[Note: This is an older post that I forgot to publish, but it's still useful in the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding.]
Recently I was conversing with a seminary teacher about how to teach the translation of the Book of Mormon. I explained that I stick with the scriptures, authentic historical sources, and the teachings of the prophets. He agreed. Then he said,
"But I have to teach what's in the manual," he said.
He had a good point. So I looked at the manual.
As expected, the manual follows the SITH (stone-in-the-hat) teachings of the authors of the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation. This means the manual does not quote what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation, apart from the ubiquitous short excerpt (the "gift and power of God") which, removed from its context, is misleading.
The section of the Seminary manual to which he referred is here:
The manual depicts SITH.
![]() |
SITH in the seminary manual |
Then it says this:
This lesson is intended to help students strengthen their testimony that God provided means and power for Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon for us.
But instead of informing students about what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation, the manual teaches what others claimed years later.
Basically, the manual teaches what Mormonism Unvailed claimed in 1834; i.e., that Joseph didn't use the plates or the Urim and Thummim, as he and Oliver claimed, but instead read words off a stone he found in a well.
Maybe that "inoculates" students against claims from the critics, but another idea might be to teach students what Joseph and Oliver taught. After all, they faced the SITH narrative too, which is why they repeatedly, and in print, refuted SITH by affirming that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.
My suggestions for improvement to the manual are here:
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/02/2025-improvements-seminary-manual.html
These are simple fixes to the problem.
_____
Let's look at why I say SITH is beyond parody.
According to the seminary manual:
1. We're supposed to believe that God placed a special stone deep in the earth for Joseph to find while digging a well.
2. We're supposed to believe that Joseph used this stone instead of the Nephite interpreters (the Urim and Thummim) which the Lord
(i) created specifically for the purpose of translating sacred records,
(ii) directed Moroni to include in the stone box with the plates, and
(iii) said Joseph's gift to translate was based upon.
3. We're supposed to believe that Joseph did not even use the plates or the Urim and Thummim after all.
4. We're supposed to believe that the stone-in-the-hat (SITH) worked just as well as (and was more "convenient than") the Urim and Thummim.
5. We're supposed to believe Royal Skousen's claim that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation because they repeatedly and formally claimed that Joseph translated the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.
Maybe students are fine with all of this.
But anyone who knows what Joseph and Oliver said can see the inconsistency of teaching people to believe what Joseph and Oliver taught without teaching what Joseph and Oliver taught.
_____
There are four basic ways to address the historical record regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon.
1. Conclude that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Samuel Smith and John Whitmer told the truth about the translation. This is the Urim and Thummim narrative of which the earliest known explanation was published in 1832 in Boston describing what Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith were teaching. https://www.mobom.org/urim-and-thummim-in-1832
This means that the SITH witnesses either (i) observed something else, such as a demonstration, and assumed they were witnessing the actual translation, or (ii) adopted SITH as an apologetic explanation to refute the Spalding theory.
2. Conclude, as Royal Skousen and other LDS and non-LDS scholars have, that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation because Joseph didn't really use the Urim and Thummim or even refer to the plates, and he was embarrassed about the seer stone. This is the SITH narrative promoted by Mormonism Unvailed in 1834. For a discussion of the "embarrassed" narrative, see https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2024/09/the-embarrassed-narrative-and-sith.html
3. Conclude that Joseph used both the U&T and SITH by disregarding what everyone involved with the translation actually said (they all distinguished between the two--even Mormonism Unvailed did). Some scholars even claim that when Joseph and Oliver referred to the Urim and Thummim, they meant both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone. This despite Joseph specifically explaining that he used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates. See references here: https://www.mobom.org/church-history-issues
4. Conclude that we just don't know how it was done, that Joseph and Oliver were vague, that their successors in Church leadership were mistaken, and it doesn't matter because the words in the text by themselves testify of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
For Latter-day Saints and their friends to make informed decisions, they should at least know what Joseph and Oliver taught. Then they can choose among these alternative interpretations, pursuant to the FAITH model, which differentiates among
Facts
Assumptions
Inferences
Theories
Hypotheses