Mike Parker clarifies, Part V

This is the fifth and final part of the Mike Parker clarification. This part focuses on the translation of the Book of Mormon: SITH vs U&T.

For previous parts, see the entries on this blog, starting with Part I, here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/mike-parker-clarifies-part-i.html

Again, I appreciate Mike's willingness to discuss these issues, and I think he has done a good job summarizing the SITH position. I welcome any additional input by other SITH advocates, if any.

Jonathan Neville

Jonathan Neville’s synopsis of Dan Peterson, Mike Parker, Steve Smoot, Jack Welch, Royal Skousen, and their followers and donors

Mike Parker (who has neither followers nor donors)

Witnesses who rejected the leadership of Brigham Young, such as David Whitmer and Emma Smith, are less credible than what Joseph and Oliver (and their successors) said, so even if Joseph Smith dictated words while looking at the stone in the hat (SITH), this was a demonstration, not the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Witnesses who rejected the leadership of Brigham Young, such as David Whitmer and Emma Smith, are more credible than what Joseph and Oliver (and their successors) said, so we know that, instead of using the U&T and the plates, Joseph Smith merely read words that appeared on the stone in the hat (SITH).

1. What eyewitnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon believed about succession in the presidency of the Church is immaterial to their credibility as witnesses of the translation process. (The same principle applies in the law: A witness to a crime cannot be ignored or rejected just because he is a communist, a MAGA Trump supporter, or a flat-earther.) Not one single eyewitness to the translation process ever denied that Joseph Smith was inspired by God to translate the Book of Mormon. 2. The witnesses—Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Emma Smith, David Whitmer, and others—are equally credible, and their statements must be examined and understood in the context of when, how, and why they were made. Dismissing an eyewitness’s testimony because the content of that testimony does not fit one’s hypothesis is a fatal error that reflects a biased, prejudiced methodology. 3. No one who accepts the overwhelming number of eyewitness testimonies that Joseph did use a seer stone to translate has ever claimed that Joseph “merely read words that appeared” to him; rather, Joseph’s early revelations clearly indicate that the translation process also required study, prayer, and spiritual confirmation, as described by the revelation to the Prophet Joseph in D&C 9. 4. Also, no one is claiming that the seer stone was not a sacred consecrated object at the time the Book of Mormon was translated, nor is anyone asserting that the translation could have been accomplished without the gift of seership from God. On the contrary, both the interpreters and other seer stones worked through the gift and power of God. 5. No firsthand eyewitnesses or secondhand accounts (or any later Church leaders, for that matter) have ever suggested that Joseph Smith “demonstrated” the translation process to curious individuals by using a seer stone in a hat. Jonathan Neville’s claim that Joseph did this is an ad hoc hypothesis, completely lacking in any evidence whatsoever and invented solely to resolve the problem of the multitude of eyewitness statements that Joseph used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon in Harmony and in Fayette.

Discussion:

Mike: 1. What eyewitnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon believed about succession in the presidency of the Church is immaterial to their credibility as witnesses of the translation process. (The same principle applies in the law: A witness to a crime cannot be ignored or rejected just because he is a communist, a MAGA Trump supporter, or a flat-earther.) Not one single eyewitness to the translation process ever denied that Joseph Smith was inspired by God to translate the Book of Mormon.

My Response: Mike makes a good point that the credibility of the SITH witnesses is not contingent on their support of Brigham Young, so in a sense that is a gratuitous qualifier on my part. But that support is a relevant factor because it goes to witness bias and motivation. Brigham Young said Emma was a liar. Brigham obviously disagreed with David Whitmer's characterization of Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet, etc. The larger point is how to balance the relative credibility of the various witnesses. 

Mike starts with an assumption that drives the rest of his argument; i.e., that the SITH witnesses were "eyewitnesses to the translation." Even assuming they were actually eyewitnesses, and they accurately reported what they observed, and their statements were accurately recorded, the underlying question is, what did they observe? 

I'm not saying it is unreasonable for Mike and other SITH proponents to assume these witnesses observed the actual translation. I'm fine with them believing that if they want to. No problem at all.

For me, though, SITH doesn't make sense and doesn't fit the evidence. 

Because Joseph and Oliver said Joseph translated the record with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates, I think it is inconsistent to say that the SITH witnesses observed the actual translation for all the reasons I've explained. Some readers here may be unaware of my reasons, and I don't have time to rehash them all here (they're laid out in my book A Man that Can Translate), but as one example, Joseph said he was commanded not to show the Urim and Thummim or the plates. 

42 Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. 

(Joseph Smith—History 1:42)

I don't think it's rational to assume God gives pointless commandments. If the only thing Joseph needed to produce the Book of Mormon was a stone he found in a well, God's commandment here was superfluous. (Of course, under SITH the Urim and Thummim was superfluous in the first place, which is another problem.) Is it reasonable for God to threaten Joseph with destruction if he showed the U&T when Joseph didn't need the U&T in the first place? 

I get the argument that this was some sort of test of obedience; i.e., God gave Joseph the U&T and commanded him not to show anyone, but then, like Abraham's ram in the thicket, gave him a way out with the seer stone. If that's what people want to believe, fine. Be my guest.

But the SITH position is based on the mere assumption that the witnesses actually observed the actual translation, and it's that assumption that I challenge.

_____

Mike: 2. The witnesses—Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Emma Smith, David Whitmer, and others—are equally credible, and their statements must be examined and understood in the context of when, how, and why they were made. Dismissing an eyewitness’s testimony because the content of that testimony does not fit one’s hypothesis is a fatal error that reflects a biased, prejudiced methodology.

My Response. I absolutely agree with Mike's second sentence. But the inverse is also true; i.e., "accepting an eyewitness’s testimony because the content of that testimony does not fit one’s hypothesis is a fatal error that reflects a biased, prejudiced methodology."

I infer from Mike's comment that he thinks I have dismissed an eyewitness's testimony for ideological reasons. Mike doesn't tell his readers that in the first edition of one of my books (Whatever Happened to the Golden Plates), I actually embraced SITH for the translation in Fayette. It wasn't until readers pointed out additional information and perspective that I changed my mind on that--again, following the evidence.

[Actually, I don't see any indication that Mike tells his readers about my intellectual curiosity and flexibility in the face of new evidence and better arguments. After all, for decades I accepted M2C until I learned better.]

I also agree with much of Mike's first sentence, but not his assertion that all the witnesses are "equally credible." The reason is simple. The credibility of the witnesses is one thing, but mainly we are dealing with the credibility of their statements. We have formally published, first-hand statements from the two main participants, Joseph and Oliver, that are consistent, unequivocal, and unambiguous. From Martin, Emma, and David, we have mostly unpublished or second-hand statements, usually quoted out of context. The exception, of course, is David's 1887 booklet, "An Address to all believers in Christ."

SITH proponents commonly quote one paragraph, out of context, from page 12.

https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/12/mode/2up

Then they ignore the rest of the booklet, which accuses Joseph Smith of all kinds of heresy as a fallen prophet. David's overall point is that Joseph had a gift of using a seer stone to produce the Book of Mormon but never received the Priesthood, never received revelations that were meant to be published or binding, etc. Obviously, Joseph and Oliver were the only two witnesses who could and did contradict David's narrative about the restoration of the Priesthood and temple keys. It's a simple, binary choice: who is more credible on that issue, David or Joseph and Oliver?

I think Joseph and Oliver.

But Joseph and Oliver also contradicted David's narrative about SITH. 

For me, it's irrational to accept David's assertion on one point simply because we agree with it, while rejecting his assertions on other points simply because we disagree with them.

IOW, we're back to Mike's second sentence.

In my analysis, I've shown the factual reasons for my conclusions about the relative credibility of the various witnesses. It involves careful analysis of their statements and "the context of when, how, and why they were made."

Reasonable people can disagree in making such an analysis, and I'm fine with that. 

I just don't think the SITH proponents have given people the full context or explained the implications of their deference to David Whitmer.

I've done the same analysis for Emma, Martin, and the other witnesses, as anyone can read in my books.

_____

Mike: 3. No one who accepts the overwhelming number of eyewitness testimonies that Joseph did use a seer stone to translate has ever claimed that Joseph “merely read words that appeared” to him; rather, Joseph’s early revelations clearly indicate that the translation process also required study, prayer, and spiritual confirmation, as described by the revelation to the Prophet Joseph in D&C 9.

My Response: I suppose "overwhelming" is in the eye of the beholder, but a handful of statements from a few witnesses, mostly related decades after the fact and in the context of refuting the Spalding theory, is the opposite of "overwhelming" to me. 

I also suppose the accumulation of David Whitmer's statements could be considered "overwhelming" if they were consistent, but they are not. Besides, David was not even a scribe, and he specifically acknowledged he was not present for most of the translation in the Whitmer home (and none of the translation in Harmony). 

The second part of Mike's sentence conflates the statements of his eyewitnesses with the scriptural passage that itself contradicts the SITH narrative. Nothing in D&C 9 suggests or implies that Joseph would read words off a stone in a hat. D&C 10 instructs Joseph to translate the engravings on the plates. 

I realize there are many nuances of the SITH narrative that propose varying levels of effort required. Some say the exact words appeared on the stone, down to the spelling. Others say the words were sort of more loose somehow. The common thread, however, is that Joseph read words that appeared on the stone, which is all I wrote in my summary. 

That said, I can see how Mike could reasonably interpret the term "merely" to remove the element of spiritual preparation, so I'll omit that qualifier in the future.

_____

Mike: 4. Also, no one is claiming that the seer stone was not a sacred consecrated object at the time the Book of Mormon was translated, nor is anyone asserting that the translation could have been accomplished without the gift of seership from God. On the contrary, both the interpreters and other seer stones worked through the gift and power of God.

My Response: By "no one," I infer Mike means no SITH advocates. There is no historical record that the seer stone was ever consecrated before Joseph used it (or after, for that matter, at least not during Joseph's lifetime). 

In my view, had the seer stone (assuming we know which one he allegedly used) been "consecrated" before Moroni gave Joseph the Urim and Thummim, then Moroni's instructions are even more problematic because Joseph wouldn't have needed the U&T even for the 116 pages (contrary to what Emma said). 

Also, lots of people (mainly but not exclusively nonbelievers) assert that the Book of Mormon could have been produced without the gift of seership. Using the term "translation" to describe SITH is problematic, but that's a separate issue not raised here. 

Once people embark on the idea that Joseph produced the text of the Book of Mormon by reading words off a stone (albeit with spiritual preparation), they have detached the text from ancient origins, rendered superfluous the narrative of abridging and preserving plates, and as we just discussed, turned the U&T into a meaningless instrument whose only purpose was to test whether Joseph would be destroyed because he disobediently showed it to someone. 

A text transmitted from words off a stone could have any imaginable origin, good or bad. True, a seer stone could work through the gift and power of God, but right in our own scriptures we have an example of a seer stone working through other forces. 

Most importantly, Joseph never said his seer stone worked by the gift and power of God; instead, he linked the gift and power of God only to the plates and the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.

At its core, the SITH narrative contradicts what Joseph and Oliver said as well as the plausibility of the text itself. 

_____

Mike: 5. No firsthand eyewitnesses or secondhand accounts (or any later Church leaders, for that matter) have ever suggested that Joseph Smith “demonstrated” the translation process to curious individuals by using a seer stone in a hat. Jonathan Neville’s claim that Joseph did this is an ad hoc hypothesis, completely lacking in any evidence whatsoever and invented solely to resolve the problem of the multitude of eyewitness statements that Joseph used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon in Harmony and in Fayette.

My Response: As Mike knows, but doesn't tell his readers, I cited Gurley, who interviewed the witnesses and said Joseph used the seer stone to satisfy the curiosity of his followers. I also cited all the available evidence, including the so-called "multitude of eyewitness statements." 

I don't see this "multitude" of statements as a problem. What I see as a problem is the SITH proponents ignoring and/or disputing what Joseph and Oliver specifically said about the translation.