One of my favorite aspects of the Saints book, volume 1, is how it ignores the teachings of the prophets while emphasizing the teachings of others, especially the speculation of revisionist Church historians.
We're assured that Saints was reviewed by lots of people, but did anyone check the sources? Did anyone ask why the teachings of the prophets are so methodically censored or overridden by the rhetoric of revisionist Church historians?
The censorship of Cumorah was the most obvious example. The phony story of Moroni showing the plates to Mary Whitmer is an annoying piece of misinformation driven by M2C* that the historic sites missionaries tell everyone who comes.
The treatment of the translation of the Book of Mormon is equally problematic.
We start off with this:
Everything in bold is revisionist history, designed to accommodate modern theories, including M2C.
There are at least two sources that show Moroni himself calling the "nearby hill" Cumorah. Everyone alive during Joseph's lifetime knew this; it is only modern revisionist historians and their M2C colleagues who censor that important component of Church history.
The term "the Americas" appears nowhere in actual documents from early Church history. It's a term invented later to obscure what the actual documents say to accommodate M2C. Below we'll see what Moroni actually said.
The revisionist historians think W.W. Phelps first applied the term Urim and Thummim to the Nephite interpreters, for various reasons I've explained before.
Notice that footnote 9 cites Oliver Cowdery's Letter IV, but they don't actually use that source. Instead, Saints relates the theories of modern revisionist historians that would have been alien to Joseph, Oliver, and their contemporaries.
_____
If the editors of Saints wanted to create an authentic narrative present (meaning if they wanted to show what the historical figures actually thought), they would have presented the version of events that Oliver Cowdery described in 1835.
Everyone at the time accepted this account, including Joseph Smith who had it copied into his own journal as part of his life history. He later had it republished in every Church newspaper so all the members of the Church could know the actual history.
Here is Oliver's account, which Joseph assisted him to write. Notice how different it is from what Saints teaches:
He then proceeded and gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigenes of this country, and said they were literal descendants of Abraham. He represented them as once being an enlightned and intelligent people, possessing a correct knowledge of the gospel, and the plan of restoration and redemption. He said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/68
Here's how the above passage would read if it was an honest narrative present:
You'll never read what Joseph and Oliver actually taught unless you seek out the original sources for yourself.
_____
We won't take the time to go through everything, but let's look at how Saints portrays the translation:
We're assured that Saints was reviewed by lots of people, but did anyone check the sources? Did anyone ask why the teachings of the prophets are so methodically censored or overridden by the rhetoric of revisionist Church historians?
The censorship of Cumorah was the most obvious example. The phony story of Moroni showing the plates to Mary Whitmer is an annoying piece of misinformation driven by M2C* that the historic sites missionaries tell everyone who comes.
The treatment of the translation of the Book of Mormon is equally problematic.
Moroni spoke of gold plates buried in a nearby hill. On the plates was etched the record of an ancient people who once lived in the Americas. The record told of their origins and gave an account of Jesus Christ visiting them and teaching the fullness of His gospel.8
Buried with the plates, Moroni said, were two seer stones, which Joseph later called the Urim and Thummim, or interpreters. The Lord had prepared these stones to help Joseph translate the record. The clear stones were fastened together and attached to a breastplate.9
8. Joseph Smith, Journal, Nov. 9–11, 1835, in JSP, J1:88.22
9. Joseph Smith—History 1:35; Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 5, in JSP, H1:222 (draft 2); Joseph Smith History, circa Summer 1832, 4, in JSP, H1:14; Oliver Cowdery, “Letter IV,” LDS Messenger and Advocate, Feb. 1835, 1:65–67; Turley, Jensen, and Ashurst-McGee, “Joseph the Seer,” 49–54; “Mormonism—No. II,” Tiffany’s Monthly, July 1859, 164. Topic: Seer Stones
Everything in bold is revisionist history, designed to accommodate modern theories, including M2C.
There are at least two sources that show Moroni himself calling the "nearby hill" Cumorah. Everyone alive during Joseph's lifetime knew this; it is only modern revisionist historians and their M2C colleagues who censor that important component of Church history.
The term "the Americas" appears nowhere in actual documents from early Church history. It's a term invented later to obscure what the actual documents say to accommodate M2C. Below we'll see what Moroni actually said.
The revisionist historians think W.W. Phelps first applied the term Urim and Thummim to the Nephite interpreters, for various reasons I've explained before.
Notice that footnote 9 cites Oliver Cowdery's Letter IV, but they don't actually use that source. Instead, Saints relates the theories of modern revisionist historians that would have been alien to Joseph, Oliver, and their contemporaries.
_____
If the editors of Saints wanted to create an authentic narrative present (meaning if they wanted to show what the historical figures actually thought), they would have presented the version of events that Oliver Cowdery described in 1835.
Everyone at the time accepted this account, including Joseph Smith who had it copied into his own journal as part of his life history. He later had it republished in every Church newspaper so all the members of the Church could know the actual history.
Here is Oliver's account, which Joseph assisted him to write. Notice how different it is from what Saints teaches:
He then proceeded and gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigenes of this country, and said they were literal descendants of Abraham. He represented them as once being an enlightned and intelligent people, possessing a correct knowledge of the gospel, and the plan of restoration and redemption. He said this history was written and deposited not far from that place, and that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/68
Here's how the above passage would read if it was an honest narrative present:
Moroni spoke of a history of the aborigines of this country that had been written and deposited not far from Joseph's home in a Hill that Moroni called Cumorah. The ancient people possessed a correct knowledge of the gospel. Buried with the plates, Moroni said, were the Urim and Thummim, which Joseph could use to translate the record if he was obedient to the commandments of the Lord.
You'll never read what Joseph and Oliver actually taught unless you seek out the original sources for yourself.
_____
We won't take the time to go through everything, but let's look at how Saints portrays the translation:
Saints, p. 61: Meanwhile, Joseph and Oliver started translating. They worked well together, weeks on end, frequently with Emma in the same room going about her daily work.24 Sometimes Joseph translated by looking through the interpreters and reading in English the characters on the plates. Often he found a single seer stone to be more convenient. He would put the seer stone in his hat, place his face into the hat to block out the light, and peer at the stone. Light from the stone would shine in the darkness, revealing words that Joseph dictated as Oliver rapidly copied them down.25
24. Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 15, in JSP, H1:284 (draft 2); Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–45, book 8, [4]; Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, Oct. 1, 1879, 290. Topic: Daily Life of First-Generation Latter-day Saints
25. “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics, topics.lds.org; Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 15, in JSP, H1:284 (draft 2); Oliver Cowdery to William W. Phelps, Sept. 7, 1834, LDS Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, 1:14; Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, Oct. 1, 1879, 290; “Golden Bible,” Palmyra Freeman, Aug. 11, 1829, [2]. Topic: Book of Mormon Translation
This all sounds great until you look at the references and think a moment.
The paragraph relies primarily on "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," an account prepared by her son, Joseph Smith III, who was in an ongoing doctrinal battle with the Utah Church led by Brigham Young. I discussed the problems with Emma's "Last Testimony" here:
The section of Saints that I bolded above is a mishmash of accounts that contradicts everything Joseph and Oliver actually wrote. They consistently and persistently declared that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that accompanied the plates. The "convenient" seer stone idea came from Martin Harris many years later. The "shine in darkness" language comes from Alma, but Alma referred to directors, not interpreters (the language was changed in the 1920 LDS edition).
Notice that instead of citing the many accounts from Joseph and Oliver, Saints focuses on dubious statements by others. Certainly Emma's 1879 "Last Testimony" was not part of the narrative present for Joseph and Oliver, who described the translation much differently.
It continues to amaze me that a book that supposedly portrays a "narrative present" ignores the actual contemporaneous documents and instead creates a "narrative present" from documents created long after Joseph and Oliver were dead.
_____
*According to David Whitmer, Joseph Smith, and Mary Whitmer herself, it was actually one of the Three Nephites who showed Mary the plates, but that means Cumorah is in New York, contrary to the false historical narrative present that Saints created to accommodate M2C.
No comments:
Post a Comment