that unlearned man, to whom the book was given, to read, and he said I cannot, for I am not learned! But this difficulty was soon removed by the spirit which came upon him, and blest him with the gift of tongues. The Book then was clearly opened to his understanding, and he translated it to one of the witnesses, who wrote it in our language. Thus according to the 37th chapter of Ezekiel, say they, the sticks there spoken of, (the Mormon book and our Bible,) are become one, in the hand of the prophet Smith; or shall, when our Bible shall be rightly translated by him, under the outpouring of his holy spirit, and its directions. Every person, who tells them that he wishes to forsake sin, is, without further ceremony, taken by the Elder, and baptized for the remission of his sins; he is now told that he shall soon receive the spirit; this being accomplished, the Elder lays his hands on him, and imparts to him his holy spirit, which they say they then feel immediately, and know that it is the truth. The Elder now sings to the new converts, consecrating songs of their own diction, (composing,) and to them he reads prophecies about giving their possessions to the Lord’s store, which if they fail to do, they forfeit the fellowship of the fraternity, nor will they long be considered worthy members with them. When their property is thus laid at the Bishop’s feet, he places it in the store, and they lose sight of it forever; their store-keeper will not trust them for a single dollar, though he willingly gives credit to others.

If the brotherhood is once taken, and any should choose to leave them, he must go out empty, however much he had deposited in the Treasury. Much is said among them about the Holy Ghost being given, by the laying on of the Elder’s hand, about prophecying, healing the sick, and the interpretation of tongues; all this however they carefully avoid, saying that these things can only be done, when they are in the spirit, which perhaps but seldom happens in this land of pilgrims; since no miracles have been done here at any time by them, though greatly needed, and they have been abundantly pressed to it. They eat, they drink, are sick, and die, as all others do. When they are sick, unfortunately, they have not faith to be healed. Of the dying they say, their work is done, they must go: they also say, it is self-evident that disease is the natural effect of unbelief. If this be true, I am sure, their faith cannot be as large as a mustard seed, for none are more liable to sickness, and all contagions than themselves, the cholera not excepted, even among their preachers. Perhaps when their Christ comes, and brings their old Apostles and saints, some of them may profess more power and faith than these, that are already here; if this should not be so, I shall finally despair of seeing miracles done by them.

Although they have prophesied, the graves have not yet opened: the bones are yet dry, nor are they yet collecting; we have heard no voice in the valley; we know some have professed, but nothing is moved; if others have spoken to the winds they have not obeyed them; there are no symptoms of life among the slain, all these things continue, just as they were.

Let none be anxious, or burn with desire, to set their faces for the mount (or rather I would say for the Valley Zion,) of the west, supposing they will see the Lord in person, for he is not here; nor will they live more holy, more free from temptation, or sin, in this land of pilgrims, than any other place. Let me say once for all, that if any come hither, whether they expect it or not, they will be sure to meet all if not more than all, the difficulties that emigrants to other new countries meet. Of these the Mormons have their share. (Alexander Evans, “Mormonites, In Their Promised Land”, December 20, 1832, as published in the Baptist Weekly Journal of the Mississippi Valley, February, 1833, and excerpted in the Christian Register, April 6, 1833. Online here, accessed August 25, 2013.)

Once again we see a contemporary account that the Mormons were preaching that only in “Zion” or Missouri would anyone be safe, and that the destruction of the wicked would occur “in not more than fifteen years” from that time.

Also, we see the writings of Isaiah and Ezekiel being used to support the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

[273] Mormon Historical Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2013, p. 145.

[274] A biography of George Edward “Ed” Anderson may be found here, as well as a link to his diaries.

[275] A short biography of Julia Ann Whitmer Schweich may be found here.

[276] George Edward Anderson Diary, May 12, 1907, Sunday, Richmond, pg. 32, online here, accessed August 25. 2013. Julia may have been mistaken about her grandfather’s age. I believe that Hicks took the photo in 1882, not 1886 and that Julia confused the year with her grandfather’s age. (She was recalling an event which happened over 20 years past).  Since Whitmer was born in 1805, he would have been 77 years old in 1882.

This is Brent Metcalfe’s theory, and it has a sold basis, for the “Caractors” document was most certainly cut before 1884 and so would have to have been photographed before that time. Brent has communicated to me that he is trying to find the bank records that would show when the safe where the documents were kept was accessed, and this would bolster this theory, especially if there is a description of the documents that were kept there.

If Hicks did indeed take the later photo of David Whitmer in 1886, it does not preclude him (or John) from having had the “Caractors” document photographed at an earlier time, say between 1867 (when Hicks first photographed David Whitmer) and 1884 (for by 1884 we have accounts that prove it was cut).

And according to David Whitmer’s Proclamation, published in 1881 “a facsimile of the characters he now has in his possession with the original records…”

Even though his Proclamation does not reveal anything about the document, we know that Whitmer had it “in his possession” by 1881, and that it had been removed from the safe where it was kept by Van Cleave sometime between 1878 and 1881.

Hicks lived about 25 miles from Richmond, which was not that long of a journey to make for whatever reason, even to photograph a document, but it would have been much more convenient to have both done at the same time and this is the more likely scenario.

[277] See Note above. For the size of the document, see the Improvement Era, Vol. 14, No. 1, January, 1842.

[278] James H. Hart, Deseret News, March 25, 1884.

[279] Daily Missouri Republican, 16 July, 1884.

[280] See Note #214. It reads in part,

At some point, some of John Whitmer’s papers apparently passed into the possession of James R. B. Van Cleave, a Chicago newspaper reporter and Illinois politician.

In March 1881, Van Cleave conducted a significant interview with David Whitmer that subsequently appeared in the October 17, 1881, Chicago Times. Then Van Cleave successfully courted and married David Whitmer’s granddaughter, Josephine Helen Schweich. Van Cleave planned to write a history of Mormonism from the Whitmers’ perspective. In preparation, he “obtained consent of John Whitmer’s daughters to remove the papers he had selected . . . and brought them to Richmond, Mo.”

John Whitmer’s papers were deposited in a Richmond, Missouri, bank vault. But Van Cleave was ultimately unable to compile his book, and Whitmer’s papers next passed to George Schweich (fig. 4)—Van Cleave’s brotherin-law and David Whitmer’s grandson. In 1903, when Schweich sold the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon and “Caractors” document, four leaves of BCR materials also passed to the RLDS Church.

Brent Metcalfe has shared with me that he believes that the “Caractors” document was among those that Van Cleave was given by John Whitmer’s daughter who then placed them in a Richmond bank vault. Sometime after this David Whitmer removed the document from the vault and had it photographed by Jacob Hicks in the fall of 1880. He then cut the document so that people would not think that the English text below was a translation of the “Caractors”.

David may have had the document photographed in 1880 or 1882, and further discoveries may help to determine this. The document may also have been photographed by Hicks in 1867. I do not ascribe to the theory that David cut the document to avoid confusion; but rather to bolster his story that what he possessed was the original “Anthon Transcript”.

[281] See Note #199.

[282] See Note #201.

[283] Richmond Conservator, 18 November, 1881. Whitmer was reported to have said that “Frequently one character would make two lines of manuscript, while others made but a word or two words.”

[284] See Note #280 (above). An example of David’s penchant for exaggerating is with this story that he told to Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith in 1878:

Joseph sent for me to come to Harmony to get him and Oliver and bring them to my father’s house. I did not know what to do, I was pressed with my work. I had some 20 acres to plow, so I concluded I would finish plowing and then go. I got up one morning to go to work as usual and, on going to the field, found between five and seven acres of my ground had been plowed during the night. I don’t know who did it; but it was done just as I would have done it myself, and the plow was left standing in the furrow.

Thirty years earlier, Lucy Smith remembered the incident a little differently and wrote,

In the mean time Joseph was 150 miles distant and knew naught of the matter [A complaint by Lucy Harris against Joseph Smith to a Magistrate in Lyons, New York] e[x]cept an intimation that was given through the urim and thumim for as he one morning applied the to his eyes to look upon the record instead of the words of the book being given him he was commanded to write a letter to one David Whitmore this man Joseph had never seen but he was instructed to say him that he must come with his team immediately in order to convey Joseph and his back to his house which was 135 miles that they might remain with him there untill the trans lation should be completed for that an evil designing people were seeking to take away Joseph’s life in order to prevent the work of God from going forth among the world This was accordingly done and the letter received and Mr Whitmore showed it to his Father mother sisters and brothers and asked their advice as to what it would be best for him to do his Father said why David know you have sow ed as much wheat as you can harrow in tomorrow and next day and then you have a quantity of plaster to spread that is much needed on your land and you cannot go unless you get an evidence from God that it is very necessary. This suggestion pleased David and he asked the Lord for a testimony of the fact if it was his will that he should go he was told by the voice of the spirit to (sow) <(har) inn his wheat> his wheat and then go straightway to Penn In the morning he went to the field and found that he had 2 heavy days work before him He then asked the lord to enable him to do this work sooner than the same work had ever been done on the farm before and he would receive it as an evidence that it was the will of God for him to engage in forwarding the work which was begun by Joseph Smith. he then fastened his horses to the harrow and drove round the whole field he continued on till noon driving all the way round at every circuit but when it came to be time to eat dinner he discov ered to his surprize that he had harrowed in full half the wheat. after dinner he again went on as before and by evening he finnished the whole 2 days work 

[285] “Report of Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, Millennial Star 40 (9 Dec 1878):771-7, Online here, accessed August 25, 2013.

[286] The alternate photo of the “Caractors” may be viewed here, accessed August 25, 2013.

[287] In his 1887 publication “An Address to All Believers In Christ”, Whitmer wrote,

I have in my possession the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery and others, also the original paper containing some of the characters transcribed from one of the golden plates, which paper Martin Harris took to Professor Anthon, of New York, for him to read “the words of a book that is sealed:” but the learned professor, although a great linguist could not read the language of the Nephites. There is some evidence in the American Cyclopædia favorable to the Book of Mormon that I will speak of. It is as follows:

“Martin Harris called upon Prof. Anthon, of New York, with a transcript on paper which Smith had given him of the characters on one of the golden plates. ‘This paper,’ Prof. Anthon said, in a letter dated New York, Feb. 17, 1834, ‘was in fact a singular scroll. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters, disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters, inverted or placed sideways, were arranged and placed in perpendicular columns,” etc. The “learned” could not read it, and the book was delivered to him that is not learned. I will quote two verses from the twenty-ninth chapter of Isaiah, which is the prophecy regarding this matter.

The entry from The American Cyclopædia of 1879 reads,

The printing of the “Book of Mormon” was done at the expense of Martin Harris, who had some property, and was persuaded that he could make money by the speculation. While the work was in progress, this man called upon Prof. Anthon of New York with a transcript on paper which Smith had given him of the characters on one of the golden plates. “This paper,” Prof. Anthon says in a letter dated New York, Feb. 17, 1834, “was in fact a singular scroll. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters, disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters, inverted or placed sideways, were arranged and placed in perpendicular columns; and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle, divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived.” This letter was written to contradict a report set afloat by Smith that Prof. Anthon had pronounced the characters to be Egyptian hieroglyphics. (The American Cyclopædia (1879))

If one reads the entire quote, it is hardly “favorable” to the Book of Mormon. It is obvious that the complete description of the Book of Mormon characters given by Anthon was reproduced by the American Cyclopædia, including the last part about the circle; but Whitmer conveniently leaves that part out of his account.

This proves that Whitmer was well aware of Anthon’s description of the original transcript, which did not match up with the document that he was promulgating as the original, and that he left out the part of the description which would have cast doubt on his story that he had the “original transcript” taken to Charles Anthon in 1828 by Martin Harris.

Whitmer also published in his Address in 1887 that he had the “Original” Book of Mormon Manuscript, knowing full well that this was not true. This creates a serious credibility issue for David Whitmer which is not answered by the theory that he cut the document simply to avoid confusion, when it would have been very easy for Whitmer to simply say the document was a copy and that the text below had nothing to do with the characters that appeared above the Cover Title.

This leads me to believe that David Whitmer did not have the document photographed in 1880 or 1882, but that it was photographed much earlier, (in the 1860’s) before Whitmer had established his Church, and perhaps felt that having original documents in his possession somehow bolstered his credentials and importance.

The “Caractors” Go To New York

Anthon & Harris 1828 Columbia UniversityPart II of “19th Century Photo of Joseph Smith’s ‘Caractors’ Found”

If you missed the Introduction or Part I of this Article, just click on the respective link.

There are several different accounts, and opposing claims, relating to Martin Harris’ attempts to get Professor Charles Anthon to verify the authenticity of the “caractors” used to translate the Book of Mormon. This part of the article surveys the available historic accounts relating to what has become known as “The Anthon Affair”…

In 1887 David Whitmer wrote what is probably one of the quintessential examples of what has become known as the “Anthon Affair”:

David Whitmer by Jacob Hicks

David Whitmer by Jacob Hicks

I have in my possession the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery and others, also the original paper containing some of the characters transcribed from one of the golden plates, which paper Martin Harris took to Professor Anthon, of New York, for him to read “the words of a book that is sealed:” but the learned professor, although a great linguist could not read the language of the Nephites. There is some evidence in the American Cyclopædia favorable to the Book of Mormon that I will speak of. It is as follows:

“Martin Harris called upon Prof. Anthon, of New York, with a transcript on paper which Smith had given him of the characters on one of the golden plates. `This paper,’ Prof. Anthon said, in a letter dated New York, Feb. 17, 1834, `was in fact a singular scroll. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters, disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters, inverted or placed sideways, were arranged and placed in perpendicular columns,” etc. The “learned” could not read it, and the book was delivered to him that is not learned. I will quote two verses from the twenty-ninth chapter of Isaiah, which is the prophecy regarding this matter.

“And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot, for it is sealed: and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.” (Verses 11 and 12.)

No man could read it, but God gave to an unlearned boy the gift to translate it.[89]

The late Mormon Apologist Robert Cloward wrote about the importance of Isaiah 29 as it relates to the Book of Mormon,

Even among Latter-day Saints for whom most of Isaiah’s writings remain obscure, phrases from chapter 29 are familiar. This is the chapter of “a marvellous work and a wonder” (verse 14); “a book that is sealed,” delivered to “one that is learned” (verse 11); and a voice “out of the dust” (verse 4). It speaks of people who “draw near [to the Lord] with their mouth … but have removed their heart far from [him]” (verse 13); and of those who “seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord”; or who “make a man an offender for a word” (verse 21). In the doctrinal and devotional writings of this dispensation, no chapter of Isaiah is more often cited. The words of Isaiah 29 speak truths about the marvelous work of God, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and the foreknowledge by ancient prophets of the transcendent role of the Prophet Joseph Smith.[90]

As far back as 1834, Eber D. Howe wrote in Mormonism Unvalied  “that the story about Mr. Anthon’s declarations, was one upon which they [The Mormons] placed great reliance.”[91]

The reason for Howe’s observation was a letter he had received from W. W. Phelps in 1831 who wrote that,

When the plates were said to have been found, a copy of one or two lines of the characters, were taken by Mr. Harris to Utica, Albany and New York; at New York, they were shown to Dr. Mitchell, and he referred to professor Anthon who translated and declared them to be the ancient shorthand Egyptian. So much is true.[92]

Unfortunately, what Phelps wrote to Howe in 1831 could not be true, because Charles Anthon could not have translated the characters; and no one else has been able to do so in over 180 years. “It is asserted in the Mormon Bible,” wrote Howe,

“that the engravings upon the plates, were in the “Reformed Egyptian.” In conformity to this, the Mormonite preachers, and others of the sect, have frequently declared that the engravings upon the plates were, by some of our learned men, who had a specimen shown them, pronounced to be “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics,” or “ancient short hand Egyptian.” — Among others, Professor Anthon, of New York, was frequently mentioned as giving such an opinion.”[93]

Howe subsequently wrote to Charles Anthon and received from him this account of the events that transpired during the visit of Martin Harris:

New York, Feb. 17, 1834.   

Dear Sir — I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronouncd the Mormonite inscription to be “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted farmer, called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decypher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax.

When I asked the person, who brought it, how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, the following account: A “gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles”! These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face.  Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at that time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered “by the gift of God.” Everything, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added, that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money towards the publication of the “golden book,” the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin.  So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York, and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles.

Professor Charles Anthon

Professor Charles Anthon

On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.”  Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practised upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the “curse of God” would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the “curse of God” upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of rogues. He then left me.

I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics.

Yours respectfully,


Anthon’s version of events clearly has him declaring that the characters supposedly taken from Smith’s gold plates were, in his opinion “any thing else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.”  Anthon was also adamant that he could not decipher the “singular scrawl” that Harris handed to him. In addition he claimed that Harris carried with him a note by one Dr. Mitchell[95] who had sent Harris to Anthon with a request to “decypher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable to understand.” Harris also told Anton that he had received urgent solicitations for money  to have the contents of the gold plates (when they were translated) printed, which would “produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin.”

There was, declared Anthon, no translation furnished by Harris of the strange characters; still the latter informed the Professor that the person who had the plates in his possession also had discovered with them “an enormous pair of gold spectacles,” so large that when one tried to look through them their eyes were drawn to only one of the lenses. With these spectacles Harris informed Anthon, the person who had the gold plates “was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning.” The incredulous Anthon then asked Harris how the spectacles worked, and was told “by the gift of God.”

What Anthon initially thought was a “hoax upon the learned,” now became to him a “scheme to cheat the farmer of his money,” and so the Professor advised Harris to have the gold plates and the spectacles (which he was told were locked in a trunk) examined by a magistrate. Harris refused, claiming that the “curse of God’ would come down upon him if he did so; but Anthon pressed him about pursuing this course of action to which Harris agreed to comply with if the Professor took upon himself this “curse” that so frightened the superstitious Harris. Anthon agreed to do so, and Harris left him.

In 1842 the Times and Seasons published the following version of events taken from the 1839 History that Joseph Smith was still in the process of completing:

Mr. Harris was a resident of Palmyra Township Wayne county, in the State of New York, and a farmer of respectability; 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 of 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. Some time in this month of February the aforementioned, Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances as he related them to me after his return which was as follows. “I went to the city of New York and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof to Professor Anthony, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments; Professor Anthony stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldeac, Assyriac, and Arabac, and he said that they were true characters. He gave me a certificate certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving when Mr. Anthony called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.

He then said to me, let me see that certificate, I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him, he would translate them. I informed him that a part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them, he replied, `I cannot read a sealed book.’ I left him and went to Dr. Mitchel who sanctioned what Professor Anthony had said respecting both the characters and the translation.”[96]

Samuel H. Smith by grindael

Samuel H. Smith by grindael

Notice that in this account the person that Martin Harris visited in New York is called Professor Anthony, just as Orson Hyde and Samuel H. Smith named him in Boston in August, 1832.[97]

Months before this, Orson Pratt and Lyman E. Johnson, on a mission in Pennsylvania had repeated this error:

On Wednesday, the 8th of this month, two strangers called at my house and stated that they were sent by God to preach the gospel to every creature and said if a number should be convened they would deliver a discourse. On the question, what is your profession? they answered, the world call us Mormonites: this excited my curiosity, and at early candle light they commenced an address to the people convened. The substance for which I took down while they were speaking, and afterwards in conversation.

“We are commanded by the Lord to declare his will to effect his intended purpose. — In 1827 a young man called Joseph Smith of the state of New York, of no denomination, but under conviction, inquired of the Lord what he should do to be saved — he went to bed without any reply, but in the night was awakened by an angel, whiter and shining in greater splendour than the sun at noonday, who gave information where the plates were deposited: – Smith awoke, and after due preparation and agreeably to the information given by the angel, he went into the township of Manchester, and there, on the side of a hill, found in a stone box, or a separate space enclosed by stone on every side, the plates on which the revelation was inscribed. The box in thickness was about 6 inches, and about 7 by 5 otherwise; the plates themselves were about as thick as window glass, or common tin, pure gold, and well secured by silver rings or loops in the box as an effectual defence against all weather. Smith, being entirely ignorant of any language but the English, and knowing that itself in a very imperfect manner was unable to read or decypher a single word — he therefore sent the plates to the city of New York to be translated by Professor Anthony, who could make nothing of them; — here seemed to be an insurmountable difficulty.

It was supposed that the language of the plates was Arabic, Chaldean, and Egyptian; but God by his goodness inspired Smith himself to translate the whole. — Smith, however, not being qualified to write, employed an amanuensis, who wrote for him…[98]

The earliest newspaper account found thus far of the trip by Martin Harris to New York City, was published in the Palmyra Freeman on August 11, 1829, which claimed that,

Orson Pratt by grindael

Orson Pratt by grindael

So blindly enthusiastic was Harris, that he took some of the characters interpreted by Smith, and went in search of some one, besides the interpreter, who was learned enough to English them; but all to whom he applied (among the number was Professor Mitchell, of New York,) happened not to be possessed of sufficient knowledge to give satisfaction! Harris returned, and set Smith to work at interpreting the Bible.[99]

Both of the accounts above  have the respective men of learning not able to translate the characters. There is no mention of Professor Anthon (or Anthony) in the earlier account from the Palmyra Freeman, which only mentions Professor Mitchell [Mitchill] by name, though the article does say that he visited others besides Samuel L. Mitchill. William W. Phelps recalled that Harris went to New York City by way of Albany, the state capital. Pomeroy Tucker mentioned that “he sought . . . the interpretation and bibliological scrutiny of such scholars as Hon. Luther Bradish,[100] Dr. Mitchell, Professor Anthon, and others.”

In the very next issue of the Times and Seasons mentioned above there was published a letter written by G. Walker[101] from Manchester England, who happens to mention the Anthon incident:

After this another minister sent a lengthy article extracted from an American paper, purporting to be the production of a Mr. Anthony, with a request that I would “read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the same.” I replied to the statements of Mr. A. and after disposing of them paragraph for paragraph, I told him that I was obliged by his favoring me with it, inasmuch as it satisfied my mind, and was confirmatory of the prediction of Isaiah being fulfilled, seeing that Mr. A. admitted that “the words of the book were delivered to the learned &c. I then proceeded to contrast the Church of England with the churches established by the Apostles; but he has not acknowledged the receipt of my letter as yet.[102]

It is interesting that this scenario happens to appear in a letter sent from England (dated January 26, 1842) at the same time that the events involving Charles Anthon are printed in the Times and Seasons , and it appears in the next issue after that installment, and claims to dispose of Anthon’s arguments “paragraph by paragraph”.  “G. Walker” also happens to misspell Anthon’s name in the exact same way that Joseph does in his History, which was edited by Joseph, as was that issue of the Times and Seasons.[103]

A few things struck me as odd in this account. First, that G. Walker claimed that he had been sent Anthon’s letter to the Reverend T. W. Coit by someone who had clipped it out of an American newspaper. As far as I am aware, this letter never appeared in any newspaper articles from the period, as B.H. Roberts attested to in 1909:

I copy the [1841] letter from “Gleanings by the Way,” by Rev. John A. Clark, D. D., where Anthon’s letter is published in full. It is frequently quoted, or at least parts of it are, in various anti-Mormon works, but nowhere in full, so far as I am aware, except in Gleanings by the Way, never in full and in connection with Prof. Anthon’s letter to Mr. E. D. Howe. This doubtless, for the reason that this second letter of Profosser Anthon’s contradicts several statements that he makes in his letter to E. D. Howe.[104]

The letter from Anthon did however appear in two periodicals, one called The Church Record (Vol. I, no. 22), and the other was the Times and Seasons,  (Vol. 2, No. 22, September 15, 1841) which published only an excerpt from the letter. It also was published in 1842 in John A. Clark’s book Gleanings by the Way as mentioned by B. H. Roberts above. In all of these instances Anthon’s name is spelled correctly. The relevant portion from the Times and Seasons article published in 1841 reads:

The Episcopal D. D. at this place had the curiosity to write to Proff. C. Anthon of New York to know if our statement concerning the “words of the book” were correct: Proff. Anthon answered him by letter with permission to publish it, which he did. You will find it in a periodical entitled “The Church Record,” Vol; 1, No. 22. Although it was written with the avowed purpose of stoping [stopping] the progress of this gospel, yet I consider it to be a great acquisition to us in proving the Book of Mormon to be a genuine record, by comparing it with the researches of Humboldt, Raffinesque, Stephens and others. The following is a short extract from Proff. Anthon’s letter:

“Many years ago, the precise date I do not now recollect, a plain looking countryman called upon me with a letter from Dr. Samuel L. Mitchel, requesting me to examine, and give my opinion upon a certain paper, marked with various characters, which the Doctor confessed he could not decipher, and which the bearer of the note was very anxious to have explained. A very brief examination of the paper convinced me that it was a mere hoax, and a very clumsy one too. The characters were arranged in columns like the Chinese mode of writing, and presented the most singular medley that I ever beheld. Greek, Hebrew, and all sort of letters, more or less distorted, either through unskilfullness or from actual designs, were intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican Zodiac.”

American Antiquities (1835)   p. 122

American Antiquities (1835) p. 122

I suppose that Proff. Anthon considered that this would be an incontrovertable argument against the Book of Mormon; but let us see: The celebrated antiquarian Proff. Rafinesque says, in speaking of the writing found on the ruins of the stone city found in Mexico, “The glyphs of Otolum are written from top to bottom like the Chinese, or from side to side, indifferntly [indifferently] like the Egyptian and the Demotic Libian.-Although the most common way of writing the groubs [groups] is in rows and each groub [group] seperated [separated], yet we find some framed, as it were in oblong squares, or tablets like those of Egypt.” American Antiquities page 127. Also on page 122 of the same work, is a fac simile of American hieroglyphics found in Mexico.-They are arranged in columns, the 1st column consists of four “Delineations of half moons,” the 2nd of three suns, the 3rd of the letter I and the human scabula, the 4th of one R and two O’s, the 5th column consists of 2 hands, the 6th of a triangle and two squares, the 7th of 2 fishes, the 8th of an S and a quill, the 9th consists of the letter N and blaze of fire, &c., &c.

Now let us look for a few moments at facts as they are. A plain looking man came to Proff. Anthon with a paper containing various delineations of half moons, and other natural objects, interspersed with various sorts of letters, and these characters of letters were inscribed on the paper by a young man who was without means of information, with regard to the researches of antiquarians; and this was done sometime previous to the year 1831. And in the year 1838 (the date of the book of Antiquities in my possession,) a book is published containing a fac simile of American glyphs which consists of “visions, delineations of half moons, and other natural objects interspersed with various sorts of letters.”-I leave your readers to draw their own conclusion.[105]

Why would G. Walker spell Anthon’s name with the same spelling that appears in the 1839 History? Why would Anthon’s name be misspelled at all in that History, since the correct spelling had appeared in the Times and Seasons just a year earlier? Did that spelling come from Martin Harris, since Joseph claimed to be quoting him directly in that History? There is evidence that it probably did not. For example, in his 1831 Diary James Gordon Bennett  writes:

C[harles]. Butler saw [Martin]Harris — they wanted to borrow money to print the Book — he told him he carried the engravings from the plates to New York–showed them to Professor Anthon who said that he did not know what language they were — told him to carry them to Dr. Mitchell — Doctor Mitchell examined them — and compared them with other hieroglyphics — thought them very curious — and they were the characters of a nation now extinct which he named — Harris returned to Anthon who put some questions to him and got angry with Harris [106]

Charles Butler, Courtesy of The New York Historical Society

Charles Butler, Courtesy of The New York Historical Society

Harris gives Butler the name Anthon in 1831, not Anthony, so “Anthony” likely did not come from Harris; but perhaps from Joseph himself, which reference was picked up by missionaries and repeated in the early 1830’s. Harris tells Butler that Anthon stated “he did not know what language they were,” which contradicts Joseph’s version, and  later versions of Harris himself,[107] which state that Anthon claimed the translation was “correct” and that the characters were “genuine”.

It is likely then,  that Joseph was not using an account written by Martin Harris for his 1839 Official History, and either relied upon his memory or purposefully changed Harris’ original account.

Butler also claimed that Martin Harris told him that he returned to Anthon a second time after being directed to visit Dr. Samuel L. Mitchill, and this might account for the contradictions in Anthon’s second account of these events, which was written in 1842:

Rev. and Dear Sir,-I have often heard that the Mormons claimed me for an auxiliary, but, as no one, until the present time, has ever requested from me any statement in writing, I have not deemed it worth while to say anything publicly on the subject. What I do know of the sect, relates to some of their early movements; and as the facts may amuse you, while they will furnish a satisfactory answer to the charge of my being a Mormon proselyte, I proceed to lay them before you in detail.

Many years ago, the precise date I do not now recollect, a plain looking countryman called upon me with a letter from Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell, requesting me to examine, and give my opinion upon, a certain paper, marked with various characters which the Doctor confessed he could not decypher, and which the bearer of the note was very anxious to have explained. A very brief examination of the paper convinced me that it was a mere hoax, and a very clumsy one too. The characters were arranged in columns, like the Chinese mode of writing, and presented the most singular medley that I had ever beheld. Greek, Hebrew, and all sorts of letters, more or less distorted, either through unskilfulness or from actual design, were intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac. The conclusion was irresistible, that some cunning fellow had prepared the paper in question, for the purpose of imposing upon the countryman who brought it, and I told the man so without any hesitation. He then proceeded to give me the history of the whole affair, which convinced me that he had fallen into the hands of some sharper, while it left me in great astonishment at his own simplicity.

Samuel Latham Mitchill

Samuel L. Mitchill

The countryman told me, that a gold book had recently been dug up in the western of [or] northern part (I forget which,) of our State, and he described this book as consisting of many gold plates, like leaves, secured by a gold wire passing through the edge of each, just as the leaves of a book are sewed together, and presenting in this way the appearance of a volume. Each plate, according to him, was inscribed with unknown characters, and the paper which he had handed me, was, as he assured me, a transcript of one of these pages. On my asking him by whom the copy was made, he gravely stated, that along with the golden book there had been dug up a very large pair of spectacles! so large in fact, that if a man were to hold them in front of his face, his two eyes would merely look through one of the glasses, and the remaining part of the spectacles would project a considerable distance sideways! These spectacles possessed, it seems, the very valuable property, of enabling any one who looked through them, (or rather through one of the lenses,) not only to decypher the characters on the plates, but also to comprehend their exact meaning, and to be able to translate them! My informant assured me, that this curious property of the spectacles had been placed in the garret of a farm-house, with a curtain before him, and, having fastened the spectacles to his head, had read several pages in the golden book, and communicated their contents in writing to certain persons stationed on the outside of the curtain. He had also copied off one page of the book in the original character, which he had in like manner handed over to those who were separated from him by the curtain, and this copy was the paper which the countryman had brought with him. As the golden book was said to contain very great truths, and most important revelations of religious nature, a strong desire had been expressed by several persons in the countryman’s neighbourhood, to have the whole work translated and published. A proposition had accordingly been made to my informant, to sell his farm and apply the proceeds to the printing of the golden book, and the golden plates were to be left with him as security until he should be reimbursed by the sale of the work. To convince him the more clearly that there was no risk, whatever in the matter, and that the work was actually what it claimed to be, he was told to take the paper, which purported to be a copy of one of the pages of the book, to the city of New York, and submit it to the learned in that quarter, who would soon dispel all his doubts, and satisfy him as to the perfect safety of the investment. As Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell was our “Magnus Apollo” in those days, the man called first upon him; but the Doctor, evidently suspecting some trick, declined giving any opinion about the matter, and sent the coutnryman down to the college, to see, in all probability, what the “learned pundits” in that place would make of the affair. On my telling the bearer of the paper that an attempt had been made to impose upon him, and defraud him of his property, he requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without any hesitation, partly for the man’s sake, and partly to let the individual “behind the curtain” see that his trick was discovered. The import of what I wrote was, as far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetic characters, and had in my opinion no meaning at all connected with them. The coutnryman then took his leave, with many thanks, and with the express declaration that he would in no shape part with his farm or embark in the speculation of printing the golden book.

The matter rested here for a considerable time, until one day, when I had ceased entirely to think of the countryman and his paper, this same individual, to my great surprise, paid me a second visit. He now brought with him a duodecimo volume, which he said was a translation into English of the “Golden Bible.” He also stated, that, notwithstanding his original determination, he had been induced eventually to sell his farm, and apply the money to the publication of the book, and had received the golden plates as a security for repayment. He begged my acceptance of the volume, assuring me that it would be found extremely interesting, and that it was already “making a great noise” in the upper part of the State. Suspecting, now, that some serious trick was on foot, and that my plain-looking visitor might be in fact a very cunning fellow, I declined his present, and merely contented myself with a slight examination of the volume which he stood by. The more I declined receiving it, however, the more urgent the man became in offering the book, until at last I told him plainly, that if he left the volume, as he said he intended to do, I should most assuredly throw it after him as he departed. I then asked him how he could be so foolish as to sell his farm and engage in this affair; and requested him to tell me if the plates were really of gold. In answer to this latter enquiry, he said, that he had never seen the plates themselves, which were carefully locked up in a trunk, but that he had the trunk in his possession. I advised him by all means to open the trunk and examine its contents, and if the plates proved to be of gold, which I did not believe at all, to sell them immediately. His reply was, that if he opened the trunk the “curse of Heaven would descened upon him and his children.” “However,” added he, “I will agree to open it, provided you will take the ‘curse of Heaven’ upon yourself, for having advised me to the step.” I told him I was perfectly willing to do so, and begged him to hasten home and examine the trunk, for he would find he had been cheated. He promised to do as I recommended, and left me taking his book with him. I have never seen him since.

Such is a plain statement of all that I know respecting the Mormons. My impression now is, that the plain-looking countryman was none other than the prophet Smith himself, who assumed an appearance of greater simplicity in order to entrap me, if possible, into some recommendation of his book. That the prophet aided me, by his inspiration, in interpreting the volume, is only one of the many amusing falsehoods which the Mormonites utter relative to my participation in their doctrines. Of these doctrines I know nothing whatever, nor have I ever heard a single discourse from any one of their preachers, although I have often felt a strong curiosity to become an auditor, since my friends tell me that they frequently name me in their sermons, and even go so far as to say that I am alluded to in the prophecies of Scripture!

If what I have here written shall prove of any service in opening the eyes of some of their deluded followers to the real designs of those who profess to be apostles of Mormonism, it will afford me a satisfaction equalled, I have no doubt, only by that which you yourself will fell on this subject.

I remain very respectfully and truly,

Your friend,


Concerning the two letters by Anthon and their supposed contradictions, Mormon Historian Stanley B. Kimball writes,

Much has been made of the fact, however, that these two letters, which are very critical of the Mormons, insist that “the paper contained anything else but Egyptian Hieroglyphics,” and they are widely quoted by anti-Mormon writers.  Why should Harris’ story be accepted above that of the professor?  One good reason is that the two letters contain glaring inconsistencies.[109]

One of those “glaring inconsistencies” is that in the second letter to Reverend  Coit, Professor Anthon claims that Martin Harris “requested me to give him my opinion in writing” which Anthon did “without hesitation”; while in the first letter to Eber D. Howe he wrote that he refused to give Harris his opinion in writing.

I believe that Harris spoke to Anthon not two but three times and became confused about what happened during each visit when he recounted them seven and thirteen years later.  Charles Butler reported to James Gordon Bennett in 1831 that Harris came to him because “they wanted to borrow money to print the Book”.[110]

Butler then told Bennett that Harris had told him (this was before the Book of Mormon was printed) that “he carried the engravings from the plates to New York” and “showed them to Professor Anthon” who told Harris that “he did not know what language they were”.  Anthon then tells Harris “to carry them to Dr. Mitchell” who “examined them and compared them with other hieroglyphics”, and then told Harris he “thought them very curious” and that “they were the characters of a nation now extinct which he named.” After his visit with Mitchill according to what Harris told Butler, “he returned to Anthon who put some questions to him and got angry”.

James Gordon Bennett

James Gordon Bennett

I believe that Anthon’s two accounts can be reconciled with this information. Harris first goes to see Anthon, who writes him an opinion and letter of introduction to Mitchill. Harris then visits Mitchill, who could not answer his questions satisfactorily and returns to Anthon, perhaps for a more favorable opinion, bolstered by what Mitchill told him. James Gordon Bennett’s expanded account reads,

They attempted to get the Book printed, but could not raise the means till Harris stept forward, and raised money on his farm for that purpose. Harris with several manuscripts in his pocket, went to the city of New York, and called upon one of the Professors of Columbia College for the purpose of shewing them to him. Harris says that the Professor thought them very curious, but admitted that he could not decypher them. Said he to Harris, “Mr. Harris you had better go to the celebrated Doct. Mitchell and shew them to him. He is very learned in these ancient languages, and I have no doubt will be able to give you some satisfaction.” “Where does he live,” asked Harris. He was told, and off he posted with the engravings from the Golden Plates to submit to Doc. Mitchell—Harris says that the Doctor received him very “purlitely,” looked at his engravings—made a learned dissertation on them—compared them with the hieroglyphics discovered by Champollion in Egypt—and set them down as the language of a people formerly in existence in the East, but now no more.[111]

Richard E. Bennett writes,

Four elements in Bennett’s account demand serious study. First, written in 1831, it is the earliest known record of Harris’ visit to New York City. Second, Bennett states that Anthon “did not know what language they were.” This we now understand is correct, since Anthon was a grammarian, a promising but youthful scholar who knew virtually nothing about Egyptian, reformed Egyptian, or whatever kind of writings or characters were on the “Anthon Transcript.” Third, the statement that Mitchill “compared” the transcript that Harris brought him with “other hieroglyphics” conforms to what we now know of Mitchill. He not only had many such writings on hand in his cabinets of antiquities, but he had also translated ancient writings for others. Whether he tried to translate Harris’ characters on the spot is not known, but he certainly seems to have studied them carefully enough to deliver a “learned dissertation” on them and to identify them as those of “a nation now extinct which he named.” Finally, and almost certainly, he saw in these characters additional evidence for his own richly developed theories on the extinct “delicate” Australasian race that had been destroyed by the more ferocious Tartars somewhere in upstate New York not far from where Harris lived in Palmyra.[112]

It may be that Anthon tore up not his own opinion, but that of Mitchill, because it would have perhaps lent weight to what he clearly thought was a hoax. Anthon may have then wrote Harris an opinion, which Harris didn’t keep for obvious reasons.  Richard E. Bennett also writes that

“The discrepancies in his two accounts may be best explained, however, by a faulty memory.[113]

Joseph Smith 1839 History with Professor "Anthony"

Joseph Smith 1839 History with Professor “Anthony”

Of course, this scenario would only work if Martin Harris’ account to Charles Butler was an accurate rendering of events.  If Dr. Mitchill was so positive in his views about the characters, why is there virtually nothing said about him by Martin Harris? Perhaps because Joseph had sent Martin Harris to New York with the expectation that the scholars would fail? In the first account written by Charles Anthon in 1834, he mentions that Harris told him that Joseph “was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning.”  By all accounts it is clear that Harris had convinced himself of Joseph’s spiritual bone fides, but still had lingering doubts about whether or not he could “make money” from the venture, and that it was not the former’s idea to seek out the learned, but Joseph’s.[114]

According to Robert N. Hullinger,

An important clue as to who was controlling events might be seen in Harris’s mood on his return. His enthusiasm to publish the book seems strange in view of what he had learned, that the scholars could not translate the transcript characters. In fact, Harris was even more convinced of Smith’s divine commission after his visit with the eastern sages. John Clark reported that Harris was willing to “take of the spoiling of his goods … though it consumed all his worldly substance” to help Smith publish the book, because Harris thought it was “the work of the Lord.”

If Harris had gone expecting the scholars to confirm the authenticity of the transcript, if his only model had been the one often replayed in contemporary newspapers—taking a new find to scholars for explanation and clarification—then he would have returned disappointed. Luther Bradish told Harris that there was not enough “to make anything out.” Anthon told him that the transcript was a “trick, perhaps a hoax,” that it was “part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money” that “some cunning fellow had prepared the paper in question, for the purpose of imposing” upon him. When Harris returned to Palmyra he told Clark that Anthon could not pinpoint the language of the characters.

But these results did not discourage Martin Harris. On the contrary, according to Clark, “Martin had now become a perfect believer. He said he had no more doubt of Smith’s commission, than of the divine commission of the apostles. The very fact that Smith was an obscure and illiterate man, showed that he must be acting under divine impulses. It was in vain I endeavoured to expostulate. I was an unbeliever, and could not see afar off.” Clark added, “My intimations … in reference to the possible imposition that was being practiced upon him … were indignantly repelled.”

Given Harris’s joy at scholarly ignorance and disregard of their warnings, one can only conjecture that Harris had been prepared for such reactions. Smith must have forewarned Harris that the scholars’ failure would be a sign that Smith’s story was true. Harris said that he did not know that he was fulfilling Isaiah 29 until he returned from the consultation. Anthony Metcalf asked him in 1873 if he had known about the passage, and Harris replied that “Joseph Smith had shown that chapter to him after his return.” Smith apparently had told him—and he believed—”that Smith was to prepare the way for the conversion of the world to a new system of faith, by transcribing the characters from the plates and giving translations of the same.”  But after the fact Harris explained the scholars’ failure to translate the characters with a paradox: since the scholars failed, Smith must be right.[115]

Times & Seasons History of Joseph Smith with Professor  "Anthony"

Times & Seasons History of Joseph Smith with Professor “Anthony”

Harris seems to have been sent on an errand whose outcome made little difference to him. And why would it really matter, when Harris himself stated that he had already received a witness from the “still small voice” that Joseph was acting on orders from above?

As Palmyra native Pomeroy Tucker noted in his book on Mormonism,

Harris, nevertheless, stood firm in his position, regarding these untoward results merely as “proving the lack of wisdom” on the part of the rejecters, and also as illustrating the truth of his favorite quotation, that “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.” This was always his self-convincing argument in reply to similar adversity…[116]  

In his evaluation of the evidence about the Harris visit to New York in 1969, Stanley Kimball asked these questions that still seem to have no real answer:

What was the meaning and significance of the event?  Would the Restoration have been significantly altered in any way if the Harris-Anthon incident had never taken place? [117]

Yet Kimball still made an effort to do so:

The standard answer regarding the why and purpose of the Harris-Anthon incident is that it was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah and Nephi.  Such an answer, however, is really begging the question, for then one must ask why the prophecies were made in the first place.  It could be argued that the prophecies represent nothing more than the fact that God rewarded two faithful servants with a glimpse of the future, and that these two men dared not leave unrecorded such a vision. [118]

It could also be argued (as Robert Hullinger did) that,

Smith fleshed out Isaiah 29:11-12 with his interpretation of the Harris-Anthon consultation. The biblical scenario dictated that Smith (“him that is not learned”) would read what Anthon (“one that is learned”) could not—namely, the transcribed characters (“the words of a book that is sealed ). The issue of time was important: the “sealed” book could not be translated before it was presented to the “learned.” Smith had been talking about these conditions since his marriage to Emma in January 1827. In his 1832 draft Smith told of the consultation, the scholars’ failure, Harris’s return and request that Smith translate the characters, and his reply to Harris: “I cannot for I am not learned.” Smith went on to tell of translating the characters with the aid of the glasses and then commented: “and thus the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled which is written in the 29 chapter concerning the book.” This evidence that Smith was fulfilling prophecy is strengthened by the Cowdery account three years later, where emphasis is placed on appropriate procedure: first the scholars had to see the characters and then the translating could begin.

Soon after the translation work, the identity of what Charles Anthon could not read was changed in the Book of Mormon account; instead of the transcript characters he held during the consultation with Harris, the Book of Mormon account identifies the plates as that which he was not allowed to see. After that, changes in the story Joseph Smith first told in 1828 about the Anthon  consultation can be seen to fall into several stages. Originally (1) Harris visited the scholars, found that they could not translate the characters, and went home. Later, possibly as early as the summer of 1829, (2) Harris visited the scholars and found they could authenticate but not translate the characters. Then, in late 1830 or early 1831, (3) Harris visited the scholars and found that they could identify and translate the characters. Finally, in 1838 the story had evolved to the point that (4) Harris visited the scholars, found that they could authenticate the characters, identify the language, and verify Smith’s sample translation. Harris received Anthon’s certificate to the Palmyrans and then saw Anthon tear it up. Also, the account expanded talk about reformed Egyptian characters to a discussion of the Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic alphabets. [119]

It appears that it was Smith rewarding himself with a glimpse of a future already seen which he then retrofitted into the Book of Mormon (and his forthcoming New Translation of the Bible), taking advantage of the loss of the Book of Lehi to do so. [120]  

Robert J. Matthews writes that when Joseph later reedited the Bible,

Joseph himself called his work a “translation.” This is apparently the sense in which he understood the work he was doing with the Bible. Since in part he was effecting a restoration of lost meaning and material, and since the Bible did not originate in English, his work to some degree would amount to an inspired, or revelatory, “translation” into English of that which the ancient prophets and apostles had written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and/or Greek.[121]

Times & Seasons, Letter from G. Walker

Times & Seasons, Letter from G. Walker

In a rather novel approach to the problem of Joseph’s retrofit of the reworked Isaiah 29 prophecy in the Book of Mormon and Joseph’s “New Translation”, Robert Cloward writes:

Isaiah foresaw both the fate and the future restoration of Jerusalem and her people. Nephi … likened Isaiah’s words to his people in a new prophecy, showing how Nephite writings would advance the Lord’s work in the latter days. Book of Mormon prophets perpetuated Nephi’s likening among their people until the time of Moroni.  Then, the Savior and the resurrected Moroni taught the significance of Nephi’s likening for this dispensation to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith, in turn, replaced Isaiah’s words in his inspired translation of the Bible with his new understanding of how they had been likened to him and to the Lord’s latter-day work.

In this process, Isaiah’s sealed book was reinterpreted as Nephi’s gold plates and as Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon. Isaiah’s dust of death was reinterpreted as Nephi’s source of renewed life and as Joseph Smith’s Cumorah. Isaiah’s “learned” and “not learned” both denied access to spiritual vision, became Nephi’s future translator, Joseph the seer, and his foil, Professor Charles Anthon. This is the process of likening. Prophets do it readily. Students of the scriptures are urged to liken as well. When readers in any era are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, there is no impropriety in their giving old scripture new meaning for their lives. As readers do this, the Lord can reveal new truths to them and enlarge their understanding.[122]

Cloward would have us believe that when Joseph restored Isaiah 29, he simply “likened” it to “our dispensation” instead of what W. W. Phelps (a close friend and confidant of Joseph’s who was authorized by him to set forth doctrine)[123] described in 1832:

As to the errors in the bible, any man possessed of common understanding, knows, that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contradictions, which must be the work of men. As the church of Christ will soon have the scriptures, in their original purity it may not be amiss for us to show a few of the gross errors, or, as they might be termed, contradictions.[124]

Isaiah 29 in its “original purity” would not necessarily be a “likened” or reworked Isaiah 29, according to what Robert J. Matthews writes,

Opinions vary among those who have considered the nature of the New Translation. Some feel that it is a restoration of material lost from the Bible as a result of transmission through the centuries. This position requires a belief that direct revelation and inspiration played major roles in the Prophet’s work of Bible translation. In connection therewith is a concept that during the translation process the Prophet himself received a knowledge of what should be written in the text.

 Others regard the New Translation primarily as an effort by the Prophet to render the biblical text more acceptable to his particular theology. This premise generally minimizes the need for direct and immediate revelation and carries the thought that changes were more or less incorporated into the biblical text so as to produce the desired effect. This position presupposes that the Prophet had determined beforehand what changes needed to be made. Associated with this view is a tendency to regard the changes more as commentary material than as actual restorations. This position naturally has difficulty accommodating an idea that the work should be called a translation.[125]

Yet Cloward insists that,

The replacement of Isaiah 29:8-24 with 2 Nephi 27:3b-35 in the JST could fit the third of the four categories Robert J Matthews proposes for types of changes in the JST. He describes the third category as follows:

“Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a latter day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by ‘likening’ the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance” (Matthews, “A Plainer Translation,” 253). In the case of the JST Isaiah 29, the replacement process itself, in addition to the chapter content, was commentary.[126]

The full Matthews quote reads,

“To regard the New Translation [JST] as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text. It seems probable that the New Translation could be many things. For example, the nature of the work may fall into at least four categories:

1. Portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors but since deleted from the Bible.

2. Portions may consist of a record of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection.

3. Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a latter-day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by ‘likening’ the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance. (See 1 Nephi 19:23-24; 2 Nephi 11:8)

4. Some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith independent of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that a biblical passage was inaccurate.

The most fundamental question seems to be whether or not one is disposed to accept the New Translation as a divinely inspired document. Once this has been decided upon, it seems unlikely that any of us could determine with unerring accuracy which parts were of a particular category. Unless one has the same spiritual insight that Joseph Smith possessed, it would be futile to attempt such a categorization. The Prophet said he was inspired of God to do this work. Just what type of material that inspiration caused Joseph Smith to produce is not entirely clear. As outlined above, there are evidences in the style and content of several different types of material, but at the present time we just do not have the information or the requisite tools (ancient manuscripts, specific revelation, and the like) to obtain the information needed to establish empirically what parts are restoration, what parts commentary, and what parts simply the result of good judgment. In the absence of these things it would be premature to attempt to list specific items in particular categories. There is, however, sufficient evidence to show that Joseph Smith declared himself to be divinely inspired to make the translation and that he expected those who believed in his mission so to accept the work.[127]

Even Matthews, with his decades of study devoted to the JST, could not make the determination that Cloward makes so assuredly. It may be worth noting that the Official Church Manuel Gospel Principles states that,

Through the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord has expanded our understanding of some passages in the Bible. The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph to restore truths to the Bible text that had been lost or changed since the original words were written. These inspired corrections are called the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. In the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible, selected passages from the Joseph Smith Translation are found on pages 797–813 and in many footnotes.[128]

Further evidence that the New Translation was a restoration of lost or changed text is given by Matthews:

While doing the work of translation, the Prophet said he was given a particular wording of John 5:29. The wording, which “was given by the Spirit” (D&C 76:18), differs from that of the King James Version. Being given words by the Spirit meant that something extraordinary was associated with this translation, which supplied variant wordings independent of a supplementary manuscript. Since this was done with one passage, it is possible that it could have been done with many.

Another passage of scripture which bears upon this subject is the writing known as Doctrine and Covenants, section 7. This revelation, in English, is said to be “the translated version of a record made on parchment by John, and hidden up by himself” (D&C 7, prefatory note). John would have written in Aramaic, or perhaps in Greek. At that time in Joseph Smith’s life (1829), he could not read either of these languages. It might be asked whether the Prophet actually had the parchment that was written and hidden up by John, or even a copy of it. If so, how did he obtain it and what became of it? Currently we have no information with which to answer these questions. However, it would not be necessary for the Prophet to have or to see John’s parchment, or a copy of it, in order to get the information it contained. It was the content, more than the document, that was important. An even more significant question is, If he had the document, how could he read it? Had he been given the parchment, neither the Prophet nor his scribe, Oliver Cowdery, could have read it except through revelation. Would it not be possible for the Lord to reveal the contents to the Prophet as it would be to give him the parchment and then inspire him to be able to read it? Either case would be miraculous, and both would have the same end result: either could qualify (in substance) as a translation and as a restoration.

Another incident may shed further light upon the subject. In June 1830 the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith the “Visions of Moses,” a record of a manifestation once given to Moses. (See Moses 1:1, 42.) In this vision Moses was informed that designing men would take many things out of the book he (Moses) would write, but through another prophet the information would “be had again among the children of men,” at least “among as many as believe” (Moses 1:40-41). Today Moses’ writings are in the Old Testament, but we are thus warned that some of what he wrote is missing from present Bible versions. However, the new translation of Genesis appears to be a restoration of some of Moses’ writings-a restoration brought about through the use of the King James Version plus divine revelation, but without an ancient manuscript. If the Prophet could have recorded Moses’ writing and thus fulfilled the prophecy without actual possession of an ancient manuscript, he could have done the same with the records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and with other books of the Bible. The necessary ingredient for a prophet is not a manuscript, but a revelation.[129]

Matthews also observes that,

it is significant that the changes made by the Prophet Joseph in the New Translation contain numerous and lengthy additions. He made very few deletions. A restoration would be expected to follow the same pattern-that is, have more additions than deletions. While the foregoing items are not proof that the New Translation is a restoration of the original text, they are factors that must be considered in making a judgment in the matter.[130]

Given the evidence above, it is clear that Joseph Smith meant to restore the scriptures “in their original purity”,  as Ronald V. Huggins also concludes:

That Joseph Smith felt the KJV contained many errors and corruptions is well known. The kinds of modifications he made in Romans 7 lead us further to conclude that he understood such corruptions to consist primarily of things removed or left out. This observation confirms certain of Smith’s own statements from around the same time. In Joseph Smith’s History of the Church, prefacing a “revelation” dated 16 February 1832 (now D&C 76; 1835 ed., XCI), Smith reports: “Upon my return from the Amherst conference, I resumed the translation of the Scriptures. From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled” (italics added).

This remark provides insight into Smith’s approach to the Bible within at most only a few months of his “translation” of Romans 7.8 A similar statement occurs in a “revelation” dated June 1830 in which God tells Moses of a time when: “[T]he children of men shall esteem my words as nought, and take many of them from the book which thou shall write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee [i.e., Joseph Smith], and they shall be had again among the children of men . . .” (italics added; HC 1:245-52; Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:41 [1851 ed., 10]). The conservatism in handling the SCB [the Joseph Smith-Oliver Cowdery Bible] for Romans 7, then, in light of these statements, suggests that Joseph Smith did intend to restore the ancient text of the New Testament. He apparently felt this could be best accomplished by rearranging the words of the SCB, leaving out as little as possible, and then adding whatever seemed to be lacking.[131]

This conclusion presents problems for Mormon Apologists, since the Isaiah 29 passages quoted in The Book of Mormon differ from those “restored” in the New Translation of the Bible. This is why Cloward has gone at lengths to proclaim the changes in the New Translation as “commentary.”[132] These inexplicable contradictions by Joseph Smith in his “translations” and in his retelling of events were not limited to Smith alone. For instance, Martin Harris gave this scenario of events to Anthony Metcalf in 1873 concerning his visit to Charles Anthon:

Harris told me about his trip to New York and what Prof. Anthon told him. He (Anthon) said the characters were translated correctly. After Harris had told the professor how the plates had been found, the professor said that it was his opinion that he (Harris) was being duped by sharpers, and advised Harris to take care of himself. I asked him if he knew what the prophet Isaiah had said about that event. He said, “No,” but that Joseph Smith had shown that chapter to him after his return.[133]

In 1871 Harris wrote a letter to H. B. Emerson and stated that “the translation that I carried to Professor Anthon was copied from these same [gold] plates; also, that the professor did testify to it being a correct translation…[134]

In 1875, Simon Smith spoke with Martin Harris and wrote that the latter “by command, took part of the manuscript with the translation thereof to one Professor Anthon … to get his opinion in regard to the language and translation.”[135]

This directly contradicts what Harris told Charles Butler in 1830, for Harris told Butler that Anthon was unable to translate the characters.  Harris also contradicts Joseph, who originally wrote in 1832 that “the Lord” appeared to Martin “in a vision” and told him to take the characters to “the learned”. The whole “Anthon Affair” then, was a story that was reworked and refined to fit the needs of Joseph’s “restoration”:

Soon after the translation work, the identity of what Charles Anthon could not read was changed in the Book of Mormon account; instead of the transcript characters he held during the consultation with Harris, the Book of Mormon account identifies the plates as that which he was not allowed to see. After that, changes in the story Joseph Smith first told in 1828 about the Anthon [p.91] consultation can be seen to fall into several stages. Originally (1) Harris visited the scholars, found that they could not translate the characters, and went home. Later, possibly as early as the summer of 1829, (2) Harris visited the scholars and found they could authenticate but not translate the characters. Then, in late 1830 or early 1831, (3) Harris visited the scholars and found that they could identify and translate the characters. Finally, in 1838 the story had evolved to the point that (4) Harris visited the scholars, found that they could authenticate the characters, identify the language, and verify Smith’s sample translation. Harris received Anthon’s certificate to the Palmyrans and then saw Anthon tear it up. Also, the account expanded talk about reformed Egyptian characters to a discussion of the Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic alphabets.

In 1838 Smith stayed for a time with George and Lucinda Morgan Harris. Lucinda was the widow of William Morgan, whose 1826 disappearance was the immediate cause of the anti-Masonic excitement in New York. (Smith would later marry Lucinda polygamously.) William Morgan had received only the Royal Arch degree of Masonry, and in 1829 David Bernard had added the Royal Arch to his reprint of Morgan’s exposé of Masonry’s first three degrees, including the Royal Arch word for God, said to have been known to ancient Hebrews, lost during the Babylonian exile, and restored when the temple was rebuilt in Jerusalem. The holy word, JAH-BUH-LUN, was compounded from “three different languages, (i.e. Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac.)” Bernard had also added a secret alphabetical code, some letters of which correspond to characters on the Anthon Transcript.84 Bernard’s enormously popular book found its way into many Palmyra homes. By further identifying the characters as he did in 1838, Smith appealed to those with Masonic backgrounds.[136]

Martin Harris circa 1875

Martin Harris circa 1875

So what does this say about Martin Harris? Contemporary accounts give us some idea of the impact that Harris’ actions in regard to the gold plates had on his community. When it came to business matters, Harris was looked upon with favor as being trustworthy and honest; but when it came to religious matters, it was said that Harris was prone to exaggerate and change his story frequently. In 1831 E. B. Grandin wrote that ,

“Mr. Harris was among the early settlers of this town, and has ever borne the character of an honorable and upright man, and an obliging and benevolent neighbor. He had secured to himself by honest industry a respectable fortune–and he has left a large circle of acquaintances and friends to pity his delusion.”[137]

Stephen S. Harding, once Governor of Utah Territory was a native of Palmyra and later wrote an account of a visit that he made to the town in 1830 during which he visited with the Smith family, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris. About Martin Harris he wrote:

 The fact that such a man as Martin Harris should mortgage his farm for a large sum, to secure the publisher for printing the book, should abandon the cultivation of one of the best farms in the neighborhood, and change all his habits of life from industry to indolence and general shiftlessness, was truly phenomenal. He, at the same time, was the only man among all the primitive Mormons who was responsible in a pecuniary sense for a single dollar. Nevertheless, he had become absolutely infatuated, and believed that an immense fortune could be made out of the enterprise. The misfortune that attended Harris from that day did not consist in the loss of money merely, and the general breaking up of his business as a farmer; but the blight and ruin fell upon all his domestic relations — causing his separation from his wife and family forever. In early life he had been brought up a Quaker, then took to Methodism as more congenial to his nature. He was noted as one who could quote more Scripture than any man in the neighborhood; and as a general thing could give the chapter and verse where some important passage could be found. If one passage more than another seemed to be in his mind, it was this: ‘God has chosen the weak things of this world to confound the wise,’ His eccentricities and idiosyncrasies had been charitably passed over by all who knew him, until his separation from his wife and family, when he was looked upon as utterly infatuated and crazy. I had been acquainted with this man when a little boy, until my father emigrated from that neighborhood in 1820. He was intimately acquainted with my father’s family, and on several occasions had visited our house, in company with Mrs. Harris. None in all that neighborhood were more promising in their future prospects than they.[138]

About two weeks after speaking with what he called “a most remarkable quartette of persons”, (Joseph Smith Jr. & Sr., Oliver Cowdery & Martin Harris), at E. B. Grandin’s Printing Office, Harding again visited with Harris.

First Title Page of the Book of Mormon given to Stephen S. Harding by Orasmus Turner.

–Title Page of the Book of Mormon given to Stephen S. Harding by Pomeroy Tucker.

Previous to this visit Harding had been invited to the Smith cabin for dinner and a reading from the Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, where he spent the night.  Before retiring for the evening, Lucy Smith remarked to Harding that,

‘You’ll have visions and dreams, mebby, to-night; but don’t git skeered; the angel of the Lord will protect you.’[139]

Harding then recounts that the next day,

“After breakfast, in the morning, Mother Smith followed me as I arose from the table, and plied me with questions as to whether I had had dreams, and whether I had seen a vision that ‘skeered’ me. I told her I had a dream, but so strange that I could not tell it to her or any one else. The fact was communicated to Harris and the rest. All saw that I looked sober, and I determined to leave them in doubt and wonder.

“We started back to Palmyra, Cowdery bearing in his hand the sacred scroll [The Book of Mormon Manuscript]. Martin was exceedingly anxious that I should give him at least some glimpse of the strange things I had seen in my dream. I told him that was impossible, and I began to doubt whether I ought to tell it to any human being. They all became interested in my reply; and the prophet himself forgetting his taciturnity, said: ‘I can tell you what it was. I have felt just as you do. Wait, and the angel of the Lord will open your eyes.’ Here we parted, and I returned to the home of my brother.”[140]

When Harding saw Harris again (two weeks later) he related that,

He [Harris] was glad to see me; inquired how I felt since my dream. He told me that since he saw me at Mr. Smith’s, he had seen fearful signs in the heavens. That he was standing alone one night, and saw a fiery sword let down out of heaven, and pointing to the east, west, north, and south, then to the hill of Cumorah, where the plates of Nephi were found. At another time, he said, as he was passing with his wagon and horses from town, his horses suddenly stopped and would not budge an inch. When he plied them with his whip, they commenced snorting and pawing the earth as they had never done before. He then commenced smelling brimstone, and knew the Devil was in the road, and saw him plainly as he walked up the hill and disappeared. I said, ‘What did he look like?’

“He replied: ‘Stephen, I will give you the best description that I can. Imagine a greyhound as big as a horse, without any tail, walking upright on his hind legs.’

“I looked at him with perfect astonishment. ‘Now, Stephen,’ continued he, ‘do tell me your dream.’ I dropped my head and answered: ‘I am almost afraid to undertake it.’ He encouraged me, and said it was revealed to him that another vessel was to be chosen, and that Joseph had the gift of interpreting dreams the same as Daniel, who was cast into the lion’s den. I said, ‘Mr. Harris, after considering the matter, I conclude that I ought not to repeat my dreams to you, only on one condition: that you will pledge your honor not to tell it to any one.’ ‘Oh, do let me tell it to Joseph. He can tell all about what it means,’ ‘Well,’ said I, ‘What I mean is, you may tell it to whom you please, only you shall not connect my name with it,; ‘I’ll do it! I’ll do it!’ said he, hastily. ‘Joseph will be able to tell who it was, the same as if I told the name.'”

(Here the narrator proceeded to relate a wonderful dream that never was dreamed, during the course of which, he took occasion to describe some characters that had appeared to him on a scroll — presenting some of them with a pencil, a picture of stenographic characters and the Greek alphabet, rudely imitated. These were handed to Mr. Harris.)

“Speechless with amazement, he looked at them for a moment, and then springing to his feet, and turning his eyes toward heaven, with uplifted hands, cried out:

“‘O Lord, God! the very characters that are upon the plates of Nephi!’

“He looked again at the characters, and then at me, with perfect astonishment. His excitement was such that I became positively alarmed, for it seemed to me that he was going crazy. I began to have some compunctions of conscience for the fraud that I had practiced upon him; for I might as well say just here, as well as anywhere, that the dream had been improvised for the occasion. He suggested that we go to the house of old Man Smith and there relate my dream. I told him that I would never repeat it again to anybody. He bade me good-bye, saying: ‘You are a chosen vessel of the Lord.’

“There is but one excuse for my conduct on this occasion; that was, to fathom the depth of his credulity.[141]

As to the authenticity of the “Caracters”, Historian Dale Morgan wrote,

Accepting the authenticity of the “Anthon transcript,” a young Mormon attorney, Ariel L. Crowley, in four articles published in the Improvement Era, January to March 1942, and September 1944, attempted to establish by visual demonstration that the characters on the transcript not only derive from demotic Egyptian but that they make “connected thought.” Crowley’s researches having been received by the Saints as “evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon,” I have referred them to an Egyptian scholar, Carleton T. Hodge. Under date of April 21, 1949, Hodge wrote me:

I do not believe the transcript to be a copy, even a very rough copy, of a demotic manuscript. If  a demotic text was before Joseph Smith at the time the transcript was made, only random characters were copied (and that rather badly), with no continuity and interspersed with signs totally unrelated to demotic. My reasons for this are as follows:

The characters used in demotic are not readily isolated. A “word” or other unit of writing was a fairly closely knit group of signs, with many ligatures. The original hieroglyphs from which demotic writing developed appear in radically different forms according to their position in such a unit. So in order to have a demotic document or even a rough facsimile, a sequence of signs is necessary—a group forming a complete “word.” The “Anthon transcript” is almost totally devoid of any sequences which could be so interpreted and has no sequences whatsoever which could form a brief utterance or statement in demotic. The signs which are similar to demotic forms are isolated and hence without any significance. The similarities given in detail in the photographic reproductions [of actual demotic characters compared with characters from the “transcript”] are often forced and just as often parallels could be found in any number of scripts. (Compare David Diringer, The Alphabet [New York, 1948], passim.) Mr. Crowley himself points out some of the coincidental parallels with completely irrelevant scripts. Any parallels from Assyrian, Sabean, Arabic (Improvement Era, Feb. 1942, Figs. 110, 120, 132, etc., March, 1942, passim) are not only irrelevant but detrimental to the argument. Egyptian was at no time influenced by any of these scripts (with the possible exception of the so-called “syllabic orthography,” which has no bearing on the case). None of the similarities have any meaning without being in a meaningful sequence.

Gardiner’s Egyptian Grammar, frequently quoted by Mr. Crowley, has an excellent specimen of demotic with a hieroglyphic transcription. This gives one a good idea of how an actual text looks, and an attempt to connect similar hieroglyphs in the transcription with any particular sign in the demotic will readily show my point about the relation of signs in groups. Mr. Crowley himself admits defeat on the translation of the transcript and on the identification of many signs. Had there been any basis to the contention that this was a demotic document, I am sure his industry would have been rewarded.

Improvement Era February 1942, pages 78-79

Crowley’s comparisons in the Improvement Era

The Mormon appeal from this verdict would take the ground that the “Anthon Transcript” is a transcript from “reformed” rather than demotic Egyptian, and therefore not amenable to demotic criticism. This, however, returns the argument to where it was before—a private language interposed between Joseph Smith and the world of scholarship.[142]

The problem with Crowley’s comparisons is that they come from scripts spanning over a thousand years, some of them well after the period from which “reformed Egyptian” is supposed to date. There is, of course much more to be said about the possible origins of the Book of Mormon characters, but that is beyond the scope of this article. I will have more on this at a future time.

Today, the “Anthon Incident” is an integral part of Mormon doctrine which is still used to tout the supposed fulfillment of an Isaiah prophecy that in reality has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. Exactly when Joseph came up with the idea to use Isaiah as a selling point for his new scripture is unclear; but from the accounts presented above it is clear that Smith himself could not reproduce the details of events about the “Anthon Incident” with any prolonged coherence without embellishing them and contradicting his own–and others–version of events.

Still, a prediction of the Book of Mormon contained in the Bible had a powerful impact upon Martin Harris and the other chosen witnesses, and helped cement their belief that Joseph had brought forth “by the gift and power of God” a new revelation that in their minds would change the world.

Part III: Tracing the Various “Caractor” Documents, here.


[89] David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, pp.11-12.

[90] Robert A. Cloward, “Isaiah 29 and the Book of Mormon” in Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch [Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998], p. 191.  Online here (PDF), accessed, July 5, 2013.As far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, Cloward writes that it is not what Isaiah prophesied about in chapter 29:

“Isaiah lamented in Isaiah 29:11 that the vision of Jerusalem’s people had become as the words of a sealed book. No specific book is mentioned. Isaiah’s concern was the lost vision of his people, not books. His expression is symbolic—a simile, one of many similes and metaphors in Isaiah 29. Isaiah’s symbolic book is still sealed today. Jerusalem’s vision has not yet been opened. Her people that erred in spirit have not yet come to understanding, and they that murmured have not yet learned doctrine (see verse 24).

It was Nephi [Joseph Smith] who made Isaiah’s symbolic book into a literal book. Nephi likened the symbolic book in Isaiah’s simile to a literal, specific record the Lord had commanded him to write on gold plates. Nephi also foretold the  latter-day role of his record in restoring vision, understanding, and doctrine to the house of Israel.  (Cloward, pp. 200-201)

The Church still teaches that Isaiah 29 directly speaks of the Book of Mormon:

Sometimes people who are familiar with the Bible and are not members of the Church will ask us something like “If the Book of Mormon is such an important part of the work of God, why is it not mentioned in the Bible?” There are several answers to that question, and one of them is “It is!” Isaiah 29 is one place in the Bible where the Book of Mormon is referred to, even though it is not mentioned by name. As you read this chapter, look for prophecies of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the impact this book will have on the world. (Online here, at, accessed July 5, 2013.)

[91] Mormonism Unvailed, p. 273. When this work is cited, I often see the appellation [sic], or spelling incorrect after it. I’m pretty sure the Eber D. Howe did not misspell the word. It is simply an archaic rendering of the word, as in this example,

2 Corinthians 3:18 and we all, with unvailed face, the glory of the Lord beholding in a mirror, to the same image are being transformed, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (YLT)

Or the title of this book from the 18th Century: The Mystery of Magistracy Unvailed: Or, God’s Ordinance of Magistracy Unvailed,  By Robert Franklin, Edinburgh, England, 1708.

One archaic work cited by Howe was from Junius Juvenal’s Satire XV, as translated by John Dryden and Nahum Tate:

How Egypt, mad with Superstition grown,
Makes Gods of Monsters, but too well is known:
One Sect, Devotion to Nile’s Serpent pays;
Where, Thebes, thy Hundred Gates lie unrepair’d,
And where maim’d Memnon’s Magick Harp is heard,
Where These are Mouldring left, the Sots combine
With Pious Care a Monkey to Enshrine!
Fish-Gods you’ll meet with Fins and Scales o’re grown;
Diana’s Dogs ador’d in ev’ry Town,
Her Dogs have Temples, but the Goddess none!
‘Tis Mortal Sin an Onion to devour,
Each Clove of Garlick, is a Sacred Pow’r.
Religious Nations sure and Blest Abodes,
Where ev’ry Orchard is o’re-run with Gods.
To Kill, is Murder, Sacrilege to Eat
A Kid or Lamb,–Man’s Flesh is lawful Meat!Mormonism Unvailed Title Page

I rather like the spelling. It is unique among modern works, which I’m sure Eber D. Howe had in mind when he spelled it that way.

[92] Mormonism Unvailed, page 273.

[93] ibid, p. 269.

[94] ibid, pp. 270-273.

[95] For a well researched article about Luther Bradish, Samuel Latham Mitchill and Charles Anthon, see Richard E. Bennett’s “Read This I Pray Thee”: Martin Harris and the Three Wise Men of the East”, found in Journal of Mormon History 36, no. 1 (winter 2010): 178–216. Online here, accessed July 25, 2013.

[96] Times and Seasons, Vol.3, No.13, p.773, 2 May 1842. Wilford Woodruff speaks of a George Walker from Manchester England in his Journal from 1840:

July 8: Moved & Carried that Elders Thomas Kington, Alfred Cordon, & Thomas Smith be ordained High Priest And John Albiston, John Blezard, William Berry, John Sanders, John Parkinson, James Worsley, & John Allen be ordained Elders & Joseph Slinger George Walker John Smith Robert Williams, William Black John Melling & John Swindlehurst be ordained Priest. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 1, 1833–1840, p.481).

On October 6, 1840 Woodruff writes that

“Elder George Walker was Chosen Clerk” of the General Conference. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 1, 1833–1840, p.526).

[97] Boston Investigator, op. cited.

[98] Catholic Telegraph 1 (April 14, 1832):204-205, Cincinnati, Ohio. Reprinted from The Western Press, Mercer, Pennsylvania. I am again indebted to H. Michael Marquardt for these references, who writes:

Lyman and Orson started their mission on 3 February 1832 and traveled to Mercer County, Pennsylvania on 8 February and stopped at the home of Benjamin Stokely in Cool Spring Township. The missionaries then preached at the courthouse in Franklin, Venango County, northeast of Mercer County, on Saturday, 11 February.

The discovery of the article below sheds some light on another find of Marquardt’s in 2000, the above article mentioned by him in the Fredonia Censor, which reported on the preaching that took place on February 11. It reads:

We of this place were visited on Saturday last by a couple of young men styling themselves Mormonites. They explained their doctrine to a large part of the citizens in the court house that evening. They commenced by reading the first chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: also by giving an account of their founder, Joseph Smith, then an inhabitant of the state of New-York, county of Ontario, and town of Manchester. Having repented of his sins, but not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse prayer. After retiring to bed one night, he was visited by an Angel and directed to proceed to a hill in the neighborhood where he would find a stone box containing a quantity of Gold plates. The plates were six or eight inches square, and as many of them as would make them six or eight inches thick, each as thick as a pane of glass. They were filled with characters which the learned of that state were not able to translate. A Mr. Anthony, a professor of one of the colleges, found them to contain something like the Cyrian Chaldena or Hebrew characters. However, Smith with divine aid, was able to translate the plates, and from them we have the Mormon bible, or as they stated it, another Revelation to part of the house of Joseph. The Revelation commenced about 600 years before Christ, with a prophet of the name of Lehi, of the tribe of Joseph, and a contemporary of the prophet Jeremiah, who had also warned the inhabitants of Jerusalem of their idolatry, & becoming unsafe in the city, was ordered by God to leave Jerusalem and journey toward the Red Sea. He with another family who accompanied him, built themselves a ship and landed on the coast of South America, where they increased very fast, and the Lord raised up a great many prophets among them. They built cities, and encouraged the arts and sciences.– Their prophecies foretold the appearance of the Messiah on the other continent, and gave as a sign that they should have two days without a night–also of his death, which was the cause of the terrible earthquakes, which rent all the rocks in our hills into the different shapes they now are. After our Savior’s ascension to heaven, that he came down to this continent and appointed twelve disciples, and that Christianity flourished for three or four generations.– After that the inhabitants divided and wars ensued, in which the pagans prevailed.– The first battle was fought nigh to the straits of Darien, and the last at a hill called Comoro, when all the Christians were hewn down but one prophet. * He was directed to hide the plates in the earth, and it was intimated to him that they would be found by a gentile people. The last entry on the plates is 420 years after the commencement of the Christian era. The whole history contains their account of 1020 years. The balance of their discourse was on repentance, and quotations from our prophets to prove their doctrine, and the return of the Jews to Palestine, which was to be done by the gentile nations, accompanied with power from above, far superior to that which brought their fathers out of Egypt. They insisted that our Savior would shortly appear, and that there were some present who would see him on the earth–that they knew it–that they were not deceiving their hearers; that it was all true. They had one of their bibles with them, which was seen by some of our citizens who visited them.

Mr. Editor — I have compiled the foregoing from memory. If you think it worth publishing, it will probably give some outline of the doctrine of this new sect.


* This prophet they say was Mormon. (The Fredonia Censor 11 (March 7, 1832):[4], Fredonia, New York. Reprinted from the Franklin Venango Democrat).

Taken together, these two articles give context to what the writer meant by “recourse prayer”.  As the article from April recounts, the Missionaries state that,

In 1827 a young man called Joseph Smith of the state of New York, of no denomination, but under conviction, inquired of the Lord what he should do to be saved — he went to bed without any reply, but in the night was awakened by an angel, whiter and shining in greater splendour than the sun at noonday, who gave information where the plates were deposited…

This of course, is recounting the events that supposedly took place in 1823, not in 1821 or 1822, as Joseph recounted in his Summer 1832 History, and is not as some suppose, a reference to that claimed 1820-22 vision.

Also, in this sermon they refer to Charles Anthon as “Professor Anthony” and add that he (in addition to Arabic, Chaldean and Egyptian) identified Hebrew Characters in the document that Martin Harris presented to him.

[98] Catholic Telegraph 1 (April 14, 1832):204-205, Cincinnati, Ohio. Reprinted from The Western Press, Mercer, Pennsylvania.

[99] The Palymra Freeman, August 11, 1829.   Online here, accessed July 25, 2013.

[100] See note #95.

[101] See note #96.

[102]Times and Seasons, Vol.3, No.14, p. 787.

[103] On February 19, 1842, Wilford Woodruff recorded,

Truly the Lord has raised up Joseph the Seer of the seed of Abraham out of the loins of ancient Joseph, & is now clothing him with mighty power & wisdom & knowledge which is more clearly manifest & felt in the midst of his intimate friends than any other class of mankind. The Lord is Blessing Joseph with Power to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of God; to translate through the urim & Thummim Ancient records & Hyeroglyphics as old as Abraham or Adam, which causes our hearts to burn within us while we behold their glorious truths opened unto us.

Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God. Joseph has had these records in his possession for several years but has never presented them before the world in the english language untill now.

But he is now about to publish it to the world or parts of it by publishing it in the Times & Seasons, for Joseph the Seer is now the Editor of that paper & Elder Taylor assists him in writing while it has fallen to my lot to take charge of the Business part of the esstablishment.

I have had the privilege this day of assisting in setting the TIPE for printing the first peace of the B00K OF ABRAHAM that is to be presented to the inhabitants of the EARTH in the LAST DAYS.

My Soul has been much edifyed of late from time to time in hearing Joseph the Seer convers about the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. Truly GOD is with him & is making him mighty in wisdom & knowledge & I am convinced for myself that none of the Prophets Seers or Revelators of the Earth have ever accomplished a greater work than will be accomplished in the Last days through the mercy of God By JOSEPH THE SEER. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal,  Vol. 2, 1841–1845, p.155, Capital Words in the original, bold emphasis mine).

[104] B.H. Roberts, “History of the Mormon Church”, Americana, (American Historical Magazine), Vol. IV,  January, 1909—December, 1909, page 786 (Note 7).

[105] Letter from Cha[rle]s. W. Wandel , Times and Seasons, Vol. 2, No. 22, September 15, 1841, pp. 544-545).

[106] James Gordon Bennett Diary, August 7, 1831.

[107] For an excellent treatment of Martin Harris see H. Michael Marquardt’s “Martin Harris The Kirtland Years, 1831-1870”, found in Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 9-49. Online here, accessed July 25, 2013.

[108] Dan Vogel,  Early Mormon Documents Vol. 4, pp. 382-83.

[109] Stanley B. Kimball, The Anthon Transcript: People, Primary Sources, and Problems, BYU Studies 10 (Spring 1970): pp. 338-339. PDF Online here, accessed July 25, 2013.

[110] J.G. Bennett, diary, August 7, 1831.

[111] Morning Courier and New-York Enquirer, Thursday, September 1, 1831, Vol. VII, No. 563. Online here, accessed July 25, 2013.

[112] Richard E. Bennett, “Read This I Pray Thee”: Martin Harris and the Three Wise Men of the East”, Journal of Mormon History 36, no. 1, Winter 2010, pp. 215-216. Online here, accessed July 25, 2013.

[113] ibid, p. 194.

[114] As to whose idea it was to seek out the learned, see Part I of this article. About making money off of the Book of Mormon, Lucy Harris wrote:

Palmyra, Nov. 29, 1833.

Being called upon to give a statement to the world of what I know respecting the Gold Bible speculation, and also of the conduct of Martin Harris, my husband, who is a leading character among the Mormons, I do it free from prejudice, realizing that I must give an account at the bar of God for what I say. Martin Harris was once industrious attentive to his domestic concerns, and thought to be worth about ten thousand dollars. He is naturally quick in his temper and his mad-fits frequently abuses all who may dare to oppose him in his wishes. However strange it may seem, I have been a great sufferer by his unreasonable conduct. At different times while I lived with him, he has whipped, kicked, and turned me out of the house. About a year previous to the report being raised that Smith had found gold plates, he became very intimate with the Smith family, and said he believed Joseph could see in his stone any thing he wished.  After this he apparently became very sanguine in his belief, and frequently said he would have no one in his house that did not believe in Mormonism; and because I would not give credit to the report he made about the gold plates, he became more austere towards me. In one of his fits of rage he struck me with the but end of a whip, which I think had been used for driving oxen, and was about the size of my thumb, and three or four feet long. He beat me on the head four or five times, and the next day turned me out of doors twice, and beat me in a shameful manner. – The next day I went to the town of Marion, and while there my flesh was black and blue in many places. His main complaint against me was, that I was always trying to hinder his making money. When he found out that I was going to Mr. Putnam’s, in Marion, he said he was going too, but they had sent for him to pay them a visit. On arriving at Mr. Putnam’s, I asked them if they had sent for Mr. Harris; they replied, they knew nothing about it; he, however, came in the evening. Mrs. Putnam told him never to strike or abuse me any more; he then denied ever striking me; she was however convinced that he lied, as the marks of his beating me were plain to be seen, and remained more than two weeks. Whether the Mormon religion be true or false, I leave the world to judge, for its effects upon Martin Harris have been to make him more cross, turbulent and abusive to me. His whole object was to make money by it. I will give one circumstance in proof of it. One day, while at Peter Harris’ house, I told him he had better leave the company of the Smiths, as their religion was false; to which he replied, if you would let me alone, I could make money by it.

It is in vain for the Mormons to deny these facts; for they are all well known to most of his former neighbors. The man has now become rather an object of pity; he has spent most of his property, and lost the confidence of his former friends. If he had labored as hard on his farm as he has to make Mormons, he might now be one of the wealthiest farmers in the country. He now spends his time in travelling through the country spreading the delusion of Mormonism, and has no regard whatever for his family.

With regard to Mr. Harris’ being intimate with Mrs. Haggard, as has been reported, it is but justice to myself to state what facts have come within my own observation, to show whether I had any grounds for jealousy or not. Mr. Harris was very intimate with this family, for some time previous to their going to Ohio. They lived a while in a house which he had built for their accommodation, and here he spent the most of his leisure hours; and made her presents of articles from the store and house.  He carried these presents in a private manner, and frequently when he went there, he would pretend to be going to some of the neighbors, on an errand, or to be going into the fields. — After getting out of sight of the house, he would steer a straight course for Haggard’s house, especially if Haggard was from home. At times when Haggard was from home, he would go there in the manner above described, and stay till twelve or one o’clock at night, and sometimes until day light.

If his intentions were evil, the Lord will judge him accordingly, but if good, he did not mean to let his left hand know what his right hand did. The above statement of facts, I affirm to be true. (Mormonism Unvailed, pp. 254-257).

[115] Robert N. Hullinger, Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism, pp. 88-89.

[116] Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism, NYC: D. Appleton & Co., 1867, p. 42.

[117] Kimball, op. cited, page 340.

[118] ibid.

[119] Hullinger, op. cited, p.91.

[120] See, “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis”, by Brent Lee Metcalfe, in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, online here, accessed July 25, 2013.

Brent Lee Metcalfe writes,

Smith’s loss of the 116 pages is Book of Mormon interpreters’ gain. The misplacement, theft, or destruction of the Book of Lehi, eventually leading the despondent prophet to dictate 1 Nephi-Words of Mormon last, unveils an unprecedented glimpse into the formation of a sacred text. Intrinsically woven into the Book of Mormon’s fabric are not only remnants of the peculiar dictation sequence but threads of authorship. The composite of those elements explored in this essay point to Smith as the narrative’s chief designer. (page 433)

When Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages of the newly dictated Book of Mormon, many have theorized that he continued on in the saga, right from where he left off, in the Book of Mosiah. Metcalfe asks,

Did he recommence where the Book of Lehi had left off—at Mosiah—then dictate 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon last—which replaced the Book of Lehi? Did he begin with Words of Mormon? Or did he start with 1 Nephi, dictating the document in the same order as in current printed editions of the Book of Mormon? Interpretation of key Book of Mormon passages depends on which view one subscribes to (cf. Welch and Rathbone 1986, 1). It also affects one’s understanding of the dictation history and sheds light on Smith’s role in the volume’s production. Consequently, resolving the order of dictation is an important prelude to any critical Book of Mormon exegesis. (page 397)

With the loss of the Book of Lehi, Smith was then free to rewrite the beginning of the Book of Mormon,  which contains the bulk of the Isaiah material, and the reworked Chapter 29.

Here is Isaiah “mapped” to the Book of Mormon:

Isaiah 2–14 2 Nephi 12–24
Isaiah 29 2 Nephi 27
Isaiah 48-49 1 Nephi 20–21
Isaiah 50–51 2 Nephi 7–8
Isaiah 52 3 Nephi 20
Isaiah 53 Mosiah 14
Isaiah 54 3 Nephi 22
Isaiah 5:26* 2 Nephi 29:2
Isaiah 9:12-13 2 Nephi 28:32
Isaiah 11:4 2 Nephi 30:9
Isaiah 11:5-9 2 Nephi 30:11-15
Isaiah 11:11a* 2 Nephi 25:17a; 29:1b; compare 25:11
Isaiah 22:13* 2 Nephi 28:7-8
Isaiah 25:12* 2 Nephi 26:15
Isaiah 28:10, 13* 2 Nephi 28:30
Isaiah 29:3-4* 2 Nephi 26:15-16
Isaiah 29:5* 2 Nephi 26:18
Isaiah 29:6 2 Nephi 6:15
Isaiah 29:6-10 2 Nephi 27:2-5
Isaiah 29:13 2 Nephi 28:9
Isaiah 29:14a* 1 Nephi 14:7a; 22:8a; 2 Nephi 25:17b; 29:1a
Isaiah 29:15a* 2 Nephi 28:9a
Isaiah 29:21b* 2 Nephi 28:16a
Isaiah 40:3* 1 Nephi 10:8
Isaiah 45:18* 1 Nephi 17:36
Isaiah 45:23* Mosiah 27:31
Isaiah 49:22 1 Nephi 22:6
Isaiah 49:22* 1 Nephi 22:8; 2 Nephi 6:6
Isaiah 49:23a* 1 Nephi 22:8b; 2 Nephi 10:9a
Isaiah 49:23 2 Nephi 6:7
Isaiah 49:24-26 2 Nephi 6:16-18
Isaiah 52:1a* Moroni 10:31a
Isaiah 52:1-2 2 Nephi 8:24-25
Isaiah 52:7* 1 Nephi 13:37; Mosiah 15:14-18; 27:37
Isaiah 52:7-10 Mosiah 12:21-24
Isaiah 52:8-10 Mosiah 15:29-31; 3 Nephi 16:18-20; 20:32-35
Isaiah 52:10* 1 Nephi 22:10-11
Isaiah 52:12* 3 Nephi 21:29
Isaiah 52:13-15* 3 Nephi 21:8 -10
Isaiah 53:8, 10* Mosiah 15:10-11
Isaiah 54:2b* Moroni 10:31a
Isaiah 55:1* 2 Nephi 26:25
Isaiah 55:1-2 2 Nephi 9:50 -51

Source: Book of Mormon Reference Companion, Dennis Largey, Editor, Deseret Book, 2003.

[121] Robert J. Matthews, “A Plainer Translation”: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible, A History and Commentary (BYU Press, 1985), pp. xxvii-xxx.

[122] Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998, pages 233-234.

[123] In 1833, Joseph wrote to Phelps,

we wish you to render the Star as interesting as possable by setting forth the rise progress and  faith of the church, as well as the doctrine (Letter, 11 January, 1833).

After Phelps apostatized over the Missouri problems in 1838, he wrote to Joseph to ask for his forgiveness and to rejoin the Church.  Smith recalls their once close friendship in his reply to Phelps:

It is true, that we have suffered much in consequence  of your behavior— the cup of gall already full enough for  mortals to drink, was indeed filled to overflowing when you  turned against us: One with whom we had oft taken sweet council together, and enjoyed many refreshing seasons  from the Lord “Had it been an enemy we could have borne it”  In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day when  Strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered  into his gates and cast lots upon Far West even thou wast as one of them. But thou shouldst not have looked on the day of thy brother, in the day that he became a stranger neither shouldst thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress” (Letter,  Joseph Smith to William Wines Phelps, July 22, 1840).

[124] The Evening and the Morning Star, Vol.2, No.14, p.106, emphasis mine.

[125] Matthews, pp. 234-5.

[126] Cloward, p. 247, n. 82.

[127] Matthews, p. 253.

[128] Gospel Principles, p. 45.

[129] Matthews, pp. 235-236.

[130] ibid, p. 237.

[131] Ronald V. Huggins, “Joseph Smith’s “Inspired Translation” of Romans 7″, Dialogue, Vol.26, No.4, p.163.

[132] Cloward, op. cited.

[133] Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years before the Mast (Malad, Idaho: by the author, 1888), 71.

[134] Letter, Martin Harris to H. B. Emerson, November 23, 1871, cit. The True Latter-day Saints’ Herald 22 (15 Oct 1875):630.

[135] Simon Smith to Joseph Smith III, 30 Dec. 1880, Saints Herald, 1 Feb. 1881 p.  43, cit. Hullinger, p. 90.

[136] Hullinger, pp. 90-91. For more on this see Hullinger, Chapter 8: “Masonic Ritual and Lore”.

[137] Wayne Sentinel, May 27, 1831

[138] The Prophet of Palmyra, by Thomas Gregg, NYC: J. B. Alden, 1890, pp. 136-137. A brief bio of Harding may be found here, accessed July 25, 2013.

As noted above, Harding had quite a sense of humor, and used it on Calvin Stoddard while he was visiting Palmyra. Pomeroy Tucker,  writes,

Stoddard was an early believer in Mormonism, and was quite as eccentric a character as Harris. He was slightly impressed that he had a call to preach the new gospel, but his mind was beclouded with perplexing doubts upon the question. One dark night, about ten o’clock, Stephen S. Harding, then a stalwart, fun-loving, dare-devil genius of eighteen years, late Territorial Governor of Utah (not a Mormon), who well knew Stoddard’s peculiarities, and being bent on making a sensation, repaired with his genial friend,  Abner Tucker, to the residence of the enthusiast; and awakening him from sleep by three signals upon the door with a huge stone, deliberately proclaimed, in a loud, sonorous voice, with solemn intonations — “C-a-l-v-i-n  S-t-o-d-d-a-r-d!  t-h-e  a-n-g-e-l  o-f  t-h-e  L-o-r-d  c-o-m-m-a-n-d-s  t-h-a-t  b-e-f-o-r-e  a-n-o-t-h-e-r  g-o-i-n-g  d-o-w-n  o-f  t-h-e  s-u-n  t-h-o-u  s-h-a-l-t  g-o  f-o-r-t-h  a-m-o-n-g  t-h-e  p-e-o-p-l-e  a-n-d  p-r-e-a-c-h  t-h-e  g-o-s-p-e-l  o-f  N-e-p-h-i,  o-r  t-h-y  w-i-f-e  s-h-a-l-l  b-e  a  w-i-d-o-w,  t-h-y  c-h-i-l-d-r-e-n  o-r-p-h-a-n-s,  a-n-d  t-h-y  a-s-h-e-s  s-c-a-t-t-e-r-e-d  t-o  t-h-e  f-o-u-r  w-i-n-d-s  o-f  h-e-a-v-e-n!”
The experiment was a complete success. Stoddard’s former convictions were now confirmed. Such a convincing “revelation” was final, and not to be disregarded. Early the next morning the subject of this

special call” was seen upon his rounds among his neighbors, as a Mormon missionary, earnestly telling them of the “command” he had received to preach. Luminous arguments and evidences were adduced by him to sustain the foundation of his belief in this his revealed sphere of duty! (Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress: Of Mormonism: Biography of its Founders and History of its Church, New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1867, pp. 80-81)

Apparently this incident made it into the local newspaper, the Palmyra Reflector which reported,

==> Some few evenings since, a man in the town of Mendon, had a loud call to go and preach the doctrines contained in the Gold Bible, under heavy denunciations. (The Palmyra Reflector, September 23, 1829).

Dale Morgan writes of the incident,

Typesetting on the book began in August 1829 and the slow labor of printing on the primitive hand press on which the Wayne Sentinel itself was issued was not finished until March 1830. The intervening months, however, were by no means without event. According to David Whitmer, the elders of the incipient church as early as August 1829 began to preach the gospel. “The Book of Mormon was still m the hands of the printer, but my brother, Christian Whitmer, had copied from the manuscript the teachings and doctrine of Christ, being the things which we were commanded to  preach.” For eight months before the church was formally organized, they preached, baptized, and confirmed, and this was a phenomenon to excite both the wonder and the risibility of the citizens of Palmyra. Pranksters were not lacking, and Joseph’s own brother in law, Calvin Stoddard, who lived a few miles away in Macedon, was set to frantic preaching of the new faith by an Angel of the Lord who came knocking on his door one dark night with a thunderous command to preach “the gospel of Nephi” next day under penalty of having his ashes scattered to the four winds of heaven. “The experiment,” Pomeroy Tucker recalls, “was a complete success…Early the next morning the subject of this ‘special call’ was seen upon his rounds among his neighbors, as a Mormon missionary, earnestly telling them of the ‘command’, he had received to preach. Luminous arguments and evidences were adduced by him to sustain the foundation of his belief in this his revealed sphere of duty!” (John Phillip Walker, Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism: Correspondence and a New History,p.306).

[139] ibid, p. 43.

[140] ibid.

[141] ibid, pp. 45-47.

[142]  Walker, Dale Morgan, Endnotes, Footnote 17 in Chapter Five, page 415.

The “Caractors” From The Gold Plates

Characters On Desk

Part I of “19th Century Photo of Joseph Smith’s ‘Caractors’ Found”

Farmer Martin Harris

Farmer Martin Harris

If you missed the Introduction to this article, click on the link.

There are many differing accounts that have been given about the history of the characters that Joseph Smith supposedly copied from the gold plates he claimed a “messenger from the skies” informed him of in the fall of 1823.

At the center of these accounts is a prosperous farmer named Martin Harris, who came to believe the story Joseph told him about a messenger who revealed to him that there was a record of the former inhabitants of this continent [7] written on gold plates which had been buried on a hill about five miles from the Harris farm. Joseph, who was apparently told by the messenger that he would be able to translate the plates by means of “spectacles”[8] that were buried with them, left conflicting accounts about the characters.

There are also many accounts that do not agree with the details that Smith wrote in 1832, 1834 and 1839 concerning the “caractors” he claimed were copied from the plates.

These conflicting details have raised questions by many who have studied the various accounts about the characters related by Joseph Smith, Martin Harris and others. For instance,

Why did Joseph state in his 1832 History that “the Lord had shown him [Martin Harris] “in a vision” that he must go to New York City with some of the characters”?

Why did Joseph’s mother Lucy and others state that Joseph Jr. copied the characters before his move to Pennsylvania?

Why did Joseph state in his 1839 History that it was only after his arrival in Pennsylvania that he began to copy and translate some of the characters with the aid of the urim and thummim?

Why would Joseph do so if he was told by the messenger to wait until they were taken to the “learned” to fulfill scripture?

In an article which tries to explain some of the above questions, Mormon apologist David E. Sloan writes that “it is a mistake to allow a limited historical perspective to control the interpretation of an inspired prophecy.”[9]

But it is a historical fact that Joseph “translated”  the contents of the Book of Mormon after the events that it purported to prophecy about.[10] Mr. Sloan continues,

This is especially so [the limited historical perspective] considering that the relevant portion of the 1839 history was written approximately ten years after the actual event, by a clerk under the Prophet’s direction, and without explicit reference to the prophecy. In contrast, the first historical account of this event, discussed below, was personally written by Joseph only four years later, specifically refers to the prophecy, and is consistent with the interpretation of the prophecy given above. According to Elder Neal A. Maxwell, most “great spiritual events went unseen by eyes spiritually untrained. . . . One day, the historical record will be complete; but, meanwhile, the scriptures will be our guide concerning those transcending spiritual events in human history which are saturated with significance.” [11]

Letterbook 1

Letterbook 1

The historical account that Mr. Sloan refers to was written by Joseph in 1832 but was subsequently abandoned by him and left in the back of a Letterbook.[12] This account was not used by Joseph and Oliver in their 1834-5 History, nor was it referenced by Joseph in his 1839 History. Joseph did have the 1834 History copied into his large journal in 1835-36, but not the abandoned 1832 history.[13] Still, the 1832 History is the closest contemporary account written by Joseph dealing with the characters he supposedly copied off of the gold plates.  Joseph wrote,

“on the 22d day of Sept of this same year [1827] I obtained the plates and the in December following we mooved to Susquehana by the assistence of a man by the name of Martin Haris who became convinced of the visions and gave me fifty Dollars to bare my expences and because of his faith and this rightheous deed the Lord appeared unto him in a vision and shewed unto him his marvilous work which he was about to do and he imediately came to Su[s]quehanna and said the Lord had shown him that he must go to new York City with some of the characters so we proceeded to coppy some of them”[14]

According to this account it was Martin’s idea (supposedly inspired by a vision) to have some of the characters copied so he could go to New York City with them. This version of events is remembered differently by Lucy Smith who spoke to the assembled Church in 1845 as recorded by William Clayton:

[I] Want to speak about the dead. 18 years ago last September that J[oseph] took the plates out of the earth. 18 years last Monday since J[oseph]. S[mith]. the prophet of the Lord got the plates from the earth.  J[oseph]. came to me and told me he had taken those plates out of the ground. Tell all three of them (Harris[es]) that I have got them I want Martin to assist me and take some of the characters off to send them to N.Y.” [15]

Norton Jacob

Norton Jacob

Norton Jacob also wrote an account of Lucy Smith’s speech and verified what Clayton wrote,

Br Brigham [Young] commenced in the morning.… after he got through Mother Smith, Joseph’s mother addressed the congregation abou<t> an hour concerning of the history of herself & family in bringing forth the Book of Mormon[.] she said it was eighteen years ago last monday since she commenced preaching the gospel being cal[l]ed upon by Joseph Smith to go & tell Mar=tin Harris & family that he had got the Plates & he wanted him to take an alphabet of the characters & carry them to the learned men to decypher.…” [16]

An account given by Martin Harris himself in 1859 also does not agree with Joseph’s 1832 history. In this account by Harris he states that “I had a revelation the summer before, [1827 ] that God had a work for me to do.” It is notable that Harris does not say that God revealed anything specific to him. Harris then affirms that,

The first time I heard of the matter, [the gold plates] my brother Presarved Harris, who had been in the village of Palmyra, asked me if [I] had heard about Joseph Smith, jr., having a golden bible. My thoughts were that the money-diggers had probably dug up an old brass kettle, or something of the kind. I thought no more of it. This was about the first of October, 1827.[17]

Harris then states that he first visited Lucy Smith who told him the story of the gold plates and then “a day or so” later he went and visited Joseph.[18]  Martin stated that Joseph told him that, “An angel had appeared to him, and told him it was God’s work,” and that “he found them [the plates] by looking in the stone found in the well of Mason Chase. [19] The family had likewise told me the same thing,” wrote Harris.[20] Harris then stated that,

“Joseph said the angel told him he must quit the company of the money-diggers. That there were wicked men among them. He must have no more to do with them. He must not lie, nor swear, nor steal. He told him to go and look in the spectacles, and he would show him the man that would assist him. That he did so, and he saw myself, Martin Harris, standing before him. That struck me with surprise. I told him I wished him to be very careful about these things. ‘Well,’ said he, ‘I saw you standing before me as plainly as I do now.’ I said, if it is the devil’s work I will have nothing to do with it; but if it is the Lord’s, you can have all the money necessary to bring it before the world. He said the angel told him, that the plates must be translated, printed and sent before the world. I said, Joseph, you know the doctrine, that cursed is every one that putteth his trust in man, and maketh flesh his arm; and we know that the devil is to have great power in the latter days to deceive if possible the very elect; and I don’t know that you are one of the elect. Now you must not blame me for not taking your word. If the Lord will show me that it is his work, you can have all the money you want. [21]

Harris then recounts that he,

retired to my bedroom and prayed God to show me concerning these things, and I covenanted that if it was his work and he would show me so, I would put forth my best ability to bring it before the world. He then showed me that It was his work, and that it was designed to bring in the fullness of his gospel to the gentiles to fulfill his word, that the first shall be last and the last first. He showed this to me by the still small voice spoken in the soul. Then I was satisfied that it was the Lord’s work, and I was under a covenant to bring it forth. [22]

Martin does not claim that he had a vision about the plates. If Harris had already become “convinced of the visions” (as Joseph recounts), then it seems rather strange that he would ask God to acknowledge if “it was his work”, and then pester Joseph to have the characters verified by “the learned”. In this account Martin does not even mention his errand to New York City. Copying the BOM CharactersJoseph states in his 1832 History that it was after his move to Harmony that he transcribed some of the characters from off of the gold plates, [23] but Lucy Smith writes that it was before he moved that this happened:

It soon became necessary to take some measure to accomplish the translation of the record into English but he was instructed to take off a facsimile of the  characters <composing the alphabet which were called reformed egyptian>  Alphabetically and send them to all the learned men that he could find and ask them for the translation of the same. [24]

It was then, after Joseph had copied some of the characters; that Lucy mentions Martin Harris who she said was a “confidential friend to whom Mr. Smith [Joseph Smith, Sr.] mentioned the existence of the record 2 or 3 years before it came forth.” [25] Lucy then states that ,

To him [Harris] Joseph desired me to go and one afternoon as he wished to see him[.] But this was an errand that I somewhat disliked for his wife [Lucy Harris] was a peculiar sort of a woman one that was habitually of an a very jealous temperment and being hard of hearing she was always suspicious of some secret being in agitation that was designedly kept from her hearing[.] on this account I would rather not go unless I could approach her upon the subject before I spoke to him about it[.] Joseph consented to this and I went away according to his request. [26]

This account agrees with the Harris account in 1859 which states that Lucy came to visit Martin, and here we see that it was at the instigation of Joseph, not the other way around, although Harris did say that he had already intended to see Smith.

Lucy Mack Smith

Lucy Mack Smith

In Lucy Smith’s account it is Lucy Harris that first gives Joseph money to help translate the plates, because she supposedly sees the plates in a dream.[27]  Lucy writes that it was after this, “in Palmira at a public house”  that Martin shows up with a bag of silver totaling $50 and gives it to Smith for his expenses.[28] Also, Martin Harris states in 1859 that he first learned of the record from his Brother Preserved in 1827, not from Joseph Smith Sr. “2 or 3 years before it came forth.” In 1870 Fayette Lapham gave an account of an interview with Joseph Smith Sr. that probably took place in 1829 for the Historical Magazine and recalled that,

Under the first plate, or lid, [of the gold plates] he found a pair of spectacles, about one and a half inches longer than those used at the present day, the eyes not of glass, but of diamond. On the next page were representations of all the masonic implements, as used by masons at the present day. The remaining pages were closely written over in characters of some unknown tongue, the last containing the alphabet of this unknown language. Joseph, not being able to read the characters, made a copy of some of them, which he showed to some of the most learned men of the vicinity. [29]

Lapham relates that there was an “alphabet” of the unknown language written on the last page of the plates, and that Joseph “made a copy of some of them.” Lapham also states in his account that it was Joseph himself who took copies of the characters to “learned men of the vicinity” and that it was after this that he chose Martin Harris to be his scribe.  It should be noted that Dan Vogel writes that “some of Lapham’s statements are inaccurate” though “many of the details are supported by contemporary sources” unpublished in 1870.[30] Lapham also said that Joseph “one day tried the spectacles, and found that, by looking through them, he could see everything—past, present, and future—and could also read and understand the characters written on the plates.”[31] Lucy Smith’s account agrees with Lapham’s about an Alphabet, and that the stones in the “spectacles” were made of diamonds. [32] David Sloan, in trying to prove that Joseph could not translate the characters on the plates until Martin Harris came back from his trip to New York (thereby fulfilling Joseph’s reworked Isaiah prophecy found in 2 Nephi Chapter 27) states:

Joseph’s parents also believed that their son could not at first translate the characters and understood that one reason for sending Martin Harris to New York City was to obtain help with the translation. In 1830, Joseph Smith Sr. was reported as saying that “his son, “not being able to read the characters, made a copy of some of them, which he showed to some of the most learned men of the vicinity.” The Prophet’s mother also recorded that during this time, “Joseph was very solicitous about the work but as yet no means had come into his hands of accomplishing it”—this despite the fact that he possessed the Urim and Thummim. [33]

Joseph apparently did not tell his mother the reason why the characters needed to be sent out to be deciphered; only that he was “instructed” to do so.[34] Joseph Smith Sr. gives the reason why Lucy states that Joseph did not have the “means” to accomplish this task:

Joseph was directed not to make the translation where there was so much opposition; hence, after procuring the necessary materials, he and Martin went to Harmony, in Pennsylvania, where they would be less persecuted, and where Joseph, with spectacles on, translated the characters on the gold plates, and Harris recorded the result. [35]

This had nothing to do with Joseph’s ability to translate by means of the spectacles; he just didn’t have the means to move to Harmony Pennsylvania where he could translate without “so much opposition”.  It certainly does not mean that Joseph couldn’t translate, or that he didn’t translate a few of the characters to show to others. Also, if Joseph couldn’t read the characters, then how did he know that the last page of the book was an alphabet? What were the necessary materials? According to Lucy and Joseph Smith, Sr., certainly not Joseph having Martin Harris take a copy of the characters to the “learned” of the day. Mr. Sloan states that the purpose of his article “is not to challenge the 1839 history,” but that is exactly what he does whether intentionally or not. What Joseph and Oliver wrote in 1832 and again in 1834-5 does indeed claim that Joseph was told not to translate until Harris returned from New York, but by 1839 Joseph had changed his account, possibly to match up with the historical facts that had been slowly coming forth. There are simply no published accounts (except for Joseph’s in 1834-5) that support the story of a messenger telling him that prophecy must be fulfilled before he could translate. In 1832 Joseph wrote that it was the Lord telling Martin Harris to go to New York, and in 1834-5[36] it was “the messenger from the skies” telling Joseph.[37] Golden_Plates_with_Urim_and_ThummimJohn A. Clark, a resident of Palmyra who spoke to Harris in the fall  of 1827, included recollections of this interview in his book Gleanings by the Way in 1842, and recalled that when Harris showed up at his house he drew “a package out of his pocket with great and manifest caution,”[38] and told Clark that contained in the package were characters that Joseph “had transcribed from one of the leaves” of a “mysterious book, which no human eye of the present generation had yet seen” but “was in the possession of Joseph Smith, jr.”[39] Harris also told Clark that there “had been a revelation made to him [Joseph Smith] by which he had discovered this sacred deposit, and two transparent stones, through which, as a sort of spectacles, he could read the Bible [gold plates], although a box or ark that contained it had not yet been opened, and that by looking through those mysterious stones” Joseph had written down some of the characters for Martin Harris. [40] “How he” [Joseph], writes Clark, “obtained these spectacles without opening the chest, Harris could not tell.”[41] Clark writes that when Harris carefully unfolded the slip of paper he saw that it,

“contained three or four lines of characters, as unlike letters or hieroglyphics of any sort, as well could be produced were one to shut up his eyes and play off the most antic movements with his pen upon paper. The only thing that bore the slightest resemblance to the letter of any language that I had ever seen, was two upright marks joined by a horizontal line, that might have been taken for the Hebrew character Clark Hebrew Character[42]

If Joseph did give Harris “three or four lines of characters” before he obtained the “spectacles”, could Joseph have seen the characters on the plates without them? Joseph Knight wrote that Smith said that “he seamed to think more of the glasses or the urim and thummem then:[than] he Did of the Plates, for, says he, “I can see any thing; they are Marvelus.”[43] Joseph Translating with SpectaclesClark writes that Joseph obtained the spectacles without opening the box.[44] Since Joseph also used a peep stone (also called a seer stone) which was also called the urim and thummim,[45] it may be possible that Joseph saw some of the characters that were on the plates before he had them in his possession, by way of his peep stone. [46] When Joseph first began translating and copying the characters (according to John Clark’s interviews with Harris) he hung up a curtain or blanket:

“The way that Smith made his transcripts and translations for Harris was the following: Although in the same room, a thick curtain or blanket was suspended between them, and Smith concealed behind the blanket, pretended to look through his spectacles, or transparent stones, and would then write down or repeat what he saw, which, when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of the suspended blanket. Harris was told that it would arouse the most terrible divine displeasure, if he should attempt to draw near the sacred chest, or look at Smith while engaged in the work of decyphering the mysterious characters. This was Harris’s own account of the matter to me.” [47]

What is clear from Clark’s account is that when Harris visited him in the fall of 1827 he had a slip of paper with lines of characters written on it. Others report that after Joseph moved to Harmony he prepared more documents for Martin’s trip to the east. It was in December of 1827 that Joseph finally got the means to make the move to Harmony Pennsylvania, aided by a monetary gift from Martin Harris and the help of Emma’s brother Alva Hale.[48] Martin Harris later related that this move was prompted by the repeated insistence of those in Joseph’s “company of money diggers” to see the plates.  Initially, Joseph and Emma stayed at the home of her father Isaac Hale, who later wrote,

After they had arrived at Palmyra [Manchester] N.Y., Emma wrote to me inquiring whether she could have her property, consisting of clothing, furniture, cows, &c. I replied that her property was safe, and at her disposal. In short time they returned, bringing with them a Peter Ingersol[l], and subsequently came to the conclusion that they would move out, and resided upon a place near my residence.

Smith stated to me, that he had given up what he called “glass-looking,” and that he expected to work hard for a living, and was willing to do so. He also made arrangements with my son Alva Hale, to go to Palmyra, and move his (Smith’s) furniture &c. to this place. He then returned to Palmyra, and soon after, Alva, agreeable to the arrangement, went up and returned with Smith and his family.

Soon after this, I was informed they had brought a wonderful book of Plates down with them. I was shown a box in which it is said they were contained, which had, to all appearances, been used as a glass box of the common sized window-glass. I was allowed to feel the weight of the box, and they gave me to understand, that the book of plates was then in the box – into which, however, I was not allowed to look.

I inquired of Joseph Smith Jr., who was to be the first who would be allowed to see the Book of Plates? He said it was a young child. After this, I became dissatisfied, and informed him that if there was any thing in my house of that description, which I could not be allowed to see, he must take it away; if he did not, I was determined to see it. After that, the Plates were said to be hid in the woods. [49]

Joseph purchased a home built by Emma’s older brother Jesse Hale along with thirteen acres of farmland acquired from her father Isaac. [50] Joseph Knight wrote that,

[Sometime in November 1827] He [Joseph Smith, Jr.] obtaind fifty Dollars in moneySmith-home1 and hired a man to move him and his wife to Pensylvany to hir Fathers, his wife Being onwell and wanted to go to her Fathers. He Bout [bought] a piece of Land of hir Father with a house and Barn on it. Here the People Began to tease him to see the Book and to offer him money and property and they Crouded so harde that he had to hide it in the Mountin. He now Began to be anxious to git them translated. He therefore with his wife Drew of[f] the Caricters exactley like the ancient and sent Martin Harris to see if he Could git them Translated. [51]

Knight claims that Joseph “drew off the caricters exactly like the ancient” and doesn’t mention that they were copied “alphabetically”, as Lucy Smith’s account does. Knight also states that he copied the characters after his move to Pennsylvania, which also differs from Lucy’s account.[52] In 1873 Emily C. Blackman wrote in her History of Susquehanna County that Isaac Hale’s son Reuben, “assisted Joe Smith to fix up some characters such as Smith pretended were engraven on his book of plates.” [53] In an interview given in 1886, David Whitmer stated that it “took Joseph Smith a whole week to copy, [the characters] so particular was he that the characters should be perfectly reproduced, and that the “reformed Egyptian” language should be shown up in all its native simplicity, for, it must not be forgotten, there was a singular significance in errand which this scrap of paper was destined to perform. [54]

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver Cowdery

In 1834-5 Oliver Cowdery (aided by Joseph Smith) wrote what Oliver described as “a full history of the rise of the church of the Latter Day Saints” which was published in the Messenger and Advocate. [55] Cowdery relates that when the angel Moroni appeared to Joseph in 1823 he was told that,

it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain, and translate the same [record of the Nephites] by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record. “Yet,” said he, “the scripture must be fulfilled before it is translated, which says that the words of a book, which were sealed, were presented to the learned; for thus has God determined to leave men without excuse, and show to the meek that his arm is not shortened that it cannot save.” A part of the book was sealed, and was not to be opened yet. The sealed part, said he, contains the same revelation which was given to John upon the isle of Patmos, and when the people of the Lord are prepared, and found worthy, then it will be unfolded unto them. [56]

This is the first mention of a requirement to fulfill scripture before the translation could begin. Joseph’s 1832 history does not mention this requirement by Moroni, only that Martin,

took his Journ[e]y to the Eastern Cittys and to the Learned saying read this I pray thee and the learned said I cannot but if he would bring the plates they would read it but the Lord had forbid it and he returned to me and gave them to me to translate and I said I said [I] cannot for I am not learned but the Lord had prepared spectticke spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters and thus the Prop[h]icy of Isiaah was fulfilled which is writen in the 29 chapter concerning the book  [57]

Joseph only adds the fulfillment of scripture as an afterthought in this account. In the first known published account about the Book of Mormon six months later, we also find no mention of the fulfillment of prophecy, only that,

A few however, believed the “golden” [Bible] story, among whom was Martin Harris, an honest and industrious farmer of this town. So blindly enthusiastic was Harris, that he took some of the characters interpreted by Smith, and went in search of some one, besides the interpreter, who was learned enough to English them; but all to whom he applied (among the number was Professor Mitchell, of New York,) happened not to be possessed of sufficient knowledge to give satisfaction! Harris returned, and set Smith to work at interpreting the Bible. [58] 

This account does not portray a doubting Harris, or that he was commanded to go by God, only that he was “enthusiastic”. The account also states that Joseph had already translated some of the characters, and the enthused Harris went to New York to confirm the translation. A month later the Rochester Gem published an article about Martin Harris’ visit to the village, and again there is no mention of fulfilling prophecy in relation to his journey to New York City:

A man by the name of Martin Harris was in this village a few days since endeavouring to make a contract for printing a large quantity of a work called the Golden Bible. He gave something like the following account of it. “In the autumn of 1827 a man named Joseph Smith of Manchester, in Ontario County, said that he had been visited by the spirit of the Almighty in a dream, and informed that in a certain hill in that town was deposited a Golden Bible, containing an ancient record of divine origin. He states that after a third visit from the same spirit in a dream, he proceeded to the spot, removed earth, and there found the bible, together with a large pair of spectacles. He had also been directed to let no mortal see them under the penalty of immediate death, which injunction he steadfastly adheres to. The treasure consisted of a number of gold plates, about 8 inches long, 6 wide, and one eighth of an inch thick, on which were engraved hieroglyphics. By placing the spectacles in a hat and looking into it, Smith interprets the characters into the English language.

Harris states that he went in search of some one to interpret the hieroglyphics, but found that no one was intended to perform that all important task but Smith himself. Smith has interpreted the whole, and it is now in press in Palmyra, Wayne Co. The subject attracts a good deal of notice among a certain class, and as it will be ere long before the public, we shall endeavor to meet it with the comment it may deserve.–Ed Gem. [59]

Here again we see no explanation why Harris needed to find someone to “interpret” the characters. We also see that Joseph was using the same translation method with the “spectacles” as he did with his peep stone: placing them into a hat. John A. Clark writes that the “earnest” Martin Harris takes “some of the manuscripts that Smith furnished him” to New York; but there is again no mention of the fulfillment of any prophecy or angelic command to do so:

“He [Martin Harris) was so much in earnest on this subject, that he immediately started off with some of the manuscripts that Smith furnished him on a journey to New York and Washington to consult some learned men to ascertain the nature of the language in which this record was engraven. After his return he came to see me again, and told me that, among others, he had consulted Professor Anthon, who thought the characters in which the book was written very remarkable, but he could not decide exactly what language they belonged to. Martin had now become a perfect believer. He said he had no more doubt of Smith’s commission, than of the divine commission of the apostles.  The very fact that Smith was an obscure and illiterate man, showed that he must be acting under divine impulses:– “God had chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak things to confound the mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised — yea, and things that are not to bring to nought—things that are—that no flesh should glory in his presence:” that he was willing to “take of the spoiling of his goods” to sustain Smith in carrying on this work of the Lord; and that he was determined that the book should be published, though it consumed all his worldly substance.” [60]

Harris does link his journey to scripture, but uses Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, not Isaiah.  According to Lucy Smith,

Joseph started [in]Dec[ember] for Penn[sylvania] and[a few lines blank] it was agreed that Martin Harris should follow him as soon as he <Joseph> should have sufficient time to transcribe the Egyptian alphabet which Mr. Harris was to take to the east and through the country in every direction to all who were professed linguists to give them an opertunity of showing their talents—as soon as Mrs H[arris] Heard this she declared her intention of accompanying her husband but he concluded that it would be better to go without her and left sudenly not giving her any intimation of his intention[.] Hyrum went with him. [61]

The “Egyptian Alphabet” that Lucy and Joseph Sr. speak of may have been the document that Harris ultimately showed to the “professed linguists”, which was apparently more than the “three or four lines of characters” described by John Clark and W. W. Phelps, and which David Whitmer described as taking a week to complete. It may have been that Harris coaxed out of Joseph some of the characters, (the seven lines that ultimately was passed on to David Whitmer) and that after Joseph was settled in Harmony and had more time he transcribed the “Alphabet” that Harris took to New York, along with a translation of some of the characters. [62] Orson Pratt wrote in 1840 that,

Orson Pratt

Orson Pratt

Having provided himself with a home, he [Joseph] commenced translating the record, by the gift and power of God, through the means of the Urim and Thummim; and being a poor writer he was under the necessity of employing a scribe, to write the translation as it came from his mouth.  In the mean time, a few of the original characters were accurately transcribed and translated by Mr Smith, which, with the translation, were taken by a gentleman by the name of Martin Harris, to the city of New York, where they were presented to a learned gentleman by the name of Anthon, who professed to be extensively acquainted with many languages, both ancient and modern. He examined them; but was unable to decipher them correctly; but he presumed, that if the original records could be brought, he could assist in translating them. [63]

It was about this time according to Lucy Smith that Martin’s wife Lucy came into possession of a copy of the characters:

A young man had been paying his addresses to Lucy Har[r]is[,]Martins oldes<t> daughter[,] of Mrs by the name of Dikes[.] <of> this young gentleman[,] the Father of <the> girl was very fond and the young Lady was not at all averse to him[,] but of course Mrs. Harris was decidedly upon the negative. But just at this juncture a scheme enter=ed her brain that changed her deportment to Mr Dikes very materially—She told Mr Dikes that if he would contrive to get the egyptian characters out of Martins possesion and hire a room in Palmira & take transcribe them accurately and bring her the tra=nscript that she would give him her daughter Lucy to wife Mr Dikes readily agreed to this and sufice it to say he succeeded to the [p.353] woman’s satisfaction and received the promised reward.

When Mr. Haris began again to prepare to set out for Penn[sylvania] again in order to set himself about the writing of the translation of the plates His <wife> told <him>that she fully decreed in her heart to go also[.] He proposed to her that she should go with him and stay a week or two on a visit and then he would take her home and go again to do the work of writing the Book[.]

She acceeded to this very cheerfully—But her husband did [not] suspect what he was to encounter[.] The first time he exhibited the egyptian characters she took out of her pocket an exact copy of them and informed those present that Joe smith was not the only one that was in possesion of this great curiosity that she herself had as the same characters and they were quite as gen=uine as those displayed <to> them by Mr H[arris][.] she pur=sued this course wherever she went untill she reached My sons house. when [they] arrived there she said she had come to see the plates and would never leave untill she attained her objec<t>

The next day Joseph was comp[e]lled to take them out of the house and bury both the breast plate & the record for she began by [w.o. to] ransack<ing> every nook & [p.354] corner of the house[,]chest[,] cupboard[,] trunk &c[.] the day after she went out and hunted the ground over ajacent to the house[.] she kept up the search till 2 oclock in <the> afternoon when she came in very ill natured and after warming herself a little enqired of Emma if they had snakes there in the Winter time[.][64]

It is not known what happened to the copy of the characters that Lucy Harris had in her possession, but all of her mechanizations (which included a lawsuit) to embarrass Joseph and stop Martin from helping him failed.

John H. Gilbert

John H. Gilbert

John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for the Book of Mormon would later recall that,

sometime in 1828, Martin Harris, who had been furnished by someone with what he said was a fac-simile of the hyroglyphics of one of the plates, started for New York.” Before getting there, Gilbert relates that Harris “stopped at Albany and called on Lt. Gov. Bradish,—with what success I do not know.”  After this, Harris “proceeded to New York, and called on Prof. C. Anthon, made known his business and presented his hyroglyphics.”  “Martin”, observed Gilbert, “returned from his trip east satisfied that “Joseph” was a “little smarter than Prof. Anthon.”[65]

In 1831 William W. Phelps responded to a letter written by Eber D. Howe and spoke about Harris’ trip to New York City, but again, did not mention any fulfillment of prophecy in relation to it:

Joseph Smith is a person of very limited abilities in common learning — but his

William Wines Phelps

William Wines Phelps

knowledge of divine things, since the appearance of his book, has astonished many. Mr. Harris, whose name is in the book, is a wealthy farmer, but of small literary acquirements; he is honest, and sincerely declares upon his soul’s salvation that the book is true, and was interpreted by Joseph Smith, through a pair of silver spectacles, found with the plates.  The places where they dug for the plates, in Manchester, are to be seen. When the plates were said to have been found, a copy of one or two lines of the characters, were taken by Mr. Harris to Utica, Albany and New York; at New York, they were shown to Dr. Mitchell, and he referred to professor Anthon who translated and declared them to be the ancient shorthand Egyptian. So much is true. The family of Smiths is poor, and generally ignorant in common learning. [66]

Though Phelps does not mention any fulfillment of scripture in this reply to Eber D. Howe, a few months later he would write in the Ontario Phoenix:

We live in an eventful day. According to the Psalmist, truth springs out of the earth, and righteousness looks down from heaven, and as twin-angels they will sweep through the world like a mighty torrent, till mankind, untrammelled by secret bondage, sing as the sons of glory, ‘we are one — peace on earth — virtue endures forever!” [67]

In August 1832 two Mormon missionaries were asked some questions about events surrounding the finding of the Gold Plates. The two missionaries were Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde. In early August the Boston Investigator contained the following notice:

NOTICE-It is expected that a meeting will be held at the Julien [Julian] Hall, next Sunday, to commence at 10 o’clock, A. M. by one or two of the Elders of the Church of Christ, from Ohio, who have received a commandment of God to go forth and preach Repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, declaring to the people that the earth is about to be visited with heavy judgments for the wickedness of its inhabitants. The above meeting will be held gratis. We cheerfully insert the above notice; but lest it should not be fully understood, we observe, the “Elders” above named are professed believers in the “Golden Bible” said to have been found pursuant to revelation by, Joseph Smith.-EDITOR.[68]

The following was recorded in Orson Hyde’s Journal for August 5, 1832:

5 preached at Julian Hall an infidel establishment and the infidels came out generally a number of hundred and paid good attention told them about the coming forth of the Book &c and also that they must repent or they would perish afternoon met with the Brethren and Sisters at Sister Brewers broke bread &c had a good time Evening went to the infidel meeting upon their invitation, and then spoke had written down I should think about a dozen or more Questions, and he called me to him and asked me to read the questions, I read them he then asked me if I was willing to answer them before the congregation I told him I was, and I did so, he then took up the subject and commenced arguing against it and we prayd that he might be confounded, and really he did not make out much or raise any insurmountable objections he gave us liberty to speak after he got through & we took away his objections and showed the people that he had contradicted his own statement &c came away.[69]

Samuel H. Smith, the missionary companion of Orson Hyde and one of the eight witnesses of the Book of Mormon, wrote this entry in his journal for that date:

5th Sunday held a meeting in Julian hall where Infidels hold a meetings this was in the forenoon & we declared these things faithfully a large congregation of People & a great Part Infidels & in the afternoon had a meeting at Fan[n]y Brewers with Brother & Sisters & Partook of the Sacrement & in the Evening Brother orson & I went to the inifidel hall & a man by the name of kneelan asked us Some questions concerning this work the way & manner the reccord was found & translated & we answered them before the Publick congregation & then kneelon Preached against the work & he made Some [w]rong Statements or difrent from what we had it said was about the record & the testimony after he had got through he gave us liberty to Speak & remove his objections & then Brother orson Spake a few minutes & Showed the incorrectness of his Statements & then told them to repent & we left them[70]

Mormon Missionaries 1832In this 1832 article from the Boston Investigator, which appeared a week after the Notice above,  Smith & Hyde answer questions about the characters and use the term “Urim and Thummim”, (possibly one the first times publicly) in connection with the method of Joseph’s translation of the plates:

Question — Where is Joseph Smith now or where is he supposed to be? Answer — In the state of Ohio — town and county stated, but not taken down.

Q. — By what means did he discover the golden plates and who was with him when he made the discovery? A. — The golden plates were discovered through the ministration of an angel of the Lord, by Joseph Smith — no one else was with him at the time of the discovery.

Q. — By whom was a fac simile of some part of the language and characters taken, and on what material. A. — It was taken by Joseph Smith on paper from the original plates themselves.

Q. — By whom was this presented to Dr. Mitchell, and at what period? A. — By Martin Harris, one of the witnesses who had seen the plates — do not exactly know at what time.

Q. — Is that fac simile, now in being, and if so where is it? A. — It is, or it was in being — I have seen it.

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.

Q. — What became of the plates after the translation was made? A. — They were delivered into the hands of the angel of the Lord by whom they were afterwards shown to the three witnesses, who have testified to that effect.

Q. — At what place was the translation made? A. — Partly at Manchester, Ontario county, N. Y. where the plates were found, and partly on the banks of the Susquehannah river in Pennsylvania.

Q. — How many were present at the time and who? A. — Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris — and several others at least part of the time whose names were mentioned but not taken down.

Q. — When were the plates seen by the eight who saw them, and who have testified to that fact; before they were translated, or since? A. — They were seen at different times while they were in the hands of Joseph Smith and during the time of their translation.

Q. — Did they see the fac simile also, and if so, did they compare the fac simile with the plates to see if they agreed? A. — They saw the fac simile also, but did not compare it with the plates to see whether it agreed or not.

Q. — Who is Mr. Anthony [sic] who saw the fac simile? is he still living, or not? A. — He was a professor of languages in the city of New-York, but we do not know whether he is now living or not.

Q. — By what means was the spot made known to the men who travelled for the purpose, where the city is to be built? A. — It was made known by the spirit of the Lord.

Q. — In what way? A. — In answer to their prayers.

Q. — This is all poetry to me — was there any visible token that unbelievers could have either seen or heard? A. — I do not know that there was — there probably was not.[71]

It appears from the above article that the story of the characters being sent to New York City was being told by Mormon Missionaries, and that Dr. Mitchell and Professor Anthon were mentioned in connection to that story.  There is no mention of the fulfillment of prophecy in connection with the Harris-Anthon-Mitchill encounter, so perhaps it may not have been widely told at this time even though it would have been a good proselytizing tool. Samuel Smith and Orson Hyde do affirm though, that the plates were translated “partly at Manchester”, and that even though the witnesses to the gold plates “saw the fac simile [of the characters] also”, they did not compare them with the characters written on the plates, and that the plates were seen by the eight witnesses “at different times while they were in the hands of Joseph Smith” during the translation. It is of interest to note that when Joseph wrote his 1832 History a few months later, he did not use the words “urim and thummim”, he used the word “spectacles.” [72] In 1838 Joseph began another official history of his life which was written to “put all enquirers after truth into possession of the facts as they have transpired in relation both to myself and the Church as far as I have such facts in possession.” [73] The first part of this history was lost during the conflict in Missouri [74] and was re-transcribed in the spring of 1839 by one of Joseph’s clerks, James Mulholland.[75]  Joseph writes,

The persecution however became so intolerable that I was under the necessity of leaving Manchester and going with my wife <to> Susquahanah County in the State of Pensyllvania. While preparing to start (being very poor and the persecution so heavy upon us that there was no probability that we would ever be otherwise) in the midst of our afflictions we found a friend in a Gentleman by <the> name of Martin Harris, who came to us and gave me fifty dollars to assist us in our affliction, Mr Harris was a resident of Palmyra township Wayne County in the State of  New York and a farmer of respectability. By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pensylvania, and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters of all the plates. I copyed a considerable number of them and by means of the Urim and Thummin 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 [1827], and the February following. Sometime in this month of February the aforementioned Mr Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off of the plates and started with them to the City of New York.  [76]

Unlike the 1834-5 History which Joseph wrote with Oliver Cowdery, this account does not mention the messenger’s admonition not to translate any of the characters until they were taken to the “learned” to fulfill prophecy.  In this version of events Joseph “immediately after” his arrival in Pennsylvania “commenced copying the characters of all the plates,” and then after copying “a considerable number of them” he “translated some of them” between December 1827 and February 1828 “by means of the Urim and Thummim.” Thus, according to Joseph’s account in 1839 he copied “a considerable number” of the characters and “translated” some of them for Harris to take to the “learned men” in New York City and according to Orson Pratt, Harris took copies of the characters and the translation of them with him. In 1831 James Gordon Bennett wrote an article called The Mormonites and stated that Harris had “several manuscripts” in his pocket that he took with him. [77] Rev Diedrich WillersDiedrich Willers, a Reverend in the Reformed Church wrote a letter in June of 1830 which included the most credible reports [78] about Joseph Smith and the history and origin of the Book of Mormon. [79] Willers was acquainted with the Whitmer family [80] and wrote that he spoke to Peter Whitmer, Sr. [81] who Willers said was “silent about Smith’s pretension.”[82] Willers then related what information he could gather about the new sect from those “credible reports”:

In the month of July [in 1829], Joseph Smith made his appearance in Seneca County, in the neighborhood of Waterloo, about six miles from my hometown. There a certain David Whitmer claimed to have seen an angel of the Lord, so Smith proceeded to his house, in order to complete the translation of the above work himself. According to the reports, only there could he work–where men who have had association with the other world also reside. This is the eleventh place where he had worked on the translation of his work and where men saw angels.

He asserted that the angel of the Lord appeared to him and made it known that in the neighborhood of Palmyra there were golden plates in the earth, upon which was described the doings of a Jewish prophet’s family, associated with many not yet fulfilled prophecies. The angel indicated that the Lord destined him to translate these things into English from the ancient language, that under these plates were hidden spectacles, without which he could not translate these plates, that by using these spectacles, he (Smith) would be in a position to read these ancient languages, which he had never studied, and that the Holy Ghost would reveal to him the translation in the English language. Therefore, he (Smith) proceeded to Manchester township, Ontario County, and found everything as described, the plates buried next to the spectacles in the earth, and soon he completed the translation of this work.[83]

Willers does not mention anything about a “urim and thummim”, or any fulfillment of prophecy concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  He does relate that he heard that Smith was told by the angel that he would be able to translate the plates with the aid of the spectacles that were found with the plates by the one who had supposedly buried them. To try and reconcile Joseph’s conflicting accounts, David Sloan writes that,

Although the 1839 history clearly records that Joseph Smith translated a number of characters off the plates before the Harris-Anthon encounter, Nephi’s prophetic account and a number of historical accounts indicate that Joseph Smith was initially unable to translate the Book of Mormon and sought the assistance of learned men to help with the translation. Evidence also exists that Joseph referred to experimental and preliminary attempts as [at] translating, regardless of the outcome. For this reason, Joseph could consistently refer to translated characters even at a time when he had been completely unsuccessful in his efforts. This is exactly the process of human effort and study that one would expect from reading Doctrine and Covenants 9. [84]

Sloan also theorizes that Joseph discarded the original characters document because it may have contained his own failed translation attempt. But in 1840 Orson Pratt, who knew Joseph well and was one of the first members of the church affirmed that,

a few of the original characters were accurately transcribed and translated by Mr Smith, which, with the translation, were taken by a gentleman by the name of Martin Harris, to the city of New York, where they were presented to a learned gentleman by the name of Anthon, who professed to be extensively acquainted with many languages, both ancient and modern. He examined them; but was unable to decipher them correctly; but he presumed, that if the original records could be brought, he could assist in translating them.[85]

Also, Joseph supposedly possessed the spectacles which according to Joseph Knight,

he seamed to think more of the glasses or the urim and thummem then he Did of the Plates, for, says he, “I can see any thing; they are Marvelus. Now they are writen in Caracters and I want them translated.[86]

Joseph Knight, Sr.

Joseph Knight, Sr.

Knight does not mention any failed attempts at translation by Joseph, but has Joseph seemingly ignoring what the messenger told him, that “the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book.” There is not one contemporary account that mentions Joseph failing to translate any of the Book of Mormon characters correctly.[87]

Joseph declaring in his 1832 history that he did not begin translating the characters because Martin Harris “said the Lord had shown him that he must go to new York City with some of the characters” is simply not corroborated in any account by Harris. We do know that Joseph did not discard at least one copy (which might have been the original) of the characters, because a different copy other than the one possessed by John and David Whitmer was used in 1844 to create the Stick of Joseph Broadside, and that Joseph showed the Book of Mormon characters to at least two people in Nauvoo.[88]

It is also significant that Joseph did not portray events in his 1839 History in the same way as they were portrayed in earlier accounts but instead wrote that he “copied and translated” a considerable number of the characters before Martin Harris left for New York, and left out that the trip was a fulfillment of an Isaiah prophecy.

Joseph Smith's Chocolate Peep Stone

Artist Rendering of Joseph’s Brown Stone

In bringing forth the Book of Mormon (a religious work) Joseph Smith had transitioned himself from a treasure seeker into a religious seeker.  Naturally, there would be those who doubted Joseph’s motives or credentials to do such a thing.  He needed credibility.  The tale that Martin Harris told of his trip to New York, which Joseph transformed into a fulfilled prophecy of Isaiah which he reworked and added to the Book of Mormon, gave Joseph this much needed credibility and selling point for the newly printed Book.

Go to Part II: The “Caractors” Go To New York.


[7] Joseph Smith’s first handwritten account of the appearance of Moroni can be found at the Joseph Smith Papers website in Letterbook 1, page 10, found here, accessed June 4, 2013.

[8] ibid, page 11.

[9] David E. Sloan, The Anthon Transcripts and the Translation of the Book of Mormon: Studying It Out in the Mind of Joseph Smith, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Volume – 5, Issue – 2, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1996, Pages: 57–81. Accessed, June 4, 2013. Sloan’s reasoning is non sequitur:

It might be argued that the meaning of the 1839 history is clear and that the words of the history should be understood according to their plain meaning. However, the words of Nephi’s prophetic account are also plainly written and suggest a different interpretation of the events. Furthermore, Nephi’s words of introduction to his account are compelling: “But behold, I prophesy unto you concerning the last days; concerning the days when the Lord God shall bring these things forth unto the children of men” (2 Nephi 26:14). This prophecy was given to Nephi by the Spirit, which “speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be” (Jacob 4:13).

He states that Smith’s version is clear and plain and so is Nephi’s from the Book of Mormon. So, which are we to believe? Mr. Sloan says that the 1839 History should not be used to “define” Nephi’s prophecy.  If not Joseph Smith’s own official History (not some abandoned draft) which are the events it speaks of, then what?

[10] Joseph began working on the translation of the Book of Mormon soon after Matrin Harris returned from his trip to the east.  Joseph did not translate the portion of the plates that contained the reworked Isaiah prophecy (2 Nephi 27 & Ether 5:2—4) until approximately June of 1829, more than a year later. The same chapter also speaks of three witnesses, who would view the plates. After writing the verses about the three witnesses to the plates, Joseph Smith later recounted that ,

“Almost immediately after we had made this discovery; it occurred to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and the aforementioned Martin Harris (who had came to enquire after our progress in the work) that they would have me enquire of the Lord, to know if they might not obtain of him to be these three special witnesses; and finally they became so very solicitous, and teased me so much, that at length I complied, and through the Urim and Thummim, I obtained of the Lord for them the following revelation. (History of the Church, Volume 1:52-53).

The “revelation” that he speaks of would later be categorized as Doctrine and Covenants Section 17, and was given by Joseph in June, 1829. In November, 1829 Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter to Cornelius C. Blatchly, and quoted from the 27th Chapter of 2 Nephi:

“This record which gives an account of the first inhabitants of this continent, is engraved  on plates, which have the appearance of gold; and they are of very curious workmanship.” “The reason stated in a prophecy written before the coming of Christ in the flesh, why the record should not be shown to all the world, at the time of its coming forth to the children of men is that the book should be sealed, by the power of God.” “The prophecy also states there shall also be a revelation sealed in the book, which will reveal all things from the foundation of the world to the end thereof.” And because of the iniquity of the world, at the time of its coming forth; it shall be hid from the eyes of the world; that the eyes of none shall behold it, (save it be that three witnesses shall behold it by the power of God) besides him, to whom the book should be delivered. And none other should see it, only a few,—if it should be wisdom in God.”“And after that which was not sealed, was translated, the book should again be hid-up, unto the Lord, that it might not be destroyed; and come forth again, in the own due time of him, who knows all things unto the children of men.” (Gospel Luminary, Vol. II, No. 49, Thursday, December 10, 1829, page 194, New York City).

This is quite possibly the first public mention of the reworked Isaiah prophecy, but unfortunately, Cowdery does not include the Anthon visit.

[11] Sloan, op. cited, note 7. Sloan continues in the same vein here, trying to confuse the issue with a quote by Neal Maxwell that has nothing to do with why Joseph Smith did not recount his 1839 History in the same way he did in 1832. Was Joseph able to grasp this “great spiritual event” in 1832, but not seven years later? This makes little sense, since it was Joseph himself who failed to complete the historical record if the reworked Nephi prophecy was that important to him (as it seemed to be only seven years earlier). It is obvious that there was some other reasons that Joseph left the reworked Isaiah prophecy out of his later account, some of which are discussed in this article. Also, it is hard to believe that Mr. Sloan does not know that Joseph Smith corrected the first 42 pages of his 1839 History, according to Brigham Young and the Joseph Smith Papers website.  See Note #13.

[12] Sometime in 1832 between the months of July and September Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams began what they called,

“A History of the Life Of Joseph Smith Jr an account of his marvilous experience and all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Christ the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the Church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brought forth and established by his hand…” (Dean C. Jessee, “Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision”, BYU Studies 9. No. 3, 1969, page 3).

According to Dr. Jessee  it was “abruptly discontinued”.  Dr. Jessee  claims that it was because new plans were made to write Joseph’s History, but this is much too simplistic an answer. (See Note 13). This History was written in a “medium sized, commercially produced blank book.” According to the Joseph Smith Papers website,

The first three leaves of the volume contain JS’s earliest extant attempt to write a history of his life. Later, the book was turned over so the back cover became the front and the last page became the first. One or more texts were inscribed in this side (the back) of the book on the eight leaves that were later cut out, as is evident from inscriptions visible on the remaining stubs of the excised leaves.

The volume was also repurposed as a letterbook. The letterbook begins on the recto of the fourth leaf in the front of the book (immediately following the history). The letters occupy ninety-three pages. The book’s pagination also began anew with the copied letters. The first page of letters bore the inscription “1a”, which is only partially extant on the now-trimmed page but is complete in photocopy and microfilm copies at the Church History Library. Page 78 is blank. The front flyleaf is now missing—possibly because it bore a title related to the history and was removed when the volume was converted to a letterbook. The letters were copied with quill pens in ink that is now brown. The pagination appears to have been added at different times and possibly in different hands. There are 101 blank pages between the end of the letter transcripts and the excised pages in the back of the book. There is illegible ink transfer on page [130] from a loose leaf document that was placed between pages [130] and [131] before its ink had dried. There are also smudges of ink on some of the succeeding pages.

At some point, Frederick G. Williams began an index or table of contents that identifies the letters copied into pages 1–25 of the letterbook. This incomplete index is inscribed on paper that does not match the original ledger paper. It was apparently a loose leaf inserted in the volume—as is Williams’s index to the contents of Revelation Book 2—although it is currently bound in the front of the volume as a result of the late twentieth-century conservation. The index is horizontally ruled with forty-three manually inscribed graphite lines.

Dr. Jessee also writes that,

although they were later cut from the volume, the three leaves containing the History match the cut edges still protruding from the binding of the ledger book. The terminal letters of words that were severed when the pages were removed also match. The cut page stubs immediately precede the November 27, 1832, letter entry, the first item in the letterbook. Second, the page numbering indicates this arrangement. The pages of the History were numbered 1 through 6, and the November 27 letter begins on page 1a. Both the last page of the History and the pages of the letter were written by Frederick Williams. He would not have started numbering the pages containing the letter with “1a” had there not been a preceding page 1. (Dean C. Jessee, “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision”, BYU Studies, Volume 9:3 (Spring 1969), page 277).

 [13] I find it very troubling that Joseph did not have the 1832 History copied into his Large Journal (A-1), when he went to the trouble of doing so with the History that he helped Oliver Cowdery write in 1834-5. Instead, he left it alone in the back of a letterbook which had the title page removed to possibly obscure its existence in that collection.  On October 29, 1835 Joseph had one of his scribes write in his diary,

Thursday, 29th Br[other] W[arren] Par[r]ish commenced writing for me. Father and Mother Smith visit[ed] us. While we set writing Bishop Partri[d]ge passed our window. [He has] just returned from the East.

Br[other] Par[r]ish commenced writing for me at $15.00 per month. I paid him $16.00 in advance out of the committee Store. Br[other] Parrish agrees to board himself, for which I agree to /allow him/ four Dollars more p[e]r month making $19.00.

I was then called to appear before the High Council which was {page 10} setting to give my testimony in an action brought against Br[other] David El[l]iot for whip[p]ing his Daughter unreasonably. My testimony was in his favour.

[p.42] Returned to our writing room. [We] went to Dr. [Frederick G.] William’s after my large Journal [and I] made some observations to my Scribe Concerning the plan of the City which is to be built up hereafter on this ground consecrated for a Stake of Zion.

While at the Doct[or’s], Bishop E[dward] Partri[d]ge came in in company with President Phelps. I was much rejoiced to see him. We examined the mum[m]ies, returned home, and my scribe commenced writing in /my/ Journal a history of my life, concluding President [Oliver] Cowdery[‘s] 2d letter to W[illiam] W. Phelps, which President Williams had begun. (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, p.41-42).

Historian Scott Faulring explains that Joseph’s large journal,

is Book A-1 of the “Manuscript History of the Church,” which contains some of Joseph Smith’s and his scribes’ earliest attempts to write a detailed history of the church and which was later used to prepare the published History of Joseph Smith. (ibid, note 5)

Dean Jessee writes,

In October 1834 Oliver Cowdery, the editor of the Messenger and Advocate, introduced the first published history of the Church. This work was presented in the form of correspondence between Cowdery and William W. Phelps, and was anticipated as a “full history of the rise of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and the most interesting parts of its progress, to the present time.” It was further announced by the editor 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.”

In a series of eight letters that followed, Cowdery presented random historical events, beginning in the October 1834 issue of the paper with an account of the priesthood restoration, and terminating in the October 1835 issue with the visit of Moroni to Joseph Smith. A copy of the eight letters was transcribed into the Prophet’s journal in1835. On October 29 Joseph recorded that he went with his newly appointed scribe, Warren Parrish, to obtain his “large journal” from Frederick G. Williams. Later that same day Parrish began writing “a history” of Joseph’s life by concluding “President Cowdery’s second letter to W. W. Phelps, which President Williams had begun.” A check of the handwriting in the journal reveals the point at which Parrish commenced copying the second Cowdery letter to Phelps. It also shows that Parrish continued writing to the end of the eighth letter. At this point, however, unlike the published account, the journal narrative does not end, but continues in a different style. The transition is marked by a change in handwriting from Warren Parrish to that of Warren A. Cowdery and is prefaced with the following introduction: “Here the reader will observe that the narrative assumes a different form. The subject of it becoming daily more and more noted, the writer deemed it proper to give a plain, simple and faithful narrative of every important item in his every day occurrences…. (Jessee, op. cited, 1969, pages 4-5).

As Scott Faulring explained above, the “large journal” that Joseph Smith had his scribes copy the 1834 History into is what has become known as Manuscript A-1. This journal originally had over 100 pages of material,

“covering the period from 1834 to early 1836, was a composite chronicle consisting of genealogical tables, dated entries adapted from JS’s journal, and transcripts of newspaper articles. Reasons for its discontinuance are unknown.”

When Joseph Smith began his fourth attempt at a History in 1839, his scribes simply flipped over this Manuscript Book and began again. If you go to the Joseph Smith Papers website, and view this manuscript, you will see that they end it at page 575, but at the bottom of the page in the right hand corner you will see the page number 192, which is upside down.

The material recorded in the back part of the Manuscript Book is not to be found on the website at this time. *Correction, this part of the “large journal” has recently been added to the website and may be found here. (Updated and accessed on November 11, 2013).

If, as Mr. Slone contends, the 1832 History is the right interpretation of events, then why did Joseph abruptly discontinue it and leave it uncopied in the back of a letterbook? Why didn’t Joseph have it copied into the large journal in 1835? Even if he was not satisfied with the account of the claimed 1820 vision, why did he not have the portion that had to do with the visit of the messenger copied? It is obvious that Joseph did not want the events as written in 1832 to become part of his Official History.  At the Joseph Smith Papers website they write that,

J[oseph] S[mith] dictated or supplied information for much of A-1, and he personally corrected the first forty-two pages before his death.  (See also, History of the Church, vol. 7, p. 387).

There may be another reason that Joseph did not feel the 1832 History was important; in his 1839 History he changed the name of the messenger from Moroni to Nephi. As you can see in the photo, the name Nephi is not only written, but emphasized. The insertion of the name Moroni into the text above was done much later, by Brigham H. Roberts. When this History was published by Joseph in 1842 in the Times and Seasons, Joseph (who was the Editor at that time) kept the name Nephi.  It was also published as Nephi in the Millennial Star and in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price. Since Joseph corrected the first 42 pages of this manuscript and did not change the name to Moroni, ascribing the name of Nephi to a clerical error is disingenuous. It is worth noting here that Joseph did not name the messenger who gave him the plates in his 1832 History, though he does reference “Maroni” as one of those who had “engraven” the plates. (Letterbook 1, page 4). As for the messenger, Joseph simply calls him “an angel of the Lord” who “came and stood before me and it was by night and he called me by name…” (ibid). Why Joseph would change the name of this messenger to Nephi is something of a mystery since he had referred to the angel who delivered the plates as Moroni in a prior “revelation” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, L:2) and in the 1838 publication, The Elder’s Journal (Elders Journal, 1, pp. 42-3, July 1838).

[14] “Letter Book A,” JS Letterbook 1page 11.

[15] Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Vol. 1,  p. 223.

[16] ibid.

[17] Joel Tiffany, Interview with Martin Harris, Tiffany’s Monthly, August, 1859, p.167.

[18] ibid, page 168.

[19] ibid, page 169.

[20] ibid, page 167.

[21] ibid, page 169.

[22] ibid, page 170.

[23] Letterbook 1, page 10. The text reads,

in December following we mooved to Susquehana by the assistence of a man by the name of Martin Har[r]is who became convinced of th[e] vision and gave me fifty Dollars to bare my expences  and because of his faith and this rightheous deed the Lord appeared unto him in a vision and shewed unto  him his marvilous work which he was about to do and <h[e]> imediately came to Suquehannah and said the Lord  had shown him that he must go to new York City <with> some of the characters so we proceeded to coppy some of them and he took his Journy to the Eastern Cittys and to the Learned <saying> read this I pray thee and the learned said I cannot but if he would bring the blates[plates] they would read it but the Lord had forbid it and he returned to me and gave them to <me> <to> translate and I said I said cannot for I am not learned but the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters

[24] Early Mormon Documents Vol. 1, page 343-44, See also, JSP, Accessed, June 4, 2013.

[25] ibid, page 344. JSP, Accessed, June 4,

[26] ibid.

[27] ibid, page 348, See also, JSP, Accessed, June 4, 2013. Lucy Smith wrote,

She went to bed  and in the morning told us a very remarkable dream She said that a personage had appeared to her the night before and said to her that inasmuch as she had disputed  the servant of the Lord and said that his word was not  to be believed and asked him many improper questions that she had done that which was not right in the sight of God Now said behold here are the plates look upon them and believe she then described the record minutely and again said that She had made up her mind as to what she would do that She had in her possession 28 dollars that her mother gave her just before she died when She was on her death bed  Joseph should take that and if he would he might give his note but he should certainly accept of it on sone terms this last proposition he acceeded to in order get rid of her importunities

[28] ibid.

[29] The Historical Magazine, page 307, Online here. Accessed June 4, 2013.

[30] Vogel, Early Mormon Documents Vol. 1, page 344.

[31] ibid.

[32] ibid, p. 328. JSP, Accessed June 4., 2013.

[33] Sloan, op. cited. In trying to prove that Joseph could not translate at all until after Martin Harris returned from New York, Mr. Sloan writes,

According to Richard L. Bushman, “Lucy implied that once Joseph had a translation of all the basic characters, he could carry on by himself—thus the need to copy a great number of characters.” Lucy’s statements indicate that her son could not translate and for that reason sought out the assistance of learned men. Accordingly, Bushman writes that “The scripture [Isaiah 29] must have struck Joseph with all the more power if at first he did not know how to translate, as his mother said. The protest “I am not learned’ would then have expressed Joseph’s situation in 1827 exactly. Joseph Knight thought the circumstances fit the scripture.” (ibid.)

This is totally misreading what Lucy reports. Before Joseph told his mother that he was “instructed” to copy the characters to “send them to all the learned men that he could find and ask them for a translation,” he knew that he would be able to translate the plates.  When Joseph returned from the hill with Emma on the night of September 27, 1827 Lucy wrote that,

I trembled so much with fear lest all might be lost agin by some small failure in keeping the commandments that I was under the necessity of l[e]aving the room to conceal my feelings[.] Joseph saw this and followed me[.] Mother[,] said he[,] do not be uneasy all is right here said he I have got the key[.]

I knew not what he meant but took the article in my hands and upon examining it (with no covering but a silk handkerchief)[,] found that it consisted of 2 sm<ooth> ❤ cornered diamonds set in glass and the glass was set in silver bows> stones connected with each other in the same way that old fashioned spectacles are made[.] (Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Vol. 1, p. 329, See also, JSP, Accessed, June 4, 2013.

That key, according to Joseph Knight was the “spectacles” through which Joseph could see anything, and to which Lucy later adds,

The thing which [I] spoke of that Joseph termed a Key was indeed nothing more nor less than the urim and Thummim by which the angel manifested those things to <him> that were shown him in vision by which also he could at any time ascertain the approach of danger either to himself or the record and for this cause he kept these thing<s> constantly about his person[.] (ibid, page 339, JSP, Accessed June 4, 2013)

It is unlikely that Joseph kept the over large spectacles about his person at all times, so Lucy must have been referring to Joseph’s peep stone. If Joseph could “see anything”, even the “past, present, and future” then surely he knew that he would be able to translate the record with his “key”. What need then, to study it out in his mind? He could see anything! This may be the reason why Joseph abandoned his earlier History and wrote that after he was

“enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pensylvania, and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters of all the plates. I copyed a considerable number of them and by means of the Urim and Thummin 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 [1827], and the February following. Sometime in this month of February the aforementioned Mr Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off of the plates and started with them to the City of New York. (Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Volume I, p. 70).

Joseph’s “revelation” to Oliver Cowdery about studying it out in his mind first, makes little sense. How do you study out in your mind and come to a translation, of which you then must ask God “is this translation I came up with right or wrong”; when you cannot read the hieroglyphics in front of you? How would you make any kind of translation? Isn’t the whole idea of the “interpreters” to translate the language into another language you can understand by God’s power? Don Bradley writes,

The most specific  translation accounts states that Smith would see, on “something like parchment,” a “Reformed Egyptian” character from the plates and below it the English rendering. A single character would render sometimes just a word or two in English and sometimes several words, with Joseph apparently dictating on average about twenty to thirty words at a time. (“Written by the Finger of God?: Claims and Controversies of Book of Mormon Translation”, Sunstone, online here).

He also writes,

When using the seer stone, Smith did not directly consult the plates, which sometimes lay nearby concealed in a cloth and at other times were hidden in a remote location, such as the woods. (ibid).

How could Joseph study out in his mind the characters on the plates when the plates were not even in front of him? If he only needed the stone, why not leave the plates in the ground? He could have then, later, taken the witnesses to see them. Why go through all the trouble if he really didn’t need them? So the question then becomes, what was there to study out in your mind?  Don Bradley tried to tackle this problem in his article quoted above and wrote,

The revelation [D&C 9] prescribes a process of “studying out” the scriptural text in one’s mind and confirming it through a “burning in the bosom” or disconfirming it through “a stupor of thought” (D&C 9:8–9). A potential objection to the argument from D&C 9 is that the revelation prescribes this process for one translating by “the spirit of revelation,” like Oliver, not for one translating by the gift of seeing, like Joseph (D&C 8:1–4). Thus, on the logic of this objection, because Oliver was not a seer and therefore unable to translate by the seer’s gift, his mode of translation would be nonvisual. But the revelation does not necessarily indicate that Joseph Smith would have translated in this same manner. Instead, D&C 9 can be understood as suggesting that the method of translation was tailored to the gifts of the translator, a concept consistent with Book of Mormon teaching on spiritual gifts (such as Moroni 10:8: “there are different ways that these gifts are administered”). By this logic, Joseph’s translation of the Book of Mormon, made in his capacity as a seer employing the spectacles or seer stone, would have capitalized on his gift of second sight. (option cited above)

There are all kinds of problems with this logic. If it were true that each person would have a different method of translating, then why prepare spectacles to translate the plates in the first place? And if “seeing” is a spiritual gift, then what is the problem? Why then, would Oliver have failed if it was just a matter of nonvisual “revelation”?  Are the current apostles of the church screened in their use of seer stones before they are set apart as “prophets, seers and revelators” for the church? Why then, would Joseph let Oliver try and translate in the first place and then have a “revelation” that it was because he didn’t study it out in his mind that he couldn’t perform? Why not just tell him that he wasn’t a “seer” and that was why he failed? The problem is that to translate something from what you don’t know to something you know has no criteria which one can apply to the “study it out in your mind” method. Even in the revelation itself it states that God wanted Oliver to know that, “other records have I, that I will give unto you power that you may assist to translate.” (verse 2) It also says that God “took this privilege away” from Cowdery. (verse 5) So he must have been able to translate. He was also told that if he only “knew” that he should have studied it out in his mind, that all would have been just fine. (verse 10)  Then the “revelation” blames it on Cowdery’s “fear”. (verse 11). This “revelation” raises far more questions than it answers.

[34] Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Vol. 1, page 344.

[35] Fayette Lapham Interview, The Historical Magazine, page 308. Online here, accessed June 4, 2013.

[36] Letterbook 1, page, 11. Joseph wrote:

in December following we mooved to Susquehana by the assistence of a man by the name of Martin Har[r]is who became convinced of th[e] vision and gave me fifty Dollars to bare my expences  and because of his faith and this rightheous deed the Lord appeared unto him in a vision and shewed unto  him his marvilous work which he was about to do and <h[e]> imediately came to Suquehannah and said the Lord had shown him that he must go to new York City  <with> some of the characters so we proceeded to coppy some of them

[37] The Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 5, February, 1835, pages 79-80, (Hereafter LDSM&A). Online here, accessed June 4, 2013. Oliver Cowdery wrote to W. W. Phelps,

“Yet,” said he, [the messenger from the skies] “the scripture must be fulfilled before it is translated, which says that the words of a book, which were sealed, were presented to the learned; for thus has God determined to leave men without excuse, and show to the meek that his arm is not shortened that it cannot save.”

There is one late remembrance that mentions the Isaiah prophecy being spoken about before the plates were translated, and that is by Emily (Colburn) Austin, a younger sister of Sally (Colburn) Knight, the wife of Newel Knight.  In her autobiography from 1882 she writes,

Old Uncle Joe [Joseph] Knight, as we called him, was a wool carder, and a farmer; yet he abandoned all business, and joined with a number of others to dig for money on his premises. While I was visiting my sister, we have walked out to see the places where they had dug for money, and laughed to think of the absurdity of any people having common intellect to indulge in such a thought or action. However, all of those things had long since become oblivious; for in the time of their digging for money and not finding it attainable, Joe Smith told them there was a charm on the pots of money, and if some animal was killed and the blood sprinkled around the place, then they could get it. So they killed a dog, and tried this method of obtaining the precious metal; but again money was scarce in those diggings. Still, they dug and dug, but never came to the precious treasure. Alas! how vivid was the expectation when the blood of poor Tray was used to take off the charm, and after all to find their mistake, that it did not speak better of things than that of Abel. And now they were obliged to give up in despair, and Joseph went home again to his father’s, in Palmyra.

Some months after this fruitless enterprise he was married to Miss Emma Hale, a school teacher, a fine girl, of good repute and respectable, though poor parentage. It was at this time, which I have mentioned previously, that the rumor was in circulation concerning the strange doctrine which he was setting forth; and which, indeed, was creating quite a stir among the people, and it surprised us to hear of his return to Colesville with his wife, to meet again with his old money diggers. But now he had entered upon a new project. He declared an angel had appeared to him and told him of golden plates, which were hidden up to come forth on a certain day; and also that the plates were sacred, containing a history of a people who inhabited this continent in ancient days; also it was that which Isaiah the prophet had spoken of; a vision which should become as the words of a book that is sealed; which was delivered to one that was learned, saying “Read this, I pray thee;” and he said, “I cannot, for it is sealed;” and the book is delivered to one that is unlearned, saying: “Read this, I pray thee;” and he said, “I cannot, for I am unlearned; moreover, inasmuch as this people draw near me, with their mouths and with their lips do honor me, therefore I will proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.”

This is what was circulated throughout the country, and this is the rumor which was now afloat. Smith brought up many prophecies to show that the Lord was about to do a marvelous work in the last days. He also affirmed that he had seen the angel, and had talked with him face to face; and the angel told him at a certain time he would conduct him to the place where the plates could be obtained; also that he was a chosen vessel in the hands of God, to translate them, and bring them to the world. All this was heard and believed by a large number of persons in Colesville, among whom was my own dear sister and her husband.  (Life Among the Mormons, by Emily M. Austin, M. J. Cantwell, Book and Job Printer, King Street, Madison Wisconsin, 1882, pages 32-35)

Unfortunately there are no contemporary accounts that agree with Emily’s statement that the Isaiah passage was being “circulated about the country” before Joseph produced the manuscript to the Book of Mormon. It is interesting to note that in 1830, after the Book of Mormon was translated, Lucy Smith was visited by three men from the local Presbyterian Church that some members of the Smith family had joined after Alvin’s death.  It seems that they had not been attending the church for the past 18 months, and they had come to enquire why they had not. Lucy gives this account of the interview,

On the fourth day the 3 men  <delegated> <by> the council came to perform the work assigned them they  began[:] Mrs [Lucy Mack] Smith we hear you have a gold bible and we came to see you <if> be so kind as to show it to us

No gentlemen said I[,]  we have <got><no> gold bible but we  have a translation of some gold plates which was sent to the world to bring the plainess of the Gospel to the children of men and to give a history of the people that used to inhabit this country and I then proceeded to give them the substance of what is contained in the book  of Mormon as also particularly the principles of religion  which it contains. But added I the Universalists come here  wonderfullly affraid that their religion will suffer loss— The  Presbyterians are frightened least their salary will come down The Methodist’s come and they rage for they worship a God  without body or parts and the doctrine we advocate comes  in contact with their views

Well said the foremost gentleman with whom I was acquainted can we see the manuscript,

No sir you cannot see it we have done exhibiting the manuscript altogether I have told you what was in it and that must  <suffice> He did not reply to this but said Mrs Smith you & Hyrum [Smith]  and sophronia [Smith Stoddard] and samuel [Smith] have belonged to our church  a whole year and we respect you very you say a great deal <about the book which your son has found> and believe much of what he tells you  but we cannot beare thoughts of loosing  you and they do wish— I wish that if you do believe those  things that never would say  anything about it I do wish you would not— Deacon  Beckwith said even you should stick my body full of faggots and burn me at the stake I would decla re that Jose[p]h has that record and that I know it to be  true as long as God gave me breath— he then turned  to his companions and said you see it is no use  to say anything more to her— we cannont chan[g]e he[r] mind &  then addressing me Mrs Smith I see that it is not poss ible to persuade you out of your belief and I do not  know that it is worth while to say any more about  the matter— No sir said I it is <of> no use you cannot  effect any thing by all that you can say— he then bid  me farewell and went out to see Hyrum & they asked  him if he really did believe that his brother had got the record  which he pretended to have— Hyrum <testified boldly to the truth and> told him that if he would take  the book of mormon when it was finished and read it asking God  for a witness to the truth of [it] he would receive what he desired  and now said he Deacon Beckwith just try it and see if I do  <not tell you truth.— They went to Samuel who quoted Isa[ia]h.>

Saumel Harrison did not quote Isaiah Chapter 29, he quoted Isaiah 56:9-11,  which reads,

All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest. His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.

[38] John A. Clark, Gleanings By The Way, W.J. & J.K. Simon, Philadelphia, 1842, page 224. Online Version, accessed, June 4, 2013.

[39] ibid.

[40] ibid.

[41]ibid, page 228.


[43]Dean C. Jessee, Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History, BYU Studies 17, no. 1 (1976): 29–39. Online Version,  Accessed, June 4, 2013.

[44]Gleanings, page 224. Clark wrote,

That this mysterious book, which no human eye of the present generation had yet seen, was in the possession of Joseph Smith, jr., ordinarily known in the neighborhood under the more familiar designation of Jo Smith; that there had been a revelation made to him by which he had discovered this sacred deposit, and two transparent stone, through which, as a sort of spectacles, he could read the Bible, although the box or ark that contained it, had not yet been opened; and that by looking through those mysterious stones, he had transcribed from one of the leaves of this book, the characters which Harris had so carefully wrapped in the package which he was drawing from his pocket.

Later, when Joseph actually claimed to be translating from the plates, his father-in-law Isaac Hale observed that,

The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for  [treasure for] the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time in the woods! (Affidavit of Isaac Hale, “Mormonism,” Susquehanna Register, and Northern Pennsylvanian, May 1, 1834, 9:1). Online here: Accessed June 4, 2013.

[45] ibid, page 242. See also, this article Part II.

[46] Gleanings, page, 231. Joseph seems to have only used the blanket with Martin Harris. In later accounts, Joseph never had the plates with him; he would “translate” by placing his peep stone into his hat, and then reading off what he claimed appeared on the stone. Dan Vogel writes that,

… Joseph Jr. had earned a reputation as a seer who could, by looking into a special stone, find lost articles, foretell the future, and locate buried treasure. In late 1825 he belonged to a treasure-seeking company which traveled the countryside in search of Spanish and Indian treasure in Palmyra, Manchester, Colesville, South Bainbridge, Harmony, and other places in New York and Pennsylvania. Martin Harris, a prominent member of the community and later financial backer of the Book of Mormon, remembered that the Palmyra-Manchester treasure seekers “were digging for money supposed to have been hidden by the ancients” and that “it was reported by these money diggers, that they had found boxes, but before they could secure them, they would sink into the earth.” (Dan Vogel, Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism, Ch.2, p.32 – p.33).

About the spectacles that Joseph claimed to have found with the gold plates Harris wrote,

“The stones were white, like polished marble, with a few gray streaks. I never dared to look into them by placing them in the hat, because Moses said that ‘no man could see God and live,’ and we could see anything we wished by looking into them; and I could not keep the desire to see God out of my mind. And beside, we had a command to let no man look into them, except by the command of God, lest he should ‘look aught and perish.’

It is doubtful that Harris ever saw the spectacles, or for that matter anyone else. Joseph himself, in a letter to John Wentworth in 1842 described the spectacles. He wrote,

With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rims 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.  (History of the Church, 4:535–41).

Joseph claimed the stones were transparent, Harris said they were opaque white with gray streaks. Emma Smith never mentioned her husband using spectacles,

“In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” (History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. Herald House, 1951, Volume 3, page 356).

Edward Traughber interviewed David Whitmer in 1879 and wrote,

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a ‘Seer Stone,’ which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said. (Saints’ Herald 26 (15 Nov. 1879): 341).

Michael Morse who was the husband of Emma’s sister Trial Hale, gave an interview to W. W. Blair of the RLDS First Presidency and said,

The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph’s placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes—Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down. Saints’ Herald 26 (15 June 1879): 190-91

Historian D. Michael Quinn wrote,

Before organizing the church in April 1830, Joseph Smith evidently ceased using the brown seer stone he had employed to translate the Book of Mormon and gave it to his scribe Oliver Cowdery Until his death in 1850, Cowdery kept this brown stone as a sacred relic of the Book of Mormon translation. Brigham Young’s brother Phineas, who was Cowdery’s brother-in-law, obtained the stone from Cowdery’s widow in 1850 and made a gift of it to Brigham Young. Three years later, one of Young’s counselors in the First Presidency confirmed to a Salt lake City congregation that Young had “the Urim and Thummim”.

Following Young’s death in 1877, his widow Zina D.H. Young obtained this seer stone at an estate auction of her husband’s personal effects, and she and her daughter Zina Y. Card eventually gave it to his successor John Taylor . In 1882 Apostle Franklin D. Richards examined “the Seer Stone that Oliver Cowdery gave Phineas Young,” observing that “the pouch containing it [was] made [p.196] by Emma [Smith]” . One of John Taylor’s body guards recorded in 1887, “On Sunday last I saw and handled the seer stone that the Prophet Joseph Smith had. It was a dark color, not round on one side. It was shaped like the top of a baby’s shoe, one end like the toe of the shoe, and the other round” (Bateman 1887). At the dedication of the Manti Temple the following year, Wilford Woodruff, who had recently succeeded Taylor as president, wrote, “Before leaving I Consecrated upon the Altar the seers Stone that Joseph Smith found by Revelation some 30 feet under the Earth [and] Carried By him through life”. After Woodruffs death in 1898, his successor Lorenzo Snow displayed the brown, Book of Mormon seer stone to a local bishop of the church. Frederick Kesler wrote in his diary that Snow “showed me the Seerers [sic] Stone that the Prophet Joseph Smith had by which he done some of the Translating of the Book of Mormon with. I handeled [sic] it with my own hands. I felt as though I see & was handling a very Sacred thing. I trust & feel that it will work in his hands as it did in the Prophet Joseph Smiths hands,” and added that this stone’s “color was mahoganey”. This seer stone is now kept in the First Presidency’s private vault. Recently, one of Zina Card’s descendants was allowed to see the stone in the First Presidency’s office. She afterwards stated,

The stone was not chocolate brown but rather the color of brown sugar. It was 3-4 inches long, 2 inches wide, and had a hump in the middle which made it perhaps 2 inches thick at the thickest point. It was fiat on the bottom and had three black, concentric circles on the top 1/2 inch. Below the circles were many small black circles. The stone was not transparent.” The First Presidency’s secretary told her that the presidency’s vault contained two additional seer stones. (D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p.195-6).

Even Martin Harris recalled that Joseph used his peep stone to translate the gold plates,

By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used. Martin said, after continued translation they would become weary, and would go down to the river and exercise by throwing stones out on the river, etc. While so doing on one occasion, Martin found a stone very much resembling the one used for translating, and on resuming their labor of translation, Martin put in place the stone that he had found. He said that the Prophet remained silent, unusually and intently gazing in darkness, no traces of the usual sentences appearing. Much surprised, Joseph exclaimed, “Martin! What is the matter? All is as dark as Egypt!” Martin’s countenance betrayed him, and the Prophet asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, to stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them, etc. (Edward Stevenson, “One of the Three Witnesses: Incidents in the Life of Martin Harris”, Millennial Star 44 (6 February 1882): 86-87).

The swapping stones incident that Martin Harris speaks of appears to be an embellishment, perhaps to impress his new Mormon brethren.  As noted above, Joseph’s brown stone that he used to translate the Book of Mormon was unique. So much so that it is hard to believe that Harris could find a stone so similar that Joseph could not tell right away that it was not his stone. Are we really to believe that Harris found a mahogany colored stone that was flat on the bottom and shaped like a baby shoe, and that it also had three circles on the top and many other circles in addition to them?

[47] Gleanings, pages 230-231.

[48] Hiel Lewis Statement, September 29, 1879. Hiel Lewis was a cousin of Emma Hale Smith. Lewis wrote,

 It is true that Alva Hale went with his team to Palmyra, N. Y., one hundred miles or more, and moved Smith and wife to Harmony. It was stated by Alva Hale, at the time, that the “Gold Bible” was in a barrel of beans in his wagon, and that he (Hale) slept in his wagon to guard that barrel of beams and its treasure. I remember hearing my older brother Joseph tell Alva that if he, Joeph Lewis, had been in your place (Alva Hale’s) he would have known whether that barrel of beans contained any golden Bible or not, perfectly regardless of Smith’s statement that it would be certain death for any one to see the plates. The Hales seemed, for a time, to be kept in awe by Smith’s statements, but that awe did not last long. Alva Hale is over eighty and his memory has failed much in a few years past. Some things he remembers distinctly, and some things I have been able to help him recall; for example, I asked him if he remembered the letter he wrote to Smith and Emma when they eloped. He said, no, and had no recollection of writing a letter to them. When told the contents of the letter; which was as follows — “My Creed! I believe in love-powder, in gun-powder and hell fire,” he replied, I recollect it as plain as if but yesterday. I asked Alva, on one of our late visits, if he remembered weighing the gold Bible; but he did not. My brother tried to refresh his memory, but in vain. Joseph remembers hearing it stated by Alva that he (Hale) was permitted to weigh the gold Bible in a pillow case, and, according to our memory, it weighed thirteen pounds! There were many persons in Harmony who had from Joe Smith positive promises that they should see the plates and the spectacles, but all say that they never saw them. Alva Hale says he never saw them. I presume he saw that old glass-box that Isaac Hale spoke of, said to contain the plates. Smith’s excuse for using his peepstone and hat to translate with, instead of those spectacles, was that he must keep the spectacles concealed; but any and all persons were permitted to inspect the peep-stone; and that he could translate just as well with the stone.

[49] Mormonism,” Susquehanna Register, and Northern Pennsylvanian 9 (1 May 1834):1

[50]  Isaac Hale Statement, Susquehanna Register, Thursday, May 1, 1834.

[51] Dean C. Jessee, Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History, Maxwell Institute,

[52] EMD Vol 1, pages 343-44..

[53] Blackman, History of Susquehanna County, page 104

[54] “David Whitmer Talks,” Omaha Herald, October 10, 1886, see also The Salt Lake Daily Tribune, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sunday, October 17, 1886. Whitmer always affirmed that it was Joseph who copied the characters that were given to Harris, and that the “Caractors” document in his possession was the original. This recollection of Whitmer’s may still be credible, if one ascribes it to the actual document that Harris took to Anthon, not the one that Whitmer inherited later, which has many erasures and looks to have been drawn much more hastily.

[55] LDSM&A,  Vol I. No. 1, October, 1834, page 16.  Online here, accessed June 5, 2013.

[56] LDSM&A,  Vol. 1, No. 5, February, 1835, page 80. Online here, accessed June 5, 2013.

[57] Letterbook 1, page 11.

[58] Palmyra Freeman August 11, 1829. Online here, accessed June 5, 2013.

[59] “Golden Bible,” Rochester Gem 1 [September 5, 1829]:70, Rochester, New York. Online here, accessed June 5, 2013.

[60] Clark, opt. cited, page 230.

[61] Vogel, EMD Vol. I pages 350-351.

[62]  1839 History, Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, p. 70.

[63] Orson Pratt, An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records (New York City, 1840), p. 14. Online here, accessed June 5, 2013.

[64] Vogel, EMD Vol. 1, pages 352-353.

[65] Memorandum, made by John H. Gilbert, Esq., Sept. 8th, 1892, Palmyra, N.Y. Online here, accessed June 5, 2013.

[66]  (W. W. Phelps to “Dear Sir” [E. D. Howe], Jan. 15, 1831 as quoted in Mormonism Unvailed, 273, online here, accessed June 5, 2013.).

[67] Ontario Pheonix, Vol. IV, No. 4, May 25, 1831. The scripture that Phelps quoted is Psalm 85:11, accessed June 5, 2013.

[68] Boston Investigator 2 [August 3, 1832]:3, Boston, Massachusetts. I would like to thank H. Michael Marquardt for his help (through Dan Vogel) with this article, and also thank him for this find, which (from what I have observed) is not well known among Mormon Historians, Critics and Apologists. Mr. Marquardt’s website is invaluable (as is his research and writing), and I hope he continues to post items of interest and historical value there.

[69] Orson Hyde Journal, LDS Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

[70] Samuel H. Smith Journal, LDS Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

[71] “Questions proposed to the Mormonite Preachers and their answers obtained before the whole assembly at Julian Hall, Sunday Evening, August 5, 1832,” Boston Investigator 2, August 10, 1832.

[72] The first published use of the term Urim & Thummim was in July, 1832 by W. W. Phelps. I will be discussing this in Part II of this article.

[73] EMD Vol. I, page 56.

[74] EMD Vol. I, page 55.

[75] James Mulholland, Diary, 10 June 1839.

[76] EMD, Vol. 1, pages 69-70.

[77] Morning Courier and New York Enquirer, September 1, 1831. Bennett wrote, Harris with several manuscripts in his pocket, went to the city of New York, and called upon one of the Professors of Columbia College for the purpose of shewing them to him. Historian Leonard J. Arrington, in his article James Gordon Bennett’s 1831 Report on “The Mormonites”, reproduced the original entries from Bennett’s diary for the days that he was in the Palmyra area investigating the claims of Joseph Smith.  Arrington wrote,

The entries for August 7 and 8, 1831, were made at Geneva, a picturesque village situated about sixteen miles southeast of the Joseph Smith farmstead near Palmyra. Internal evidence suggests that Bennett discussed Mormonism with E. B. Grandin, whose firm had printed the Book of Mormon; Charles Butler, the lawyer-philanthropist from whom Martin Harris attempted to borrow money to pay for printing the Book of Mormon; and others. Here are those entries:

Geneva, August 7, 1831: Mormonism. Old Smith [Joseph Smith, Sr.] was a healer — a grand story teller — very glib — was a vender [?] — made gingerbread and buttermints &c&c — Young Smith [Joseph Smith, Jr.] was careless, idle, indolent fellow — 22 years old — brought up to live by his wits–which means a broker of small wants — Harris [Martin] was a hardy industrious farmer of Palmyra — with some money — could speak off the Bible by heart — Henry [Sidney] Rigdon — a parson in general — smart fellow — he is the author of the Bible — they dig first for money — a great many hills–the Golden Bible Hill [Cumorah] where there is a hole 30 or forty feet into the side — 6 feet diameter dug among and the chest fled his approach — turned into a religious plot and gave out the golden plates — the Hill a long narrow hill which spreads out broad to the South — covered with Beech, Maple, Basswood and White Wood–the north end quite naked — the trees cut off in the road from Canandaigua to Palmyra between Manchester & Palmyra — several fine orchards on the east — and fine farms on the west — here the ground is hilly — but small hills — very uneven — the [Lake Canandaigua] outlet runs past part of it — Mormonites went to Ohio because the people here would not pay any attention to them — Smith’s wife [Emma] looked into a hole and the chest fled into a trunk and he lost several of them — [William W.] Phelps of the Phoenix was converted to Mormonism and is now a teacher or elder —

August 8, 1831: Mormonism — C[harles]. Butler saw Harris they wanted to borrow money to print the Book — he told him he carried the engravings from the plates to New York–showed them to Professor Anthon who said that he did not know what language they were — told him to carry them to Dr. Mitchell — Doctor Mitchell examined them — and compared them with other hieroglyphics — thought them very curious — and they were the characters of a nation now extinct which he named — Harris returned to Anthon who put some questions to him and got angry with Harris

Note 3 reads,

Professor Richard L. Anderson of Brigham Young University states that among the Charles Butler Papers in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress is a folder containing correspondence for 1842. One four-page statement dictated by Mr. Butler relates to the Butler-Bennett interview. Butler stated that sometime after Harris’ application for a loan, “as he was walking in the street at Geneva he [Butler] was accosted by a young man who shewed him a letter asking if he knew where he cd find the person to whom it was addressed. The letter was to Mr. B [Butler] from Jas Watson Webb then editor of the N Y Inquirer introducing the bearer James Gordon Bennett who was sent to get information about the discovery of the Mormon Bible.” See also Francis H. Stoddard, The Life and Letters of Charles Butler (New York, 1903), pp. 125-128. (BYU Studies, Number 3, Spring 1970, James Gordon Bennett’s 1831 Report on “The Mormonites”, by Leonard J. Arrington).

What is interesting about these entries is that these are the same kind of comments that were made by the residents of Palmyra to D. P. Hurlbut just three years later, which appear in Eber D. Howe’s book, Mormonism Unvailed.  Dale Broadhurst made some good observations in his notes on the Bennett articles,

Bennett’s report on the recently departed Mormons of Wayne and Ontario counties was a potentially important piece of historical documentation — however, the writer’s imprecise quotation of unsure sources diminished the articles’ future usefulness. For example, Bennett conveys the impression that Martin Harris first took the alleged Nephite writing samples to Charles Anthon, “of Columbia College,” and from there went to visit Dr. Samuel Mitchill, to get his advice regarding the same text — this account reverses the order in which Harris approached the two Gotham savants. Probably there is a good deal of factual information embedded in Bennett’s reporting, but his account contains little information of unique significance that can be independently verified today. A new discovery of some near contemporary, confirming source might render Bennett’s interesting story of Sidney Rigdon’s earliest involvement with the New York Mormons more useful and valuable to historians, however.

[78] Diedrich Willers, The First Months of Mormonism: A Contemporary View by Rev. Diedrich WIllers, Edited and translated by D. Michael Quinn, New York History 54, July, 1873, p. 326. Online, here, accessed June 5, 2013.

[79] ibid.

[80] ibid, page 333.

[81] ibid, page 327.

[82] ibid.

[83] ibid, page 326.

[84] Sloan, op. cited.

[85] Pratt, op. cited.

[86] Jessee, opt. cited.

[87] The only account of someone failing to translate, was that of Oliver Cowdery, which can be found in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 9.

[88] Joseph showed the Book of Mormon Characters to to an anonymous letter writer to the New York Herald on May 7, 1843 who called himself “A Gentile”, and to the Reverend George Moore of Quincy Illinois on December 20, 1842, and  I will discuss these accounts in Part III. There may be some evidence that Joseph kept the original copy of the Book of Mormon Characters. There are two documents in existence, one written by Frederick G. Williams, and one by Oliver Cowdery that have Book of Mormon characters on them with an accompanying “translation”. These characters are not found on the document in the Hicks Photo, and the translation of them reads “The Book of Mormon”. This exact phrase appears in the Title Page, which Joseph affirmed is a “literal translation”. I will have more on this in Part II.

19th Century Photo of Joseph Smith’s “Caractors” Discovered

Jacob Hicks Photo  of the 'Caractors'INTRODUCTION

Back in November of last year [2012] I was scouring the internet looking for photographs of David Whitmer that I could use as a basis for a portrait of a younger version of David that I planned to paint. I was pleasantly surprised when I came across a picture of David Whitmer that was included in a collection of photos taken by Jacob Hicks and posted by the Clay County Museum in Missouri.[1]

Curious, I searched through the collection to see if there were any more pictures that I might be interested in and to my surprise I found two photos of the “Caractors” document that was reported to be in the possession of David Whitmer until his death in 1888, which Whitmer had always affirmed [2] was the “original paper” that Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon in 1828.

These photos of the “Caractors” document were taken by Jacob T. Hicks who was (according to the Clay County Museum) “the first professional photographer in Clay and Ray Counties (Missouri).” I noticed at this time that these photos had been posted three years earlier (in 2009).

Jacob T. Hicks

Photographer Jacob T. Hicks

Jacob Hicks “was born in Liberty, Missouri on October 6, 1840 and died in Liberty, Missouri in March of 1924. He retired in 1912. His niece, Mrs. B.P. (Nadine Fisher) Thompson – who lived in Liberty – preserved the collection of his glass negatives.”

The original “caractors” document, also known as the “Anthon Transcript” was described as a “fragment” by Frederick M. Smith (grandson of Joseph Smith, Jr.) in 1941 in a letter to John A. Widtsoe. This “fragment” was “eight inches by three and one-fourth inches” when it came into the possession of the Reorganized Church in 1903, but was believed by some to have been torn from a larger document.[3]

As you can see, the picture that I discovered in December of 2012 shows the complete document before it had been torn off.  The fragment that contained the “caractors” was probably torn off sometime before 1884, because it is described as having the same dimensions then as it did in 1903.[4]

It also may be possible that the “caractors” were torn off in an effort to give strength to the narrative of David Whitmer – that this was the original copy of the characters that Martin Harris took to New York city in 1828, since the rest of the document could date it to (at the least) a few years after that time.

I immediately searched to see if anyone else had discovered the document, but could find nothing about it anywhere online.  I decided to keep the matter to myself, since I was working on a paper about a possible connection between the Kinderhook plates glyphs and the Book of Mormon characters.

There the matter stood until March of 2013 when I was e-mailed by Don Bradley about my Kinderhook research. Don and I had been corresponding off and on about the Kinderhook plates since 2011 when he had given a presentation about them at a F.A.I.R. Conference that year which resulted in a spirited on-line discussion.[5]

The main focus of Don’s research was a connection to Joseph Smith’s short “translation” of the Kinderhook Plates with the G.A.E.L.,[6]while my approach was oriented towards a Book of Mormon characters connection.  Don had encouraged me to pursue this avenue of thought and would check back with me from time to time to see how I was progressing with my research.  He did so again in March of 2013, and it was then that I decided to share my discovery with him.  He messaged me back, “You’ve found something amazing here.”

Don then offered to help me research the possible origin of the document, and provided some helpful insights about the handwriting on the document and the phrase “The Generations of the Book of Adam”. But Don was very busy with other projects; so I then got in touch with Dan Vogel, who has been instrumental in helping me to reconstruct the possible history and handwriting on the newly revealed portion of the document from the Hicks photo.

I would like to thank Don Bradley and especially Dan Vogel for his insights in helping me flesh out the possible history of the “Caractors” document, which I could not have done without the pictures of various documents (and analysis) he kindly provided me with.

I would also like to thank Brent and Erin Metcalfe, whom I have never met, (or communicated with) who I understand are doing their own treatment of this discovery; who (I am sure) will be able to provide even more insight into this photo. The reason that I wish to thank the Metcalfe’s, is for the clue about the photo sitting of David Whitmer in 1867 that they left at the Hicks Collection earlier this year.

This article will be divided into four parts, the first will be about the early history of the Book of Mormon characters; the second will deal with Martin Harris’s trip to see Charles Anthon and Samuel Mitchill; the third will cover what happened to the various character documents after the Church moved to Ohio; and the last section will be about the Hicks photo and what it adds to understanding the origins of the “Caractor” document.

Go to Part I: The “Caractors” from the Gold Plates.


[1] The two photos from the Jacob Hicks Collection may be found here, and here, accessed June 3,2013.

[2] In 1884, a St. Louis Republican reporter wrote,

 “At this stage of the explanation, Mr. Whitmer showed those present a specimen of the characters copied from the plates. It is on a piece of strong paper about four by eight inches, and covered with one hundred or more hieroglyphics and figures.

 It is the identical specimen which was sent to Prof. Anthon, of New York, and shown by him to Prof. Mitchell, of which the New York papers made mention at the time. The specimen was sent to Prof. Anthon by Martin Harris and returned to him. Profs. Anthon and Mitchell both admitted they were ancient characters, resembling the reformed Egyptian and Hebrew characters. Mr. Whitmer holds these characters, as well as the manuscript of the Book of Mormon and the records of the church, in great reverence, and would not part with them for any money or allow them to go out of his house. ”  (The St. Louis Daily Republican, July 16, 1884).

 [3]The Improvement Era, January 1942, page 58.

 [4] The Deseret News, March 25, 1884. See also, the Bear Lake Democrat, March 28, 1884. On October 10, 1886, the Omaha Herald made a cut or fac-simile of the characters and printed it with an article titled, “David Whitmer Talks.”

 [5] See,, accessed June 3, 2013. And here,, accessed June 3, 2013.

 [6] The G.A.E.L. is Joseph Smith’s Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language. For Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Plates presentation, see: accessed June 3, 2013.

A Map of the Travels of Moroni

In the ongoing Mormon Apologist Wars on the location of the Book of Mormon lands, one advocate of the LGT (Limited Geography Theory) is Michael Ash. In February of this year, he published an article entitled, How Moroni and the plates may have made it to Hill Cumorah.” He postulates that Moroni traveled from Mesoamerica to New York, and could have done it in under a year.

In fact, we are told that Moroni, while on his way to drop off the golden plates he lugged all the way to the Hill Cumorah in New York (named he says, after another hill of the same name located somewhere in Central America), Moroni stopped in (present day) Arizona, then went on to Salt Lake; afterwards going to Missouri (Independence & Adam-Ondi-Ahman) continuing on to Nauvoo and Pike County in Illinois, and, before getting to New York, stopped in Kirtland Ohio!

Mr. Ash comes by this information from a map allegedly drawn by information that came directly from the Prophet Joseph Smith. Says Ash,

“If the map is genuine and accurately reflects the thinking of early Latter-day Saints and/or Joseph Smith, it supports the theory that Moroni traveled Northward along what became the El Camino, continued traveling north-northwest to Arizona, and then worked his way north through Utah (where we learn that he dedicated the spot for the Manti Temple as well as other temple sites) and eventually found his way to upstate New York.”

Fascinated by the idea of this map, I followed the link Mr. Ash provided in his article to another one, which was an article by H. Donl Peterson, called Moroni, the Last of the Nephite Prophets,” where he provides a copy of the map. Here is a picture of the map (Figure 2 from Dr. Peterson’s article):

Actually, there are two maps, virtually identical to each other, with only minor differences that Dr. Peterson explains:

“Several years ago, I came across two copies of a map in the Archives Division of the Historical Department of the Church relative to Moroni’s North American journeys… On the back of the map in Figure 1 is written the following:

“’A chart, and description of Moroni’s travels through this country. Got it from Br. Robert Dickson. He got it from Patriarch Wm. McBride at Richfield in the Sevier and also from Andrew M. Hamilton of same place. And they got it from Joseph Smith the Prophet.’”

Dr. Peterson continues with a detailed description of both maps, included here to help readers better understand what the map depicts:

“On the map ‘land Bountifull [sic]’ is listed in ‘Sentral [sic] America.’ The cartographer wrote ‘starting point’ below the reference to Central America. Above the ‘land Bountifull’ is ‘Sand hills in south part of Arizona,’ and above it to the left is ‘Salt Lake.’ To the right is ‘Independens, Jackson Co, Mo.’ and above that is ‘Adam on Diamon, Davis Co, Mo.’ To the right of that is ‘Nauvoo, Hancock C.Ill.’ Below that is ‘Mound Kinderhook, Pick, Co, Ill, 6 Plates Bell shape were found’ (were was was on one copy). Then to the right and above that is ‘Kirtland, Ohio,’ and to the right of that is ‘Commorre [Cumorah], N.Y.’ Below this on the right-hand side of the map is written: ‘Moroni’s Travels starting from Sentral America to the Sand hills Arizona then to Salt Lake U[tah], T[erritory], then to Adam on Diammon Mo, then to Nauvoo, Ill, then to Independence Mo, then to Kirtland Ohio then to Cumoro NY.’

“The second map appears to have been drawn by the same hand and is quite similar to the first, though it twice spells Arizona as Arisony (one ‘y’ has an ‘a’ written over it); ‘eden’ is written near the circle identifying ‘Independense’; ‘where adam blessed his posterity’ is written near the circle identifying ‘Adam on Diammon’; the ‘missisipy river’ is listed near Nauvoo; Kirtland is twice misspelled ‘kertland’; and Cumorah is misspelled ‘Cunora’ and ‘Cumora.’”

Dr. Peterson writes this conclusion about the maps:

“It is interesting to note that the brethren mentioned on these documents were contemporaries of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and they credited him with the notion that the travels of Moroni began in the land Bountiful, which was in Central America, and went through the western New York. Why Moroni took the route he did is still without answers. These men stated that the Prophet Joseph believed Bountiful is in Central America while the Hill Cumorah, the burial place of the plates, is in New York State.”

Peterson references a comment Brigham Young made in 1875 on the day of the dedication of the Manti temple site. Young reportedly said, “Here is the spot where the prophet Moroni stood and dedicated this piece of land for a Temple site, and that is the reason why the location is made here, and we can’t move it from this spot…” Then Peterson states,

“That Moroni dedicated the Manti Temple site is one of the few statements the Brethren have made connecting a Book of Mormon figure with a specific current place and action. This aids us in documenting one of Moroni’s travels and priesthood assignments.”

Why would these same men, who discount statements by Joseph Fielding Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others, that there was only one Hill Cumorah, (located in New York State), give credence to one statement by Brigham Young about Moroni traveling to Utah – and this map, (purported to have been drawn at the direction of Joseph Smith), while discounting the multitude of statements that locate the Hill Cumorah in New York?

What I found the most interesting about all of this was the side trip that Moroni took to Pike County Illinois. If anyone is familiar with Mormon History, they will remember that an interesting discovery was found there, known as ‘The Kinderhook Plates’.  If this map is genuine, and Moroni went there, why would he go to a place where phony plates were buried in an attempt to fool Joseph Smith?

*This article originally appeared at Mormon Coffee

Lamanites & Indians & A Strange Encounter

WHITE and delightsome!” I exclaimed. “Are you sure you didn’t mean PURE and delightsome?” I asked, not quite hiding the slight hesitation in my voice.

“No,” he replied a bit gruffly, “it was definitely white.” He lowered his eyebrows and frowned, and for a moment I was afraid, but I saw his mouth twitch a bit just before he turned away and began to walk up the hill, relief washing over me. I followed him for he signaled me to do so, and in between gulps of air I managed to stammer out,

“Have you ever been back to this place, since…um, you know.”

He shook his head without breaking his stride. He was tall and muscular, and with those long legs soon outdistanced me, though I tried hard to keep up. “Nice suit…but it’s a little out of fashion!” I called to his receding silhouette, but he did not slow down.

I squinted at his retreating form as I searched my pockets for my glasses, which to my surprise were empty. This caused me to pause in my climb as I tried again to remember how I got here. All I could remember was finding myself at the bottom of this hill, face to face with … him. Glancing ahead once more, I caught his blurry form just as he disappeared over the crest of the hill, and it was many minutes before I finally reached the top and saw them all a short distance away.

He was standing there among them with his arms crossed and I marveled at how different he looked in person. He gave me a sympathetic look as I slowly approached. “Sorry” I mumbled, ”my knee is acting up today.”

“It’s all right” he said giving me a smile, “I had my own leg problem once. They told me they haven’t been waiting long,” he added, nodding at his companions. I watched him slowly take in the view of the surrounding lands below us and while he did so I sized up the three men he had led me here to meet. I stuck my hand out and they all took it, one by one. There were no introductions. I knew who they were, and they most certainly knew who I was. They were not quite what I expected, they were so … ordinary.

“Tell them what you told me,” he said, “when I first met you at the bottom of the hill.” I nodded at him and turned back to them as he gazed about at the lands below.

“It all started right after the 1978 Revelation,” I said as all three of them nodded. “Then they changed that word in the book, you know to pure. For the second time. I thought that might be the end of it, but then the DNA evidence came out. After that it was obvious what was happening.”

“Give us an example,” said the one on the left.

“Ok,” I said. “It seems that the DNA evidence shows that the indigenous peoples of the Americas have no connection at all to the ancient Hebrews. It got people everywhere asking the Church all kinds of questions about whether the Church has some kind of doctrine that states the Jaradites and Nephites were really the first inhabitants of this continent like the book says, and if the indigenous tribes of the Americas really are their descendants.”

“And how did they respond?” asked the one on the right.

“Well in 1997 Church Spokesman Stuart Reid said the Church ‘has no position on that’.”

“Are you telling me they said they don’t know?” asked the one in the middle.

“That’s what he appeared to be saying,” I replied. “Then Mr. Reid added that we also ‘don’t have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are.’”

I heard a sigh (at least I thought it was) from behind me, and I saw my tall acquaintance digging his foot in the dirt as he stood there clenching his fists and looking intently to the west. I wondered if he knew that the log cabin was still there. He cleared his throat. “Has anyone asked the prophet about this?” he finally asked.

“Well we would, but it’s not like you can just go up to him and ask him questions,” I replied. “I mean, with the bodyguards and all” I added, glancing up to meet his pale blue eyes. My tall guide grimaced and shook his head in disgust.

“Why don’t they just quote them 2 Nephi 1, verses 5-9,” asked the middle one of the three. “It does say that God covenanted with Lehi to give him a land for the inheritance of his seed. It also reveals that there “shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord” and it is ‘wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.’ Lehi even says his seed would ‘be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves,’ that there would be none to molest them or take it away from them. Isn’t scripture official doctrine of the Church anymore?” He looked at me and scratched his head. “I think that passage makes it perfectly clear.”

The other two nodded agreement. The one on the left then said, “if this scripture is not enough to declare a doctrine, and if the prophet at the head of the Church now will not inquire of God, then there is one other place that may tell us the answer to these questions.”

The one on the right spoke then and said, “The answer will be in the statements of those who have been given the authority to answer such questions, the apostles and prophets of the Church.” The other two nodded in agreement.

“There was a Proclamation made in 1845 by the Quorum of the Twelve at that time” said my guide, coming suddenly to life. “It was sent out to all the world and answers these questions. “Let me think a moment… yes, it said the Proclamation was ‘doctrine’ and that the ‘Indians (so called) of North and South America are a remnant of the tribes of Israel, as is now made manifest by the discovery and revelation of their ancient oracles and records.’ It also calls upon ‘the government of the United States to also continue to gather together, and to colonize the tribes and remnants of Israel (the Indians), and also to feed, clothe, succour, and protect them, and endeavour to civilize and unite; and also to bring them to the knowledge of their Israelitish origin, and of the fulness of the gospel which was revealed to, and written by their forefathers on this land, the record of which has now come to light. They would then begin to know and understand what was to be done with these remnants,’ and that ‘He has revealed the origin and the records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny.”

“This all seems very clear,” said the middle one. Why is this not proclaimed as doctrine by the Church today? Didn’t any of the many Church Prophets or Apostles speak on this?”

“Yes,” I replied. “Many of them. For instance, Apostle N. Eldon Tanner told the Church in a General Conference Address in 1976 that ‘we have the Book of Mormon record which tells of the Jaredites who were the first to come to America. They came at the time of the confusion of languages during the building of the tower of Babel’. You can see he makes this quite clear. A more recent Apostle, Boyd Packer said, “In contrast to the relatively few in North America who could claim Lamanite lineage (1.3 million), he then pointed to the many millions in Mexico, Yucatan, Guatemala, and throughout South America and said” ‘In all . .. . there are seventy-five million six hundred thousand who share in your [Native American Lamanite] birthright, of whom thirty-one million nine hundred ninety thousand arepure Indians.'”

“So, the problem here is with the DNA?” asked the one on the left. “If that is the case, how is this being addressed? Has the prophet given any statements on the DNA issue?”

“Not that I know of,” I replied. “He probably just doesn’t think it important enough to bother the Lord about. After all, the Church has Moroni’s promise to fall back on, and that should be enough, shouldn’t it?”

“I should say so,” added my tall guide. “But the prophet still should not be shy about clarifying issues or going to the Lord about them for the uplifting of the Saints. After all, that is what being a prophet is all about. Are these men just afraid to go to the Lord with these issues? Don’t they realize that He is the one with all the answers, and they have the keys to ask for the answers to all questions of faith? What have they done to answer these questions?”

They all looked at me and I was almost afraid to answer. Then I remembered. “Dallin Oaks referenced this problem in a speech he gave in 1993. He said, the book ‘only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past.”

They all looked shocked. “Only a few peoples?” The right one of the three stammered, with a note of incredulity in his voice.

“Well,” I said, they call this ‘limited geography theory’, and it claims that there weren’t many Nephites at all, and that they mixed in with large groups of people already in America.”

“Didn’t they read 2 Nephi?” asked the middle one of the three. ‘It specifically states that this land was kept hidden from all nations for an inheritance to Lehi’s descendants. Are these people Lehi’s descendants?” Isn’t that what being a Nephite is? Why, the book says there were millions of Nephites! In fact, it says they covered the whole face of the land and ran out of timber! Why, one Apostle has said that a ‘vast number of millions that must have swarmed over this great western hemisphere in times of old, building large cities, towns and villages, and spreading themselves forth from shore to shore from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the frozen regions of the north to the uttermost extremity of South America!’ Don’t they believe the words of their prophets and apostles any more?”

I glanced over at my tall guide and he looked troubled. “What of Zelph,” he murmured. “Don’t they remember it was said he was a converted Lamanite who became white and became a great warrior of the Nephite armies “from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains?”

I nodded at his logic as I blurted out, “It seems that while there was no scientific evidence against the book, the Church believed it’s leaders about all the Indians being descendants of the Lamanites, and that the Nephites covered the whole face of the North and South American continents. They even think that you were ‘speculating’ about Zelph, and didn’t have a vision at all. And now, in the light of new discoveries in genetics and the many expeditions to the ruins they once said were built by the Nephites that have shown otherwise they are saying all those statements, even the “official” ones are only speculation. Why, they even changed the Preface to the book! What are we to make of this? Isn’t there something you can do? Like tell us where the Nephite ruins are? After all it was you who….

The tall man and his three companions disappeared as I found myself looking up at the ceiling of my bedroom. I sat up and rubbed my eyes. A dream! It was all a dream! Imagine that, meeting Jo Smith and the Three Nephites at the Hill Cumorah! Too bad I had woke up before my tall guide had answered my question. Well, perhaps one of the Mormon prophets will wake up and ask one of their gods for the answers. Isn’t that what Joseph Smith would have done?