RNicholson

On January 30, 2014 an article authored by Hannah Miet appeared in Newsweek titled “When the Saints Go Marching Out”. The article had been anticipated by some in the online ex-Mormon community as a way to more fully explore some of the issues faced when one leaves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unfortunately, the author instead chose to lead off by focusing on ex-Mormon efforts to actively proselyte Church members. Some of these activities included stuffing hundreds of “pass-along” cards into lockers and books and vandalizing Books of Mormon in Marriott Hotels by writing ‘Lies! All Lies!’ inside the cover. Ms. Miet concluded that, “Some former adherents act like soldiers for an ex-Mormon liberation army, seeking out the doubters within the church, extracting them, and bringing them to more tolerant territory.”

Ms. Miet then chose to describe in painstaking detail what she called “Preaching the Liquor Gospel.” This involved a detailed description of how new ex-Mormons attend a class called “Liquor 101,” in which they learn how to order and consume alcoholic drinks. The drinks are consumed in “official” LDS sacrament cups obtained on E-Bay, illustrating a subtle mockery by ex-Mormons of things which Latter-day Saints consider sacred.

The resulting article seems to confirm and reinforce the existence of the stereotypical ex-Mormon who “leaves the Church, but cannot leave it alone” or the member who leaves the church because they “want to sin.” Indeed, there is little in this article to discourage such a perception.

Unfortunately, the author of the Newsweek article missed an opportunity which might have benefited both believers and non-believers. No, I am not referring to an opportunity to produce a “laundry list” of items which are claimed to cause one to lose one’s faith. That is what some ex-Mormons had hoped for in this article. Such lists have appeared in news publications before, and they no doubt will again. I am referring to the lost opportunity to treat an issue which affects both the persons leaving the faith, and their family members who remain in the Church. The Newsweek article briefly alluded to some of these concerns, but not in any significant way.

When someone leaves the faith, either individually or with their family, their friends and relatives are affected in a variety of ways. Some are able to quickly adjust to the new family dynamic. Others take some time to adjust and adapt, but eventually find a way to move forward. Unfortunately, some treat those who have left as if they were dead, and they cease contact with that person.

Believers go through a mourning process for their “spiritually dead” loved ones in much the same manner that one grieves the physical death of a relative. The difference is, of course, that in this case the relative is still with them, and is still fully capable of communicating their concerns and influencing others. In fact, they may be actively attempting to persuade other family members to follow them down the same path. In addition, someone who has left the Church may be mourning their own loss of belief, and attempting to readjust and fill a void that has suddenly appeared in their life.

The most unfortunate outcome, which sometimes occurs even though it is directly contrary to the counsel given by Church leaders, is that the person leaving is cut off from their extended family, either physically, emotionally or both. Ex-Mormons refer to this as “shunning.” One of the first reactions of a believer when a loved one rejects the Church is to attempt to protect the rest of their family from this new, unwanted influence. This may lead some to take an extreme approach: They attempt to isolate the non-believer from the family. Some new non-believers, on the other hand, sometimes wants to share their new-found “truth” with those they love in order to “get them out” of what they now mockingly refer to as “the cult”; in the process, they place unneeded stress and pain on family relationships by mocking the Church and Mormon beliefs during family gatherings.

One should not cease to love a relative because they change the way they believe. Likewise, one should not attempt to rip away the beliefs of family members simply because one’s own views have changed. The key is having mutual respect for one another’s ability to choose. It requires understanding on the part of the believer that their spouse is still their spouse, their child is still their child, and their friend is still their friend. It also requires the non-believer to respect the wishes of those who still believe, without classifying them as “blind followers” who are now perceived to be incapable of logic and reason. We all have our agency, both believers and non-believers alike, and we must respect each other’s ability to choose. It isn’t always easy to do, but it is what we must do. I once asked the father of a man who left the Church many years ago how he dealt with the situation. His response: “We decided that we just needed to keep loving him, regardless of what he believed.”

Unfortunately, the article “When the Saints Go Marching Out” propagates the harmful stereotypes that all who leave the Church want to immediately get drunk and actively recruit others out of the Church. The author didn’t make those details up: She got them from her interviews with a specific group of ex-Mormons. There were, no doubt, many additional things discussed in the interviews which didn’t make it into print. The interviewee cannot select which details from an extensive interview the reporter will choose to feature in an article. The author apparently selected those details which she perceived would have the most entertainment value for a non-Mormon audience. Perhaps in the future we can hope to see an article on the social aspects and interaction between believers and non-believers which would actually move both sides toward a greater mutual understanding.

Editor’s note: This blog post is the introductory section of Roger Nicholson’s December 2013 article in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835). The full article may be read on the Interpreter website.

Joseph Smith made his first known attempt to write a history of the Church in 1832. Some of the account was written in Joseph’s own hand and the rest by Frederick G. Williams. Joseph’s history describes his first vision, Moroni’s visit, the loss of the 116 pages of manuscript, and the arrival of Oliver Cowdery. Joseph never completed it beyond that point, and it was never published during his lifetime.

A few years later, in 1835, Joseph produced an account of his First Vision in his journal. He told about how he described the vision to a visitor, a non-Mormon stranger, who had stopped by his home. This is the second known account of the vision written in the first person. Neither the 1832 account nor the 1835 account appear to have received any public circulation. The formal account of the vision would not be written until 1838. This is the account contained in the Pearl of Great Price.

Between 1832 and 1835, Oliver Cowdery, as editor of the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (hereafter Messenger and Advocate), determined that he would write an account of the history of the Church and publish it in installments. This account is both curious and confusing because the first and second installments describe clearly recognizable events leading up to Joseph’s First Vision and Moroni’s visit, but they do not mention the actual visit of the Father and Son. Taken together, the first two installments seem to imply that Joseph’s “first” vision was that of Moroni. For example, the Wikipedia article, “First Vision,” summarizes the Cowdery account as follows:

Therefore, according to Cowdery, the religious confusion led Smith to pray in his bedroom, late on the night of September 23, 1823, after the others had gone to sleep, to know which of the competing denominations was correct and whether “a Supreme being did exist.” In response, an angel appeared and granted him forgiveness of his sins. The remainder of the story roughly parallels Smith’s later description of a visit by an angel in 1823 who told him about the Golden Plates. Thus, Cowdery’s account, containing a single vision, differs from Smith’s 1832 account, which contains two separate visions, one in 1821 prompted by religious confusion (the First Vision) and a separate one regarding the plates on September 22, 1822. [1]

This summary, of course, is not consistent with the story of the First Vision and Moroni’s visit as two distinct events that Joseph described only two years earlier, nor does it match the account that he told in late 1835, less than a year after Oliver’s account was published. What, then, are we to make of Oliver’s convoluted account? Does it really describe a “single vision” as the Wikipedia article claims?

Oliver’s account does indeed raise some questions. Was Oliver unaware of Joseph’s First Vision? Was Oliver in possession of Joseph’s 1832 history? If so, why did Oliver not include the vision in his own history? The answers to these questions may be deduced by examining and comparing Joseph’s 1832 history with Oliver’s 1834/1835 history and with Joseph’s subsequent 1835 journal entry.

To read the rest, please visit

The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver’s Aborted Attempt to Describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1834 and 1835

on the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture website.

---

The following article was published in The Prophet and the Pistol: A Perspective on the Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Meridian Magazine, November 7, 2013 and is reprinted with permission.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

Finding Joseph’s Gun

In the Church History Museum near Temple Square, located inside a glass case, resides a pair of 19th century pistols and a walking stick. The placard reads, in part, as follows,

Joseph’s Pepperbox Pistol and Hyrum’s Single Shot Pistol. These guns were used by both men for their defense during the attack at Carthage

These were the guns that were smuggled into the Carthage Jail while Joseph Smith, Hyrum and their friends awaited their fate. On the morning of June 27, 1844, Cyrus Wheelock visited the jail.

The morning being a little rainy, favoured his wearing an overcoat, in the side pocket of which he was enabled to carry a six-shooter, and he passed the guard unmolested. During his visit in the prison he slipped the revolver into Joseph’s pocket. Joseph examined it, and asked Wheelock if he had not better retain it for his own protection.

This was a providential circumstance, as most other persons had been very rigidly searched. Joseph then handed the single barrel pistol, which had been given him by John S. Fullmer, to his brother Hyrum, and said, “You may have use for this.” Brother Hyrum observed, “I hate to use such things, or to see them used.” “So do I,” said Joseph, “but we may have to, to defend ourselves;” upon this Hyrum took the pistol. [i]

Although it was referred to as a “six shooter,” the pepper-box pistol was not a revolver in the normal sense. It incorporated six individual barrels, it was difficult to aim and tended to be unreliable. The June 2013 Ensign features a painting Greater Love Hath No Man, by Casey Childs. [ii] The artwork features all three items in the display case. Joseph, Hyrum and Willard Richards are attempting to hold the door shut as the mob attempts to enter the room. John Taylor is holding his walking stick. In Hyrum’s left pocket is the single shot pistol brought into the jail by Fullmer, and in Joseph’s left pocket, clearly visible, is the pepper-box pistol given to him by Wheelock. [iii]

Firing Joseph’s Gun

The attack commenced with Hyrum being shot in the face through the door. Hyrum’s pistol was never fired. Willard Richards wrote,

As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically; “I’m a dead man.” Joseph looked towards him and responded, “O dear! Brother Hyrum!” and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry from whence a ball grazed Hyrum’s breast, and entering his throat passed into his head, while other muskets were aimed at him, and some balls hit him. [iv]

Joseph, grief stricken upon seeing the death of his brother, pulled the pepperbox from his pocket, reached around the door frame and blindly attempted to discharge all six rounds from his pistol into the group of men that was attempting to push their way into the room. Only three of the rounds actually fired, but the intruders at the door were packed so closely together that Joseph could not possibly miss. All three of the rounds fired by Joseph apparently found targets, and John Taylor later mistakenly believed that two of the men struck had actually died from their wounds. Taylor wrote that Joseph, “with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died.” [v]

The information given to John Taylor was in error, however. Dallin Oaks and Marvin Hill talk of the three men wounded by Joseph.

There were separate indictments for the two murders. Each charged the same nine defendants: John Wills, William Voras….and two men named Gallaher and Allen, whose first names were not given….Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated in the mob. They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county. A contemporary witness reported these three as saying that they were the first men at the jail, that one of them shot through the door killing Hyrum, that Joseph wounded all three with his pistol, and that Gallaher shot Joseph as he ran to the window. [vi]

The only men known to have been wounded in the attack would be those on the receiving end of Joseph’s pistol. Dead men, of course, are not indicted, nor do they flee the county.

Talking of Joseph’s Gun

As a missionary in 1979, I often used a filmstrip projector. One of the filmstrips that we often showed to investigators was called “The Martyrdom.” The audio tape accompanying the filmstrip stated that Cyrus Wheelock smuggled a pistol into Carthage Jail and gave it to Joseph. The final frame of the filmstrip ended with Joseph’s testimony, now found in Doctrine and Covenants 76:22-23.

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father.

Joseph’s use of a gun at the time of the martyrdom was simply part of the story. There was no particular emphasis made of it, nor was there any attempt to diminish the fact that Joseph fired at his attackers. Yet I have spoken with returned missionaries today who are completely unaware that Joseph even had a gun at Carthage Jail. Have references to Joseph’s gun disappeared from Church materials?

A search of lds.org produces a detailed description in the 2003 Church History in the Fulness of Times manual. The manual’s explanation is in accordance with my memory of the filmstrip that I viewed so many years ago,

At the jail, the four brethren sweltered in the sultry afternoon heat. Joseph gave Hyrum a single-shot pistol and prepared to defend himself with the six-shooter smuggled in that morning by Cyrus Wheelock. . . . A bullet fired through the panel of the door struck Hyrum in the left side of his face, and he fell, saying, “I am a dead man!” Joseph, leaning over Hyrum exclaimed, “Oh dear, brother Hyrum!” John Taylor said the look of sorrow he saw on Joseph’s face was forever imprinted on his mind. Joseph then stepped to the door, reached around the door casing, and discharged his six-shooter into the crowded hall. Only three of the six chambers fired, wounding three assailants. [vii]

A picture of the two pistols appears in the manual with the following description:

The Prophet used this six-shooter, called a “pepper-box,” to defend himself and his fellow prisoners. John S. Fullmer took this single-barrel pistol into the jail, but it was never used by the prisoners. [viii]

But that is not all. The Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual for 2005: “Doctrine and Covenants and Church History” lesson 32, page 184 has the following account of the martyrdom by Elder Willard Richards:

As he struck the floor he exclaimed emphatically, ‘I am a dead man.’ Joseph looked towards him and responded, ‘Oh, dear brother Hyrum!’ and opening the door two or three inches with his left hand, discharged one barrel of a six shooter (pistol) at random in the entry. . .Joseph continued snapping his revolver round the casing of the door into the space as before, while Mr. Taylor with a walking stick stood by his side and knocked down the bayonets and muskets which were constantly discharging through the doorway….

When the revolver failed, we had no more firearms, and expected an immediate rush of the mob, and the doorway full of muskets, half way in the room, and no hope but instant death from within.

Thomas S. Monson in the First Presidency Message of the June 1994 Ensign, notes that “the Prophet Joseph, with his pistol in hand, was attempting to defend his life and that of his brethren.” [ix]

There does not seem to be any lack of reference to the pistol or the manner in which it was used in current Church materials. Additional accounts are found in the Times and Seasons, the History of the Church, and the video The Joseph Smith Papers, The Martyrdom Of Joseph And Hyrum Smith – Episode 49.[x]

Why did the Saints feel the need to defend themselves?

Why would Joseph and those with him feel that they needed to have weapons to defend themselves? In order to understand this, it is necessary to understand why Joseph ended up in jail in the first place.

The event that landed Joseph in jail was the order of the Nauvoo City council to destroy the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor. The editors of the Expositor, among whom was former First Presidency member William Law, made the intentions of the paper very clear:

We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.” [xi]

The Expositor called for the “unconditional repeal of the Nauvoo City charter,” and encouraged members of the Church to reject Joseph Smith as its leader, noting that:

We hereby notify all those holding licenses to preach the gospel, who know they are guilty of teaching the doctrine of other Gods above the God of this creation; the plurality of wives; the unconditional sealing up against all crimes, save that of shedding innocent blood; the spoiling of the gentiles, and all other doctrines, (so called) which are contrary to the laws of God , or to the laws of our country, to cease preaching.” [xii]

The publication of the Expositor incited “anger and fear in Nauvoo: anger for its vilification of the Prophet and its accusations against other Church leaders; fear from its call for a repeal of the Nauvoo charter so that local government would be taken out of the hands of the Saints.” [xiii]

Thus, the paper was declared a “nuisance” by the Nauvoo City council, and the press was subsequently destroyed. This ultimately resulted in Joseph being brought up on charges of treason, and his subsequent trip to Carthage to await trial.

“Let it be made with powder and ball!!!”

Was the mob that stormed the jail that day doing so because they were each outraged over an apparent attack on freedom of the press? Not really. The destruction of the Expositor was simply a trigger, and it was used as leverage to great effect. The Expositor was destroyed on June 10, 1844. The following day, Thomas B. Sharp, editor of the Warsaw Signal, printed an editorial titled simply “The Time has Come!”

War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!!—Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS! to ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!! [xiv]

In Sharp’s mind, the “time had come” to deal with Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Things did not reach this level simply because of the Expositor. On June 5, the week before the destruction of the Expositor, Sharp had published a diatribe against Joseph,

Joe, you are [the] very thing you accuse Messrs. Van Buren, Clay and Calhoon of being; and more, we do not believe that even your blackguard pen, or rather that of your man Friday’s, (for no one would accuse you of being able to put two sentences in the English Language together correctly,) can picture a wretch so depraved, and loathsome as yourself. Yos Joe! we have that confidence in your saintship, that we do not believe that the concentrated extract of all the abominations of the Infernal Regions, can add one stain to the blackness of your character. Look in a mirror Joe and you will see the reflection of the most detestable wretch that the earth contains. [xv]

The tinder had already been laid, and the destruction of the Expositor was the match that ignited it. It is no surprise that Joseph and those who supported him would feel the need to provide some defense against a possible armed attack.

Does Joseph qualify as a martyr?

There is no doubt that Joseph attempted to defend himself and his friends using a firearm, and that this is attested to abundantly within Church publications. Does this mean that he does not qualify as a “martyr”? Joseph said, “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me—he was murdered in cold blood.” [xvi] Did Joseph lose martyr status when he attempted to fight back?

Critics of the Church chose to portray the martyrdom as a “gun battle” between Joseph and those who were trying to enter the room. The term “gun battle” evokes a certain mental image, often fueled by depictions in movies, of an intense back-and-forth exchange of shots. It is not usually represented by a few individuals trapped in a room, desperately trying to keep themselves from being murdered. Joseph’s group had two pistols and a walking stick against a large, well-armed mob. Joseph firing off three shots at his attackers after witnessing the murder of his brother hardly constitutes a “gun battle,” and Joseph no doubt knew that it would make little difference. What effect did the presence of Joseph’s gun have on the attackers? It was no doubt a temporary deterrent, and it may have contributed to sparing the lives of John Taylor and Willard Richards, since the mob had no way of knowing if there were other weapons in the room as well. What is more likely to have saved their lives, however, is Joseph choosing to go to the window. The mob focused on the true object of their murderous quest, and Taylor and Richard’s lives were spared.

The definition of “martyr,” according to Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary is: “One who, by his death, bears witness to the truth of the gospel. Stephen was the first Christian martyr. To be a martyr signifies only to witness the truth of Christ.” [xvii]

John Taylor, who was seriously wounded in the attack and a firsthand witness to these events, certainly considered Joseph and Hyrum martyrs:

To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about five o’clock p.m., by an armed mob—painted black—of from 150 to 200 persons. Hyrum was shot first and fell calmly, exclaiming: I am a dead man! Joseph leaped from the window, and was shot dead in the attempt, exclaiming: O Lord my God! They were both shot after they were dead, in a brutal manner, and both received four balls. [xviii]

Elder D. Todd Christofferson offers this perspective,

Martyrdom endows a prophet’s testimony with a special validity. Indeed the Greek root “martureo” from which the English word “martyr” is derived means “witness.” The prophet Abinadi is described as “having sealed the truth of his words by his death.” Jesus’ own death was a testament of His divinity and mission. He is declared in Hebrews to be “the mediator of the new testament” validated by His death, “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead.” [xix]

The fact that Joseph defended himself and his friends from those who were trying to kill them does not in any way diminish the importance of the sacrifice that Joseph and Hyrum ultimately made. Joseph had faced death before. Joseph and Hyrum had earlier had the opportunity to escape to Iowa, but instead chose to go to Carthage, knowing the probable outcome. This was not an act of cowardice. Joseph was no doubt aware that two pistols that they possessed in the jail would ultimately fail to hold back an armed mob.

Elder Christofferson states that Joseph’s death validated his testament:

Like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient time, [Joseph Smith] sealed his mission and his works with his own blood.” In a hail of bullets on the afternoon of June 27, 1844, in Carthage, Illinois, Joseph and his brother, Hyrum, were cut down for the religion and testimony they professed. As the latter-day apostles then announced, “The testators are now dead, and their testament is in force.[xx]

Joseph knew that he might someday be required to die in order to seal his testament, and yet he knew also that Jesus Christ had made the ultimate sacrifice. The words of Doctrine and Covenants 122:7-9, which Joseph received during the many grueling months he spent in Liberty Jail, seem particularly appropriate. Joseph wanted to know if his ordeal would ever end, and the Lord gave him glimpse of the future, while reminding him of who made the true sacrifice:

And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever. [xxi]

For further information regarding Joseph’s gun and the martyrdom, including an extensive list of Church publications which mention the weapon, please see the FairMormon Answers articles
Was Joseph Smith not a martyr because he fired a gun at his attackers? and Has the Church tried to hide the fact that Joseph fired a pepperbox pistol at the mob which murdered him?
_________________________________
[i] The Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, Vol. 24, No. 29, (July 19, 1862) 459.

[ii] Casey Childs, Greater Love Hath No Man, Oil on Linen, 60×48″. The artist has documented the meticulous process by which he created a historically accurate representation of the moment just before Hyrum was shot. This included researching the pistols that Joseph and Hyrum were carrying in their pockets.

[iii] LaRene Porter Gaunt, “Two Witnesses, Three Days And the Aftermath of the Martyrdom,” Ensign, June 2013, 40.

[iv] Willard Richards, “Two Minutes in Jail,” Times and Seasons, Vol.5, No.14, (1. Aug. 1844) 598.

[v] John Taylor, quote in Hubert Hugh Bancroft, History of Utah 1540-1887, 179.

[vi] Oaks, Dallin H., and Marvin S. Hill. Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1975, 51-52.

[vii] Church History in the Fulness of Times, 281-2.

[viii] Church History in the Fulness of Times, 281.

[ix] Thomas S. Monson, “The Prophet Joseph Smith: Teacher by Example,” Ensign, June 1994.

[x] Times and Seasons, 5/14 (1 August 1844): 597-98; Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 7:102–103; The Joseph Smith Papers, The Martyrdom Of Joseph And Hyrum Smith – Episode 49

[xi] Nauvoo Expositor.

[xii] Nauvoo Expositor.

[xiii] “Highlights in the Prophet’s Life,” Ensign, June 1994.

[xiv] Thomas B. Sharp, “The Time has Come!”, The Warsaw Signal, June 11, 1844.

[xv] Thomas B. Sharp, “Joe Smith and Henry Clay,” The Warsaw Signal, June 5, 1844.

[xvi] Doctrine and Covenants 135:4.

[xvii] Noah Webster, Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 Edition

[xviii] Doctrine and Covenants 135:1.

[xix] Elder D. Todd Christofferson, “”The Prophet Joseph Smith”,” Brigham Young University-Idaho Devotional, (24 September 2013)

[xx] Christofferson.

[xxi] Doctrine and Covenants 122:7-9.

Editor’s note: This blog post is the introductory section of Roger Nicholson’s June 2013 article in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation). The full article may be read on the Interpreter website.

In his 1916 book, The Birth of Mormonism, John Quincy Adams provided this rather colorful description of the Book of Mormon translation method.

The process of translating the “reformed Egyptian” plates was simple though peculiar. It was all done with the Urim and Thummim spectacles, but it was instant death for any one but Joe to use them. Even when he put them on, the light became so dazzling that he was obliged to look through his hat. Moreover, when so engaged, no profane eyes were allowed to see him or the hat. Alone, behind a blanket stretched across the room, Joe looked into his hat and read the mystic words.[1]

Any Latter-day Saint will immediately be able to sort the familiar from the unfamiliar elements of this story. We see the Urim and Thummim and the blanket shielding the translator from others in the room, but what is all of this talk about a hat?

As an active Latter-day Saint, I cannot remember a time when I was not familiar with the story of the translation of the Book of Mormon. The story with which we are quite familiar from Sunday School and Seminary describes Joseph using the Urim and Thummim (the Nephite interpreters) to look at the gold plates while screened from his scribe by a curtain. Joseph dictated the entire text of the Book of Mormon to his scribe, picking up the next day right where he had left off the day before, and the text was written without any punctuation. Joseph never required that any of the previous text be re-read when the translation started again the next day. The bulk of the translation was accomplished within a roughly three-month period, and the resulting text is remarkably consistent not only with itself, but with the Bible. The circumstances surrounding the translation and production of the Book of Mormon can only be considered miraculous when considered by a believing member of the Church.

There is, however, another story with which many have become familiar in recent years. Modern portrayals of the translation process such as that shown in the popular animated television show South Park[1] depict Joseph looking at a stone in the bottom of his hat and dictating to his scribe, without the use of a curtain. The popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia displays a “twenty-first century artistic representation of Joseph Smith translating the golden plates by examining a seer stone in his hat.”[3] A Google search of “Book of Mormon translation” or “seer stone Joseph Smith” produces a large number of such images, many of them hosted by websites that are critical of the Church’s truth claims. This is a method which I did not learn about in Seminary, and there are anecdotal stories of Latter-day Saints who, upon being presented with this portrayal, simply deny that this method may have ever been employed, attributing such depictions to “anti-Mormon” sources.

Depictions of the translation process by artists have also contributed to the confusion. Latter-day Saints are quite familiar with a variety of artistic portrayals of Joseph and Oliver as they participated in the translation process. Some depict Joseph and his scribe sitting at a table with a curtain across the middle. Others show Joseph and Oliver sitting together at a table, with no curtain in view and the plates clearly visible, yet we know that Oliver was not allowed to view the plates prior to acting as one of the Three Witnesses. One thing that these scenes have in common is that they do not depict the Urim and Thummim, despite the fact that we know that a translation instrument was used during the process. We see no crystal stones mounted in a set of “spectacles,” nor do we see the breastplate.[4]  We certainly never see Joseph gazing into the bottom of his hat while dictating.

The twenty-first century has given us access to a wealth of historical sources that were simply unavailable to the average Latter-day Saint in previous decades. Now one must ask the question: Which of these portrayals is correct? In searching for an answer, we start with a modern Church manual in order to provide us with our first clue. The following description of the translation process appears in the 2003 Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual (hereafter referred to as the Student Manual).

Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.[5]

It makes perfect sense that those who were directly involved in or observed the translation would have the most accurate information. What, then, did these witnesses say that appears to have been contradictory? Were there other witnesses that can shed light on these events? What did outside sources have to say about the translation process? As Latter-day Saint researcher Brant Gardner summarizes it, “What stories shall we believe? What stories of the translation could we or should we tell? Which stories are true? For this last question, I would suggest that they are all true. That is, they are true for the people who are telling them.”[6]

To read the rest, please visit

The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation

on the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture website.

---