SITH, Skousen, Early Modern English, etc.

Readers of this blog know that I think Joseph actually translated the characters on the plates. After all, he said he did, as we can all read in Joseph Smith-History.

Some modern LDS scholars, including Royal Skousen but many others, reject what Joseph (and Oliver) taught in favor of the theory articulated in Mormonism Unvailed that instead of using the plates, Joseph merely read words that appeared on the stone-in-the-hat (SITH), the stone being one that he found while digging a well years earlier.

Last fall I posted comments about Royal Skousen's declaration, based on his "Early Modern English" theory, that 

"Joseph Smith’s claim that he used the Urim and Thummim is only partially true; and Oliver Cowdery’s statements that Joseph used the original instrument while he, Oliver, was the scribe appear to be intentionally misleading."

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2024/11/thank-you-royal-skousen.html

I've been surprised at how many people seem to have embraced Skousen's "Early Modern English" theory. Maybe some of them did not realize the inevitable implications of that theory, which Skousen finally announced in the quotation above. 

But apparently many of Skousen's followers agree with his conclusion about the credibility and reliability of Joseph and Oliver as well.

That is predictable because many of those same people also reject what Joseph and Oliver said about the Hill Cumorah.

I had been skeptical of Skousen's theory because of the logical and factual fallacies he employed to develop and promote it. In my view, it makes more sense, and is more consistent with the historical record, to conclude that Joseph and Oliver told the truth when they said Joseph translated the plates.

But people will believe whatever they want to believe.

_____

I bring this up because William Davis recently published an article in Dialogue, which is also on academia.edu:

https://www.academia.edu/130179615/Joseph_Smiths_Spiritual_Language_The_Presence_of_Early_Modern_English_in_the_Book_of_Mormon?email_work_card=title

I like having multiple working hypotheses to consider. Although I don't agree with all of Davis' assumptions and inferences, I highly recommend his paper because he carefully and precisely explains some of the flaws that led to Skousen's conclusion that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone.

Davis' first paragraph sets the stage:

The question of whether or not Joseph Smith participated in the translation of the Book of Mormon as an actual translator, or merely as a transcriber, remains a point of debate in Mormon studies. Did Joseph receive spiritual impressions and visionary experiences by means of a translation device (seer stone, interpreters, and/or Urim and Thummim) and then articulate them into English by tapping into his own mental storehouse of English vocabulary, phraseology, and conceptualizations (the theory of “loose control”)? Or did Joseph simply read the words of a preexisting translation that appeared to him on the surface of the translation device, without any significant contributions of his own (the theory of “tight control”)? As Richard Bushman aptly observes, “Latter-day Saints themselves cannot agree on how the writings engraved on the gold surfaces relate to Joseph Smith’s oral dictation to his secretaries.”1

Davis addressed several specific claims made by Skousen (and his co-author, Stan Carmack). He pointed out that much of what Skousen claims was "Early Modern English" was actually readily available in Joseph Smith's own time, place and culture.

Which is basically my point when I discuss the influence of Jonathan Edwards.

(See https://www.mobom.org/jonathan-edwards and my book Infinite Goodness.) 

At one point, Davis mentioned the "ceremony" controversy:

When we expand the scope of analysis to include the possibility of scribal flaws and the pressures of a rapid dictation process, in which Joseph sought unsuccessfully to find the precise language to express an idea in the moment of performance, then such factors can further account for additional idiosyncratic or allegedly archaic usages, such as using “ceremony” instead of the more specific description of a council of peace, parley, or peace ceremony (Mosiah 19:24).

I discussed the "ceremony" issue here, showing that Jonathan Edwards used the term the same way it is used in the Book of Mormon:

https://scripturecentralpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/07/ceremony-in-mosiah-1924.html

To me, this evidence supports and corroborates what Joseph said from the beginning when he claimed he translated the plates. 

It also corroborates what Moroni told him the first time they met:

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-1834-1836/69

_____

Davis also made an important point that corroborates my findings regarding the influence of Jonathan Edwards. Pay particular attention to footnote 42, which addresses a common claim by SITH sayers and others that Joseph was illiterate and/or uninterested in books and reading.

Joseph Smith’s New England and New York dialects, coupled with the language of the KJV and the registers of contemporary revivalism and religious discourse, have provided obvious locations of investigative research to identify possible sources of the archaic biblical-style language in the Book of Mormon. Meanwhile, another prominent resource remains neglected: the popular reading material of the day.

When we look into the family libraries of early nineteenth-century farmers and artisans, we find that they owned and read the works of a number of influential authors from the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Yet, with regard to Joseph, the availability of such materials and their popularity in working-class homes rarely receives attention, presumably due to his alleged illiteracy and purported lack of interest in reading.42 In the early American republic, however, regular reading—silent and aloud, by individuals, families, or groups in various gathering places (from literary and debate societies to local inns and taverns)—was a common and popular pastime.

42. Lucy Smith famously said that Joseph “seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children,” which commentators often use to assert Joseph’s lack of interest in reading. See Lavina Fielding Anderson, ed., Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir (Signature Books, 2001), 344. [Note: here I would have cited the Joseph Smith Papers instead, including both versions of her statement.] Lucy’s comment does not, however, state that Joseph did not like to read. She simply makes a comparison of Joseph’s reading habits in relation to his siblings. Thus, without knowing how much the other Smith children were inclined to read, the comment remains an observation without a reference point. (comment and emphasis added)

To Davis' point I add that if (as I propose) Joseph was reading books at the T. C. Strong bookstore, Lucy would not have known about that unless Joseph told her. 

_____

Hopefully, Davis' conclusion may encourage Skousen and his followers to reconsider Skousen's claim that Joseph and Oliver deliberately misled everyone about the translation.

While this essay does not provide a comprehensive survey of every textual phenomenon that Skousen and Carmack employ to assert their theory of “tight control,” the information presented here nevertheless offers more than sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Joseph Smith’s participation in the translation work was far more involved than a simple process of transmitting a preexisting, pretranslated work to his scribes.

Ever learning... Shiz, M2C, etc.

Like Shiz, M2C seems to be making a last gasp effort to stay relevant. 

The usual suspects who promote M2C are at it again. The Interpreter has published Brant Gardner's 13-part series. Dan Peterson has promoted it. Meridian Magazine has republished it. FAIR LDS will probably incorporate it somehow, along with the other M2Cers. 

Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that things are changing.

Dan Peterson even expressed some openness about the topic.

Maybe the day will come when the Interpreter will (i) host a 13-part article that explains the Heartland position and (ii) allow a Heartlander to control the comments and editorial response.

Does that sound likely?

We all know it will never happen.

Which tells us all we need to know about the ongoing viability of M2C.

_____

Brant's series has generated a bit of earnest discussion about M2C. Brant deserves a lot of credit for publishing that series, which was probably about as good a defense of M2C as anyone has produced. But as usual, Brant avoided the core issues and resorted to mingling facts with his assumptions, inferences and theories to produce his overall hypothesis.

Some people apparently don't realize these debates have been going on for over 100 years. With some people, the topic generates contention, which is both foolish and unproductive. Church leaders have been wise to avoid the topic ever since it became contentious.

Arguments about this topic (like most arguments) arise from insecurity. Some people need others to agree with them as a sort of social proof; i.e., because they don't trust their own choices, they need others to validate their choices by agreeing with them. That creates the compulsion to convince or persuade, which leads to contention and all that follows.

A better course that leads to "no more contention" is the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding. This both eliminates any compulsion to convince or persuade and enlightens everyone about how people think and view the world.

That's the spirit in which this post is written. We assume everyone is acting in good faith. We encourage people to understand one another, recognizing there are multiple working hypotheses.

The difficult element is that of clarity.

_____

It's a very simple debate, really. 

We can all see the actual facts. We all agree on the facts. And we can all see the ensuing assumptions about those facts. These assumptions constitute a bias that people then seek to confirm.

For example, everyone (M2Cers, critics, Heartlanders, and everyone else) agrees on the fact that Oliver Cowdery wrote that it is a fact that the hill in New York where Joseph found the plates is the very Hill Cumorah/Ramah described in the Book of Mormon. That fact is not in question. 

Where people diverge is with their assumptions about that fact. People assume either that Oliver was correct or that Oliver was wrong.

(click to enlarge)

One of the first problems with Brant's analysis is that he glides over the fundamental difference between the M2Cers and the Heartlanders. He jumps ahead to his interpretations of the text and what he considers extrinsic evidence that supports those interpretations. That is, he seeks to justify his assumption that Oliver was wrong.

This is problematic because every one of Brant's interpretations of the text relies on assumptions and inferences. None of those interpretations are facts. This is true of every interpretation of the text, of course, but this basic reality is at the core of the debates. 

When people such as Brant are so fixated on their own interpretations, they are blind to the reality that they are engaging in bias confirmation. But it's obvious to everyone who does not share his bias.

The same is true of Heartlanders, of course, as well as critics. 

Naturally, everyone seeks to confirm their biases. Otherwise they would change their biases. Actually, many people do change their biases. This happens when people are able to overcome the psychologically powerful confirmation bias so they can consider and evaluate evidence in a new way. People can "reframe" the evidence to reach entirely different conclusions. In a missionary context, we call that "conversion."

Having been an M2Cer for decades, I realize this may not be an easy or immediate process. Lots of former M2Cers have followed the same process I have. And no doubt there are some who have shifted toward M2C after being Heartlanders. That's all part of the process.

But it is essential to realize that people who have different assumptions and inferences end up creating different theories and hypotheses. This is axiomatic. There is nothing complicated about this.

What remains complicated, for many people, is clarity.

_____

Brant's series demonstrates both (i) the advantages of the FAITH model of analysis and (ii) the reasons why M2Cers (and SITH sayers) refuse to employ it.

Everyone interested in the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon wants to see all the facts laid out, separate from the various assumptions, inferences, and theories. The FAITH model enables everyone to understand the ancestry of the various models. It enables people to make informed decisions.

But M2Cers refuse to employ this model. And they don't want anyone else to, either. Which is why they oppose posts such as this:

https://www.lettervii.com/p/oliver-was-truthful-except.html 

_____

As we always say, people can believe whatever they want.

And we are fine with multiple working hypotheses.

But we encourage people to make informed decisions, and Brant (and the other M2Cers) provided more heat than light because they consistently refuse to allow other interpretations to surface.

Think of this debate from the perspective of an outside observer. What academic (or other) organization would even dream up a process that purports to be academic, analytical and objective by which the author of an article in an online journal is also the webmaster who controls the comments that are allowed on that journal?

It is a patently ridiculous process that demonstrates the intensity of the bias confirmation underway at the Interpreter, Meridian Magazine, etc.

But as I said at the outset, maybe that is changing.

What do you think?

_____

_____

A few scriptures come to mind.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:7)

22 ¶ Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. (Acts 17:22–23)

a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions. (Joseph Smith—History 1:6)

It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; (Alma 12:9–11)

End of M2C: Brant's series concludes

I posted a peer review of Brant's part 13 here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/07/brants-part-13.html

I keep the peer reviews on that blog for easier reference.

_____

In a related post, I discussed the treatment of Cumorah in some recent curriculum, here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/06/improving-church-websites-cumorah.html

_____

Here's the intro to my peer review:

Brant Gardner finished his series of blog posts comparing M2C with the Heartland. Brant is a fine scholar, a great guy, and a faithful Latter-day Saint. 

The series is a good candidate for a FAITH model analysis if/when I get the time. Hopefully someone else will take the opportunity to separate the facts we all know from the various assumptions, inferences and theories that lead to the multiple working hypotheses found throughout the community of Latter-day Saints.

So in that sense, kudos to Brant.

But hopefully in the future he will consider employing the FAITH model.

_____

Beyond Parody-SITH in seminary

[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:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-seminary-teacher-manual-2025/062-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

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

 

"I have obtained a promise"

We are happy for M2Cers to believe whatever they want to believe, but we also pursue clarity, charity and understanding.

It is easy to corroborate the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah with extrinsic evidence--if you want to.

Clarity in this case involves two voyages to the New World and the implications for what Lehi taught about the New World that the Lord led him to.

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. 

(2 Nephi 1:8–9)

_____

A basic premise of M2C is that Lehi landed on the west coast of Mesoamerica in the midst of an extensive Mayan civilization. Some M2Cers also believe the Mulekites landed in Mesoamericn in the midst of an Olmec (Jaredite) civilization.

These theoretical voyages were shown on the map that RLDS scholar L.E. Hills proposed over 100 years ago. 

1917 map published by RLDS scholar L.E. Hills

To make his theory work, Hills put Cumorah in southern Mexico. He specifically rejected what Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, David Whitmer, Brigham Young and everyone else said about Cumorah in New York.

"Cumorah" in Mexico, according to L.E. Hills

LDS leaders specifically rejected what Hills taught and reaffirmed the New York Cumorah, but gradually LDS scholars adopted the Hills theory instead. 

John Sorenson, Jack Welch, Kirk Magleby, Brant Gardner, and all their followers preferred Hills' theory about Cumorah over the teachings of the prophets.

BYU Studies map of Cumorah, based on L.E. Hills, as
adapted by Sorenson/Welch.

Next, Tyler Griffin created a fictional map to represent the Hills/Sorenson/Welch theory for new generations. (Somehow he and his followers think it's a good idea to teach the Book of Mormon using a fictional map more akin to Lord of the Rings than to any real-world setting.)  

Obviously, placing the Nephites and Mulekites in the midst of these Mesoamerican civilizations contradicts Lehi's declarations in verse 8-9. Mesoamerica was the opposite of what Lehi described. Again,

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. 

(2 Nephi 1:8–9)

We can all see that the Mayans (and Olmecs) were well established nations. Naturally, the M2Cers have a variety of ways to rationalize the incongruity, but the plain language is there for everyone to read.

An alternative to M2C is the idea that Lehi followed ocean and wind currents, crossed the Atlantic, and actually landed in an area that was occupied only by unorganized hunter/gatherers in what is now the southeastern United States, circa 600 BC. 

Book of Mormon voyages and ocean currents

Then, after King Mosiah led the Nephites to Bountiful, the division of the Lamanites and Nephites looked something such as this, which explains why Cumorah is in New York.

_____

But there's more to it than that.

_____

The Lord explained to Nephi that if his brothers rebelled against God, they would become a "scourge" to Nephi's descendants.

22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.

23 For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also.

24 And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance.

(1 Nephi 2:22–24)

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

(2 Nephi 5:24–25)

According to the text, it was the Lamanites, not the Mayan nations of kings and warriors, who were a scourge to the Nephites.

To repeat: It is easy to corroborate the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah with extrinsic evidence--if you want to.

"ceremony" in Mosiah and Scripture Central

In the ongoing pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I posted a peer review of an article on Scripture Central about the term "ceremony" in Mosiah 19:24. 

https://scripturecentralpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/07/ceremony-in-mosiah-1924.html

Basically, the term makes perfect sense once we see how Jonathan Edwards used the term.

But because the scholars haven't looked at Edwards, we have Royal Skousen speculating that the term is a "scribal error." We have various Book of Mormon "experts" offering a variety of speculative theories based on assumptions and inferences that lead to a confusing spectrum of apologetic theories.

Of course, given the scholars involved, none of them proposed that Joseph translated the plates correctly using his own language...

Except me.

:)

But hopefully my peer review will lead to improvement in this area going forward.

M2C in the Interpreter-again, as usual

I'm always curious if Interpreter readers think for themselves, do their own research, or merely accept what the Interpreter publishes.  

Because I encourage people to make informed decisions for themselves, and to avoid relying on self-appointed "experts" who reject what Joseph and Oliver taught, I did another peer review of an Interpreter article.

This one is the introduction to a new series of article in the Interpreter, which are resurrecting the 2005 Library of Congress symposium on "the Worlds of Joseph Smith."

We've discussed that several times on this blog. 

This series consists of chapters from a book. 

My peer review of the introduction is here:

https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/2025/07/review-anachronisms-accidental-evidence.html

As is common with Interpreter articles, this one is well-intentioned. It no doubt reflects the views of many Latter-day Saints who still believe M2C.

But it also is another example of the difference between apologetics and scholarship, in the sense that it contains the expected omission of relevant material that contradicts the M2C narrative.

See for yourself.

:)