LDS Historians believe Joseph Smith used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon, but authors Jim Lucas and Jonathan Neville are pushing back against that theory. The two lawyers argue that the traditional story that Joseph used the Urim & Thummim to translate is more accurate, and they have written a new book, “By Means of the Urim & Thummim” to lay out their arguments. Check out our conversation…
Is David Whitmer a Hostile Witness?
Lawyers Jim Lucas & Jonathan Neville argue that the Church relies too much on David Whitmer discussion of Joseph using a seer stone and his testimony shouldn’t be considered reliable. They argue David wasn’t a translation witness and after he left the Church, David essentially became a hostile witness. Therefore, his “Address to All Believers in Christ” shouldn’t be used as confirmation that Joseph used a seer stone. Do you agree?
They also much take on Emma Smith, who acted as scribe for the Lost 116 pages. Emma claims Joseph used the urim & thummim for the lost pages, and then Joseph used the seer stone for the Book of Mormon that we have. This is the stance most mainstream LDS historians take. Lucas & Neville argue her recollection is 40 years later and her memory can’t be trusted. (If you check the YouTube comments, Dan Vogel takes issue with Lucas & Neville’s points here.) It should also be noted that Emma denied Joseph practiced polygamy in this account.
Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery’s accounts say Joseph used the Urim & Thummim for translation. Oliver should know, since he was a scribe, and Lucas & Neville definitely privilege Oliver & Joseph’s accounts here over all others. We also discuss Oliver’s attempt at translation in D&C 8 and 9, and Neville argues that Oliver tried to use the urim & thummim rather than his dowsing rod to translate. We dig deep into D&C 8 and 9 to discuss why Oliver couldn’t translate.
Finally, we discuss why it all matters. Some believers say they don’t care whether Joseph used a seer stone or urim and thummim. The main thing is it was received by the power of God and these people have a testimony of the book. But Lucas and Neville argue that the answer to this question goes to the reliability of Joseph & Oliver’s words. If they can’t be trusted, one might as well leave the Church as David Whitmer and many former Mormons have done. They seem to ignore that believing scholars who promote the seer stone as translation method are still faithful members of the Church. What are your thoughts? Does method of translation matter to your testimony?
Wheat & Tares 
I felt for you Rick as I went through these interviews. I mostly listened to this while driving and I found myself yelling at the radio. I was shocked at the points they completely disregarded or discounted. No discussion of Joseph standing trial for the use of a seer stone. No discussion of why Oliver Cowdery was familiar with the trial. It seems that it would follow that Joseph didn’t want to admit publicly to using the seer stone after he was arrested for it. They briefly talk about Joseph demonstrating the translation process by putting his seer stone in his hat and then discount the testimony of those who saw Joseph’s demonstration. I laughed out loud at the suggestion that the gold plates had a secret compartment for storing the spectacles like a trick book where you store your cash and passports. Also the idea that the translation was similar to any other translation and thus didn’t fit into a tight or loose framing was just ridiculous. Would love to see these guys take that stance for the Book of Abraham. They seemed way too concerned about John Dehlin and it felt like that concern was clouding their judgment.
Someone needs to corner Denver Snuffer about polygamy past, present, and future. Teaching the scriptures incorrectly, is not the answer imo. Is it, has it ever been, or will it ever be ever a spiritual practice? No evidence about the physical practice of it with Joseph Smith, but what is the truth regarding the scriptures? A prophet should know hm? No one has the courage to confront Denver on air regarding it because he knows it is a biblical spiritual principle in some scenario in some scenarios. He requests some to take a covenant of spiritual witness in regard to his work, but has not the courage to directly teach the scriptures on this topic, but to cherry pick his way thru them. smh how frustrating. Polygamists as a result have to hang their head in shame in his group…obviously they are a misled group that doesn’t know how to feel the spirit in their individual lives…right?
Okay, now let me see if I have this right… First, we are to distrust one of the three witnesses (David Whitmer) about the translation process, even though he and his family were witnesses of the final stage of translation at the Whitmer farm. Second, Emma is not a reliable witness because she was old and worn out. And of all of the witnesses and testimonies, only Joseph and Oliver are reliable. And we do these mental gymnastics to preserve the notion that the Urim and Thummim were used and not the seer stone? Did I get this right?
It seems that the authors are not really engaged in evaluating context as much as they are arguing against multiple sources that disagree with their thesis. What really ticked me off was their dismissal of Emma’s evidence. Dan Vogel stated the following in YouTube:
“Their assertion that Emma was too feeble (mentally) to give such articulate answers and that Joseph III had to make the best of a few things she may have said is unfounded. Neville states: “There’s no indication that she was that articulate at the time she died.” There’s no indication that she was feeble at the time of the interview. The interview was conducted in February, two months before her death. Others interviewed her after Joseph III. Her husband, Lewis Bidamon, was present and confirmed that her answers about the translation were consistent with what he had heard her say on many occasions.”
It gets complicated when we are supposed to believe early Church witnesses some of the time but not all of the time. When you pick and choose like this it really becomes cherry picking to fulfill a preconceived belief. David Whitmer? Oliver Cowdery? Emma Smith? Do you consider them credible, or not?
Why would translating with Urim and Thummim be any different? It is two magic rocks instead of one? And we don’t have the Urim and Thummim or the plates so in the end it is still Joseph and other peoples vague accounts of mystical inspiration processed that we have left to parse.
IMO …Abject Nonsense….
The Urim and Thummim weren’t known as the Urim and Thummim from the outset. That name was given to them later. To the best of my knowledge they were called “interpreters” when Joseph first uncovered them. And so one might just as well call Joseph’s seer stone a Urim and Thummim. As Brian G. has already indicated all of those stones did essentially the same thing. So whether there were two or three or even four of them is immaterial–they were all interpreters.
Some of the Heartlander leadership has painted itself into a corner. By elevating Oliver Cowdrey’s every recorded word to the status of prophecy — in order to justify some of their claims vis-a-vis BoM geography — they’re stuck having to take everything he said as the gospel truth–including the bit about the Urim and Thummim.
I was going to comment what Jack said in first paragraph but he said it better than I would have.