An article in December’s issue of the Ensign is making waves by altering the traditional imagery of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon. In Elder Marcus B. Nash’s “Joseph Smith: Strength Out of Weakness,” two different images show an object next to Joseph Smith not typically seen in LDS depictions: a hat.
If you ask members to visualize Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon, most would likely see Joseph sitting at a simple wooden table. His tired head rests in one hand. He stares down at the open gold plates illuminated only by the light of a nearby gas lamp. Oliver Cowdery, his scribe, sits across from him, carefully recording Joseph’s dictation. The mental image is likely inspired by one of two different paintings by Del Parson often seen in church publications (see here and here). Other depictions are similar. In the illustrated Doctrine and Covenants Stories for children, for example, Joseph is shown reading the gold plates by candle light.
But that’s not what happened. Most members would remember, if prompted, that Joseph used ancient interpreters later called the Urim and Thummim, clear stones bound together like spectacles, found with the gold plates. But Joseph’s use of an additional instrument, a small chocolate-colored seer stone, wasn’t well-known among members due to only fleeting references in a few church magazine articles. In June 2013, The Interpreter, an online apologetic journal, published a lengthy article on the instruments used in the translation process. The author, Roger Nicholson, wrote,
Modern portrayals of the translation process such as that shown in the popular animated television show South Park2 depict Joseph looking at a stone in the bottom of his hat and dictating to his scribe, without the use of a curtain… 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.
In December 2013, a Gospel Topics essay on the Book of Mormon translation was released, confirming that the South Park version was indeed a more accurate depiction of the translation process than the Del Parson paintings in church manuals.
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.
In 2015, the church released photographs of the seer stone believed to have been used in the translation of the Book of Mormon. The images were subsequently published in the October 2015 Ensign. Since the Gospel Topics essays were never widely publicized among members, this Ensign article was the first serious exposure many members had to the seer stone. It was also the first time many found out the gold plates weren’t used in the translation process, just Joseph Smith, the instruments (Nephite interpreters or the seer stone), and a hat. As commenter Disappointed said yesterday,
The October 2015 Ensign Article “Joseph the Seer” was a turning point in my life…
The article discusses the translation process of the Book of Mormon and does discuss the seer stone. I was floored. I had encountered the seer stone a decade earlier on the main street in Nauvoo. A shop front had all sorts of “crazy” anti-Mormon flyers taped to its windows. The one that stood out to me was a drawing of Joseph Smith with his head buried in a hat. “What a ridiculous lie,” I thought. The joke was on me, the above article hit me hard.
I was left with all kinds of questions, and then noticed none of the illustrations used to show the translation process portrayed Joseph’s head buried in a hat. They show the stone, yes, but not the method…. Why had the church never commissioned a painting with Joseph’s face in a hat to block out the light so he could see the words as the appeared on a rock? If this is what happened, why wasn’t it discussed or portrayed in lesson manuals, ever?
Commenter Disappointed wasn’t the only one asking these questions, which brings us to today.
The article “Joseph Smith: Strength Out of Weakness” in the current Ensign is from a February 10, 2013 address Elder Nash, a member of the Seventy, delivered at the 70th Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Devotional. The address was published several years ago on the Revelations in Context website. In reference to the translation process, the original speech said,
This was dictated, word by word, as he looked into instruments the Lord prepared for him, using a hat to shield his eyes from extraneous light in order to plainly see the words as they appeared.
This speech was almost a year before the release of the Book of Mormon translation Gospel Topics essay, so Nash’s mention of the hat was notable. However, neither the seer stone nor the Nephite translators (Urim and Thummim) were mentioned specifically. Luckily, someone in the church magazines department recognized the need to update Nash’s info. In the current article, the description goes,
Joseph dictated it word by word as he looked into instruments the Lord had prepared for him, including the Urim and Thummim and at times a seer stone, using a hat to shield his eyes from extraneous light in order to plainly see the words as they appeared… [fn1]
But it’s the pictures that are the all-stars in this article. The first translation image is on page 57 in the printed issue, showing Joseph Smith with his first scribe, Emma. On the table next to Joseph is a light-colored hat turned upside down.
Then, spread across pages 58-59 in the printed issue, is a larger image of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery at work. Joseph’s right hand is resting on what appears to be the gold plates wrapped in white cloth. Peeking out behind the wrapped gold plates is a black hat, upside-down on the table, under Joseph’s left hand.
Just for fun, I clicked over to the church’s media library, curious if the newer images were available as resources for members. Not yet. Del Parson’s paintings will remain the standard… for now.
Discuss.
[fn1] I’m not wild about Nash’s phrasing that the seer stone was only used “at times.” That implies it was used less often than the Nephite interpreters (Urim and Thummim), which doesn’t match at least one early witness account. According to Emma Smith, only the first 116 pages were translated by the Nephite interpreters. Everything else was from the seer stone.
Wheat & Tares 
Well, it’s progress I suppose. Visually the pictures are set up to de-emphasize the hat in favor of JS face and then Emma’s face. Not unexpected as most people looking at the pictures will want to see JS/Emma and not a random hat. Neither picture makes it clear that the hat isn’t random and is part of the method of translation, so it seems like the church wants to acknowledge a hat was used to those that know that, but not push the boundaries of those that do not.
There is an excellent essay by an artist about the issues of illustrating the scenes.
Found it. https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/From-Darkness-unto-Light.-Appendix.pdf
” When I asked Walter Rane
about creating an image of the translation with Joseph looking into a hat, he
surprised me by telling me that the Church had actually talked to him a few
times in the past about producing an image like that but that the projects
fell by the wayside as other matters became more pressing.”
The entire essay is interesting.
Stephen, thanks for locating that essay. I’ve read it in the past, and there was a funny part from it that kept popping in my head while I was writing this last night, but I couldn’t remember where I’d seen it. The author, Anthony Sweat, admits the difficulty he had coming up with a historically accurate representation of Joseph looking in a hat:
“Many of my own sketches for this book project didn’t look right or feel right in terms of the marvelous work and wonder of the Book of Mormon. I joked that some of my sketches with Joseph in the hat should have been called “The Sick of Joseph” because he looks like he is vomiting into the hat. When multiple people unfamiliar with our history saw my sketches, they asked me if Joseph
was ill. It didn’t communicate anything about inspiration, visions, revelations, miracles, translation, or the like—just stomach sickness.”
“… from the beginning of time, there has been no attempt on the part in anyway, that the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody.”
🙂
“Most members would remember, if prompted, that Joseph used ancient interpreters later called the Urim and Thummim, clear stones bound together like spectacles, found with gold plates.”
This perspective is worth considering. The Del Parson painting doesn’t get a few details wrong- it gets everything wrong. Most members, myself included, know that he used some form of instrument to translate the Book of Mormon and, perhaps, that a curtain stood between him and the scribe. In other words, the painting contradicts not only the historical narrative, but the traditional faith-based narrative as well. Although I sympathize with those who feel lied to regarding this issue, at that point you really have to wonder if the Church saw these paintings as a teaching tool or a highly stylized artistic rendering. Yes, it’s used in Preach My Gospel and other manuals, but I don’t see how anyone, unorthodox or orthodox, could take it seriously as a comprehensive represenation of what occurred.
Dylan, I think you’d appreciate the article that Stephen linked to. It discusses the tension between artistic license (finding the image that best conveys the intended feeling/spiritual message) versus historical accuracy. The problem is that pictures often dictate how we remember history. The author, a religion professor as well as an artist, covers the discussion well.
ReTx, I agree the hat isn’t overt, but the other important element is the lack of visible gold plates. Those two elements combined are big for me.
Mr. Bingley, I hear you. The seer stone was one of the examples I used in Wednesday’s post about that Ballard quote.
The best history is that he used them with Emma and through the first 118 pages. When those pages were lost, the plates were taken along with them.
When the plates were returned the best narrative is that he then used a seer stone.
Which makes the illustrations make more sense.
Much like the best narrative is that the hat was white. Does that make all the portrayals with a different color intentionally misleading?
I don’t think so.
Stephen, I think the lack of a hat matters more to people than the color of the hat. If you’re referring to the relatively minor issue of how often the Nephite interpreters versus seer stone were used, then I agree a lot of people would see that as inconsequential. It bugged me, though, since if they bothered to edit the sentence to specify the instruments, it would not have taken much energy to make the sentence more accurate.
It seems that a large part of the issue is the use of the word ‘translate’. Doesn’t feel like translation in any currently recognised sense of the word.
Perhaps if we referred to the process as the ‘ bringing forth of the Book of Mormon by revelation ‘ we might be less misleading
.
Sometimes all I can do is shake my head. How can ‘South Park’ get it so right?
Excellent review Mary Ann. This has never been an issue for me. I guess certain topics just rub certain people the wrong way. The first major time my “Huh?” radar went off was a 2007 article in the October ensign by Elder Holland about same sex attraction. He was directly contradicting SWK, JFS, and many other statements authorities had given on the subject. It caught me completely off guard. I was a big time bigot at the time and maybe it made me question if my homophobic thinking was really in line with God’s. Since then I have become obsessed with educating myself. Greg Prince said in a talk on Dogma vs Science “Before there was knowledge, there was certitude. “ What a great line. So now I find myself having to exercise faith for the first time in my life and it sucks.
There are a few things that do bother me regarding the translation. I read this article after you linked to it and Brother Callister’s talk from conference. I don’t like how they act as though Jospeh was a bumbling idiot. He wasn’t. I also don’t like how they use Emma as a source after early prophets called her Satan and a liar. I have a lot respect for her and wish they would leave her name out of things, but they use her now and pretend she was an ally to the saints. That being said, most of the people that were close to Joseph at the beginning left, so they would be left with very few quotes if they only quoted Brigham’s friends.
Emma is often quoted as saying to support the Book of Mormon:
“After meals, or after interruptions, [Joseph] would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, 290). She also gave the following two quotes.
“When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him. When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘Oh! [I didn’t know.] I was afraid I had been deceived.’ He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History, Jan. 1916, p. 454.)
“The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, p. 290; spelling modernized.)
I believe what she said. The Book of Mormon is not a huge part of my reading anymore. I think the BOM can be used for the following purposes
1- Prove that Joseph was indeed a prophet.
2- Teach the fullness of the Gospel.
3- Be used as a “how to manual” in raising families, serving others, etc..
4- Serve as a second witness to Christ
Number 1 and Number 4 used to be the greatest benefit for me. The fullness of the Gospel is not in the BOM ( temple ordinances, exaltation, eternal marriage). The how to manual approach does not work for me either. I have a hard time plugging my name in different verses like some people do and having it help me at all.
I do believe Joseph was a prophet but have a hard time with some Nauvoo doctrine, specifically polygamy, but others also. I still believe the BOM characters are real and have a hard time with the inspired fiction view so Number 4 is what I am clinging on to at this point. I do realize all problems that make the inspired fiction crowd believe the way they do.I am just afraid if I move to that crowd I would have no use for the BOM at all.
The picture with the hat on the table reminds me of the essays. They are trying to put a faith promoting spin by shading what really took place but make it look like the Church is being open and honest.
In both pictures, the hat is obscured enough that it could easily be overlooked, or dismissed as being an incidental object. This gives the Church some deniability in both directions–traditionalists can still hang on to the old (incorrect) narratives, while progressives can applaud the Church on it’s willingness to (gradually) open up about the true history. I’m not saying this is the right thing to do, but these pictures probably represent the most logical committee-based decision on how to find a solution that will offend the least amount of people.
You won’t ever catch me praising the historical accuracy of South Park. That would be like praising a depiction of George Washington wearing an historically accurate hat while chopping down the cherry tree.
The first major time my “Huh?” radar went off was a 2007 article in the October ensign by Elder Holland about same sex attraction. He was directly contradicting SWK, JFS, and many other statements authorities had given on the subject.
Well, thank goodness, it was about time.
OK, so the Church has never really hidden the actual accounts of the revelatory experience (which, correct, was not actually a “translation” in the generally accepted linguistic sense of the word) but put out a few paintings showing an artist’s representation of the spirit of the events. I recall scoffing at the Parson depictions about 30 years ago, but it’s never been a threat to testimony, because I had read the actual history. I don’t expect artists to get it right, but I do think Emma probably did. (Walter Rane: “I don’t think an artist has any responsibility to be historically accurate.”)
I like Br. Sweat’s analogy of the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware, standing in the prow of the boat. Inaccurate, yes. Terrible how we’ve been misled all those years thinking that he was standing, when he was probably huddling under his cloak in the sleet like everyone else.
And yet, to read some of these comments, those pictures are just another way in which the Church has been intentionally hiding the truth from us for lo, these many years – and now they’re partially obscuring the hat! They still won’t come clean! Some of us, as my grandmother used to say, could find a turd in a scoop of ice cream. Let’s just be glad that people who can actually read are finally creating Church art and selecting it for inclusion in the Ensign.
I agree that the hat is too hidden and could be mistaken as an incidental object. However, having the plates explicitly covered while Oliver is actively scribing –(not scrying) — is really a bold step forward. Never before have we seen the plates covered during tye actual “translation” process.
Can’t wait until the day when the mormon apologists deny that the hat was ever absent from the art.