Author: Jonathan Neville

A wonderful book has been recently released titled Know Brother Joseph: New Perspectives on Joseph Smith’s Life and Character.

It’s at Deseret Book here.

It’s on Amazon here.

It contains around 42 short chapters that introduce various aspects of Joseph’s life. 

For example, Mark Staker offers well-documented detail about Joseph’s origins n Vermont.

Janiece Johnson introduces her work on how the early Saints incorporated the Book of Mormon into their own language. 

Jay Parry explains that “Joseph was emotionally sensitive even in his youth.”

Predictably, there is the inevitable allusion to the SITH narrative, but fortunately it is brief.

Overall, it’s a fine introduction to a variety of interesting topics.

_____

Although short, each chapter includes notes to further resources. In a way, the biggest value of the book is the collection of references.

Unfortunately, this book, both print and digital, continues to reference the printed version of the Joseph Smith Papers. These books are very expensive and are not available in libraries outside the Intermountain west.

I suppose the Joseph Smith Papers project wants people to buy the books, but it is exasperating to continue to see references only to page numbers in the printed books when a simple url would let readers see the material online.

I make it a point in all my books to provide a url whenever possible.

Even the digital version of this book gives references only to the printed books. 

That’s right: your Kindle version does not include links to the websites it references. It doesn’t even include full urls that you can copy and paste.

True, we can go to https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/ and search for terms, but even if you come up with the optimum search term, you often get multiple results to sift through.

The Joseph Smith Papers could resolve this problem by enabling their search engine to find references based on volume and page number, but they don’t.

Here’s a typical reference:

Journal, Aug. 23, 1842, in JSP, J2:115-16.

If you go to  and search for J2:115, you get zero results.

If you search for “Journal, Aug. 23, 1842,” you get 11 results. The top result takes you to the Aug 18, 1842 letter from Joseph to the Whitney’s (not exactly the result you want). The second result references the journal page only in a note, and so on.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Usually I avoid topics that I don’t want to bring attention to. I discuss them with small groups of people instead of openly and publicly like this. 

But sometimes a topic deserves more attention.

For example, there’s a sense that maybe the impact of critics such as John Dehlin and Jeremy Runnels has peaked. While I find it tragic that issues related to SITH and M2C have led so many people to leave the Church, question their faith, or decline to meet with or continue with the missionaries, maybe their influence is waning. Maybe most people who are troubled by these issues have already worked through them, one way or another. 

To be clear, that’s not my opinion or experience, but because data is impossible to come by, anything is possible.*

Nevertheless, John keeps posting new material.

_____

The other day John posted a video/podcast titled “Questions I Would Ask Richard Bushman.” 

He spent two hours asking a series of loaded questions along the lines of “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

(To understand the logical fallacy of loaded questions, there’s a good overview here.)

He expressed frustration that faithful LDS tend to avoid his podcast, but anyone listening to this example would be wise to avoid his show. 

While I don’t recommend it, you can listen/watch here: 

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/questions-i-would-ask-richard-bushman/

FWIW, I listened to it while on a driving trip. I didn’t waste two hours; I accelerated the replay.  

John could have listed his questions in a brief post. That might have led to a constructive dialog that several people could have participated in. 

For example, I’d be happy to address John’s questions.

Instead, John took a video clip out of context and expanded it into a tirade.

He sounds/looks like he was venting his frustration that his audience and donors are declining and he is running out of ideas.

I respect John for his early work, when he seemed to be sincerely seeking answers and explanations. He pointed out problems with Church history narratives, Book of Mormon historicity, etc. He engaged with a variety of perspectives, both faithful and critical. Like Jeremy Runnels and his CES Letter, John’s objections originated with what he had been taught and his perception that he’d been misled or lied to.

(Unfortunately, our SITH and M2C scholars have largely agreed with the critical approaches to these issues, as we’ve discussed many times on this blog and elsewhere. For example, our top LDS scholars now agree that Joseph never really translated the plates, that Joseph and Oliver misled Church members by teaching that Cumorah was in New York, etc.) 

Lately, though, John’s podcasts have been repetitive recitations by undoubtedly sincere people who, for one reason or another, have “left the Church.” Naturally, these guests confirm John’s biases. 

If/when I get some free time, I’ll go through the list of logical and factual fallacies John uses to persuade his listeners. They’re essentially parallel to the logical and factual fallacies employed by the SITH and M2C apologists.

In the meantime, I’ve discussed some of his points on my blog here:

https://mormonstoriesreviewed.blogspot.com/

_____

* I think that the SITH and M2C narratives continue to erode confidence and faith in what Joseph, Oliver and their contemporaries and successors taught. Critics thrive by focusing on what most LDS apologists claim, particularly those in the M2C citation cartel. Unlike the SITH and M2C proponents, both inside and outside the Church, I think the traditional narratives hold up to scrutiny. But of course, the SITH and M2C proponents think the opposite, and their views dominate. The results speak for themselves.

Source: About Central America

Edward Stevenson’s journal entry in which he reported that David claimed the messenger who took the abridged plates to Cumorah was one of the Three Nephites.

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/82199881-7613-43e6-a79e-b72609d95b23/0/22

(click to enlarge)

Stevenson’s journal entry in which David said the angel showed him the Urim and Thummim with the plates.

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/82199881-7613-43e6-a79e-b72609d95b23/0/17

(click to enlarge)

Later in this journal, Stevenson recorded this note: “David said that the Prophet translated first by the Urim and Thummim and afterwards by a seer stone.” Because David was never present in Harmony during the translation, he was either repeating hearsay or what he observed (or heard) at the Whitmer home in Fayette.

When Joseph arrived at the Whitmer home, he began translating the plates of Nephi that we refer to today as the “small plates.” The Original Manuscript shows that Oliver, Christian Whitmer and John Whitmer were the scribes for 1 Nephi. 

Later, Emma arrived and Joseph conducted a demonstration with three scribes taking turns as they got tired. Because Joseph couldn’t show the plates or the U&T, he used the stone in the hat (SITH) to demonstrate the concept of translating. 

Thus, David was correct in the sense that Joseph translated first with the U&T, which took place upstairs from morning until night, out of sight of the household. Later, Joseph conducted the demonstration with SITH downstairs, probably reciting the Isaiah chapters by memory. David naturally inferred this was part of the translation. 

Joseph and Oliver would have concluded the final few pages of 2 Nephi through Words of Mormon after the demonstration, upstairs.

Source: Letter VII

On June 11th, I wrote, “Maybe the people telling me about it are wrong and the Witnesses movie relates everything the witnesses said.

We arrived in Utah Thursday morning and managed to catch a showing of Witnesses. (Now having contributed $20 to the Interpreter Foundation, less whatever cut goes to the theater, distributor, and others, does that make me an honorary “interpreter” too?)

I left the theater wondering what the purpose of the movie was. 

Everyone familiar with the Book of Mormon already knows the witnesses stayed true to their testimony. 

Even E.D. Howe acknowledged the witnesses’ fidelity to their testimony. That was never the question. Instead, Howe argued that their testimony about the plates was irrelevant because Joseph didn’t use the plates anyway.

Which is also what Witnesses teaches.

The images on the left are from Howe’s 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed.

You can see these pages here:

https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe/page/76/mode/2up

On page 18, Howe wrote the script for Witnesses about the mode of translation:

https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe/page/18/mode/2up

Throughout the movie, the Witnesses filmmakers emphasized SITH (stone-in-the-hat). I can’t figure out what these SITH-sayers hope to accomplish by introducing Howe’s argument to modern audiences.

We do see Joseph fighting off attackers to protect the plates, hiding them under the floor, etc. 

We see people curious about the plates, eager to see them.

But then the film emphasizes the SITH-saying claim that Joseph never actually used them, or the Nephite interpreters, aka the Urim and Thummim (U&T).

Which as you can see above was Howe’s point. 

_____

Over 50 years, ago, BYU produced a film written by Carol Lynne Pearson that, while definitely dated in terms of pacing, was more historically accurate than Witnesses.

That film showed Joseph translating the plates. Oddly, it didn’t show the Urim and Thummim, possibly because of the inconsistent descriptions of the instrument.

But at least the 1968 film didn’t teach SITH.

You can see it for free on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbI_po3aPgc

We’ll have to wait longer for a historically accurate update to the 1968 film. Ironically, Witnesses was dedicated to Richard Lloyd Anderson, who was a consultant on the more accurate BYU film. 

_____

Witnesses goes out of its way to misinform viewers about key historical facts. For example, it shows David Whitmer saying it took 3 months to translate, when he actually (and accurately) said it took 8 months. The film depicts Oliver coming up with the idea of asking David Whitmer to pick them up from Harmony, when it was the Lord who commanded Joseph through the Urim and Thummim to contact David–a man he had never seen before, but whom Oliver knew.

When we read Lucy’s account of the events, we can see why the SITH-sayers keep omitting it. Instead of describing a seer stone in a hat, Lucy describes Joseph applying the U&T to his eyes and looking on the plates, which is what Oliver, Joseph and the scriptures always said, but SITH-sayers insist those sources are all wrong.

In the mean time Joseph was 150 miles distant and knew naught of the matter e[x]cept an intimation that was given through the urim and thumim for as he one morning applied the<​m​> latter 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 [Whitmer] 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 family <​Oliver [Cowdery]​> back to his house which was 135 miles that they might remain with him there untill the translation 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… 

Rather than inform people about the historical facts, SITH-sayers such as the Witnesses movie create a revisionist history to support the E.D. Howe version of events.

I’m not going to list all the historical errors in the film; after all, it was only “based on true events.” 

But I don’t understand the point of a film that tells us what we already knew–the the witnesses remained true to their testimony–while both 

(i) emphasizing the SITH narrative that undermines the relevance of their testimony and 

(ii) omitting testimonies from the witnesses that explain and corroborate the literal historical reality of the events.

They never show Oliver Cowdery’s consistent teaching that Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim. 

In 1834, Oliver responded to Mormonism Unvailed by writing the famous passage that is now a footnote in Joseph Smith–History in the Pearl of Great Price.

You can see the original here:

https://archive.org/details/latterdaysaintsm01unse/page/14/mode/2up

Even when the film depicts Oliver’s famous discourse upon rejoining the Church, Witnesses omits what he said about the translation.

It’s not easy to avoid what Joseph and Oliver taught about the Urim and Thummim, but Witnesses manages to accomplish that, just like the rest of the revisionist history we’re being fed today.

_____

Naturally, we all know that David and Emma and Martin made statements that, on their face, relate the SITH narrative. But those statements are always quoted out of context, the context being the Solomon Spalding explanation for the Book of Mormon that Mormonism Unvailed first published.

Howe was clever, but why are our scholars so unable to figure this out? 

Howe set them up by stating SITH as a fact (while also clearly distinguishing between the “peep stone” and the “Urim and Thummim,” a distinction our modern scholars seek to blur). 

Then Howe proposed the Spalding theory as an explanation for the Book of Mormon. 

The Spalding theory required Joseph to be dictating from behind a screen or curtain because he was supposedly reading from the Spalding manuscript. 

Obviously, the Spalding theory contradicted SITH, but that was exactly the point. 

It was a set up. 

(a) If Joseph, Oliver and his scribes explained that Joseph dictated from behind a screen or curtain because he couldn’t show anyone the plates or U&T, that would corroborate the Spalding theory.

(b) If Joseph, Oliver and his scribes claimed Joseph merely read words off a seer stone, that meant (i) he didn’t really translate the plates, (ii) the plates (and the U&T) were not evidence of the antiquity of the text, and (iii) the entire narrative collapsed on itself. 

Source: About Central America

This is an excellent time to discuss the best methodology for assessing issues of Church history. The Witnesses movie, along with the Saints book, Gospel Topics Essays, and related curriculum and media from both faithful and critical sources, have brought this all to a head through social media.

In his book First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins, Steven Harper does a great job explaining how historical narratives are created. That book is an admission, really, of how our scholars have changed the narratives and imposed a single interpretation of Church history that is a legitimate working hypothesis but not the only one and not, in my view, the best one.

That’s not to say anyone is correct or incorrect, but the methodology based on a single authoritative interpretation does not empower people to make their own informed decisions.

Despite the claims of my critics, I also don’t think the changing narratives we see today are the result of any conspiracies. I don’t think the citation cartel is a conspiracy. It’s more of a Groupthink that evolved step-by-step. We can observe that evolution in the pages of the historical record of academia. 

The process is similar to the evolution of legal theories, as I used to discuss in my books on U.S. constitutional law and other legal fields. One decision logically leads to the next and the next, and yet even the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court often strongly disagree about what the next step should be. 

But at least the Justices set out their multiple working hypotheses so everyone can see them and make informed decisions.

That’s not what is happening now regarding Church history. Instead, we have a handful of scholars “interpreting” the facts for everyone else on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

The current approach leads to tribalism and emotional attachment to one’s beliefs that clouds reason and prevents people from communicating effectively, openly, and cordially.

_____

In my view, the optimum approach consists of three steps:

1. Lay out all the known facts. Everyone should be able to agree upon what those facts are. This includes distinguishing between statements of fact (documents, first person eyewitness accounts, etc.) and statements of opinion, hearsay, inference, etc. Opening the Heavens was a great start, but editorial decisions there altered key facts and omitted others. Maybe a third edition could fix these problems and also distinguish between facts and hearsay.

2. Offer multiple working hypotheses, or interpretations, of those facts. Every interpretation should be included, from both faithful and critical perspectives. Because of the natural human tendency to seek approval and confirmation from others, people are uncomfortable when others interpret the same facts differently. But hopefully, everyone can rise above that insecurity and seek first to understand, then to be understood. Let everyone interested contribute, without editing. It’s easy to argue for and against every hypothesis; that’s not the point. We want to consider all of them.

3. Encourage those interested to make their own informed decisions. People adopt an interpretation or hypothesis for their own reasons, each thinking they are “following the facts” when in reality they are confirming their biases. It boils down to faith in one thing or another. But sometimes, seeing new facts or seeing old facts through new filters does change minds. We see this process with the “reveal” in every episode of mystery shows, every mystery novel, and even, sometimes, with every new discovery of an artifact or historical document.

So far, I know of no resource such as this, apart from a few comparison tables I’ve posted over the years. Both faithful and critical sources resort to choosing facts that they think support their respective beliefs and then making arguments based on those facts. You can take any topic and see examples from FairLDS, MormonThink, the Interpreter, CES Letter, Book of Mormon Central, MormonStories, etc. They all talk past each other because they don’t even agree on the facts, let alone what alternative interpretations are available. 

Maybe it’s too much to ask. Even within the LDS community, there is tremendous reluctance to follow this methodology.

The “faithful” sites not only don’t accurately present critical arguments, but they don’t even allow alternative faithful arguments. Worse, they embed their intolerant positions in their logos and enforce them through their control of the citation cartel. It’s sad for many of us who believe in the Restoration to see so many people rejecting the Restoration because of changing narratives, implausible explanations they’re told they must believe, feeling they’ve been lied to, etc. 

MormonThink and CESLetter cleverly purport to show “both sides” to persuade readers they are “neutral,” but instead they emphasize a critical agenda by omitting facts and interpretations that contradict their respective narratives. 

Incentives. The obvious problem is neither the dominant “faithful” sites nor the dominant “critical” sites have an incentive to pursue the model I propose. Instead, both focus on fortifying their respective adherents and demonizing the other “team.” Such team-building enables them to attract donors and followers. 

Maybe those incentives, combined with the psychology of bias confirmation, are too powerful to overcome. But I’m an optimist, and I think there are lots of people who want what I’m describing here.

We can’t expect people to agree on the interpretations, but we can expect them to agree on the body of facts. Then everyone can choose whichever interpretation they prefer and agree to disagree if they differ. 

And then everyone can proceed accordingly, with no animosity, contention, hurt feelings, etc.

But as I pointed out at the beginning, the current approach leads to tribalism and emotional attachment to one’s beliefs that clouds reason and prevents people from communicating effectively, openly, and cordially.

_____

One example in the news now is the Witnesses movie. 

The Interpreter Foundation is following up the Witnesses movie with a longer documentary. It “will also feature interviews with scholars, both Latter-day Saint and non-LDS, and others to shed light on the events covered in the theatrical movie.” 

What remains to be seen is whether the documentary will feature anyone who still believes what Joseph and Oliver (and others) said about Joseph translating the plates with the Urim and Thummim. Such individuals are apparently difficult to find among LDS academia, based on what we read in the citation cartel. I saw recently where one of our prominent scholars said he doesn’t even like the word “translate” in connection with the Book of Mormon. 

But surely the Interpreter Foundation will find at least one person to make a case for Joseph actually translating the plates. If no one else, I volunteer.

Not that they’d even consider that. Apparently Dan the Interpreter was upset over the weekend. Links here. 

Besides providing more material for my upcoming book on LDS apologetics, this semi-controversy based on being offended raises the larger question of why apologists mingle emotions with rational thinking. I’ve discussed that many times before. I’ll have a chapter or two in the book.

_____

One reason for optimism is a growing number of people who like the idea of multiple working hypotheses.

Once we all agree on the facts, we can agree there are multiple working hypotheses to choose among, allowing people to make informed decisions.

To use the current vernacular, “Heartlanders” tend to favor this model, while M2Cers don’t. It’s a surprising but unambiguous difference between the two “tribes” that plays out daily on the respective web pages and social media. 

Most Heartlanders, like me, were brought into these issues after recognizing that the prevailing M2C hypothesis not only doesn’t make sense from a narrative or scientific perspective, but it contradicts the unambiguous, consistent and persistent teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

That “second reality” awakening led us to take a closer look at other things the M2C scholars were teaching, including SITH.

That’s not to say we object to people believing M2C. People can believe whatever they want. 

We just want people to know that there are faithful alternatives to M2C and SITH. 

The critics are having a lot of success focusing on M2C and especially SITH. John Dehlin says SITH is the number one reason why people leave the Church. I don’t know if that’s quantifiable because people  leave for a variety of reasons, but clearly SITH is among the main reasons. It’s also a major impediment for people listening to the missionaries.

When faithful members think their only option is to believe SITH (or M2C), they are susceptible to the critical arguments. But when members learn about faithful alternatives to SITH that rely on all the historical evidence, they can deal with the facts and make fully informed decisions. 

The internal problem is that faithful alternatives to SITH are disallowed by the citation cartel’s cancel culture. 

I realize that many members of the credentialed class, especially participants of the citation cartel, have been offended by things I’ve said or written. I’ve explained before that I don’t relate to emotional attachments to intellectual arguments. I underestimated how attached people are to their theories. I naively thought people would welcome new approaches, new interpretations, and alternative working hypotheses.

I certainly didn’t realize how insecure and defensive our intellectuals are. It’s a shame, because they’re all great people, smart, dedicated, faithful, etc. It would be awesome if we could have an open dialog and establish the analysis model I described above, but I don’t see that happening.

Well, there are exceptions, so anything is possible. I know of one exemplary open- and fair-minded scholar who is also influential and may make a difference.

In the meantime, to contribute one working hypothesis, here is my summary of the SITH vs U&T issue. I’m not saying this is the correct interpretation of the facts, only that it is one of multiple working hypotheses that everyone, faithful or critical, should consider and deal with.

_____

It’s very simple. (The details are in my book, A Man that Can Translate.) The confusion arose because of a misunderstanding of what happened at the Whitmer home.

Source: About Central America

A few notes (trigger warning for SITH/M2C promoters):

The Witnesses movie is generating a lot of discussion on social media because of SITH (the stone-in-the-hat). The movie adopts the approach taken by Mormonism Unvailed, the 1834 anti-Mormon book that claimed Joseph never even used the plates but produced the Book of Mormon by reading a “peep stone” he put in a hat. 

John Dehlin of MormonStories is delighted. SITH is one of his key points, as he explains on TikTok (31.7k views in one day, 800 views on twitter)

Source: About Central America

Some of my Chinese university students are wiser than our M2C scholars and their followers. These students recognize the utility and importance of intellectual flexibility.

Here’s one student’s explanation:

No one likes failure, but failure exists objectively. The greatest significance of failure lies in humility. People are often too proud to see the whole world. Only humility can always remind a person to leave a gap in the world in his eyes. The light in that gap can break the old prejudice and bring a glimmer of vitality to his mind.

Recognizing this “gap in the world” allows people to change their minds when they come across new information, better explanations, etc. 

It’s impossible for some of these M2C academics to change their minds because of their long-term commitment to M2C. Seriously, how could Book of Mormon Central ever embrace the Church’s position of neutrality when their own logo insists that M2C is the only explanation for the Book of Mormon?

_____

More wisdom from Ed Latimore along the same lines.

It’s easy to correct someone when they’re wrong. A mediocre teacher stops there. The real challenge is correcting the thinking that leads to incorrect conclusions, and to do so without judgement. This is what a high-level educator attempts to accomplish.

_____

Instead of such intellectual honesty and humility, our scholars give us this:

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus