In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we start with clarity, while also recognizing that everyone has good intentions and that we seek understanding while not trying to convince anyone of anything.
The SITH sayers at Informed Saints recently released a video that will make your jaw drop. You have to see it (or read the transcript below) to believe it.
What starts out as an informative, productive presentation turns into a fiasco because they invert the whole point of their discussion of the provenance (chain of custody) of evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lieysA6b1ws
The first part of the podcast explains how important it is to have a "chain of custody" to authenticate a document or piece of evidence.
In legal terms, the chain of custody is a record of the provenance or source of evidence. When I practiced law, for example, the investigator at a crime scene who found evidence, such as a knife or glove, would put the item in a plastic bag, seal it, and note when and where it was found and by whom. Every subsequent person who handled the evidence added notations so that by the time of trial, it was clear where the evidence originated and what had happened to it all along. A break in the chain of custody contaminates the evidence by introducing possible alteration or even fabrication of the evidence.
The Informed Saints panel pointed out that we do not have the original manuscripts for the Bible, just as we don't have the original plates of the Book of Mormon. Instead, we rely on faith that the original writings in both cases were accurately transmitted.
So far, so good.
In the case of the Bible, we can at least compare the current Biblical translations to the earliest (oldest) manuscripts that exist. We can see where things may have been added, modified, or subtracted.
Book of Mormon authors frequently discussed the provenance of the plates. Nephi explained the chain of custody of the brass plates as well as his own records. Subsequent authors explained that the original records were passed down and preserved. Mormon explained that he abridged the original records and he even quoted from them. Then he gave the abridged plates to Moroni, who retained custody until giving them to Joseph Smith.
This is a solid chain of custody because Moroni, the last person who wrote on the abridged plates, was the same individual who transferred the abridged plates to Joseph Smith, thereby preserving the chain of custody. When Joseph finished with the plates, he returned them to the divine messenger (JS-H 1:60), maintaining the chain of custody.
This is all clear and rational.
[Some of the scriptures describing this chain of custody are quoted below in the section titled "Scriptural Chain of Custody."]
But here is where the SITH sayers' narrative fall apart. They reject what Joseph, Oliver and the Lord said about the translation in favor of what David Whitmer claimed decades later when he was telling the world that Joseph was a fallen prophet.
The chain of custody established for both sets of plates
While Joseph possessed the plates, he and the Lord both described the chain of custody between the plates and the translation.
Immediately after my arrival there [Harmony, PA] I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following. (Joseph Smith—History 1:62)
Here we see a direct link between the plates and the translation. This is the same detailed methodology that a modern police investigator would employ to preserve the chain of custody.
Joseph's mother explained that, as he neared the completion of the translation of the abridged plates in Harmony, Joseph applied the Urim and Thummim to his eyes to look on the record.
In the mean time Joseph was 150 miles distant and knew naught of the matter except an intimation that was given through the urim and thumim for as he one morning applied them to his eyes to look upon the record instead of the words of the book being given him he was commanded to write a letter to one David Whitmore [Whitmer]
Those two sources preserved the chain of custody between the English translation and the abridged plates. The Lord made sure to preserve the chain of custody for the plates of Nephi as well when he told Joseph, "you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi." (Doctrine and Covenants 10:41)
SITH breaks the chain of custody
Naturally, critics of the Restoration sought to break this chain of custody by claiming that Joseph did not really translate the engravings on the plates. Instead of using the plates, they claimed Joseph read words that appeared on a stone in the hat (SITH). They said he didn't even refer to the plates, which were out in the forest or otherwise concealed the whole time.
The translation finally commenced. They were found to contain a language not now known upon the earth which they termed "reformed Egyptian characters." The plates, therefore, which had been so much talked of, were found to be of no manner of use. After all, the Lord showed and communicated to him every word and letter of the Book. Instead of looking at the characters inscribed upon the plates, the prophet was obliged to resort to the old "peep stone," which he formerly used in money-digging. This he placed in a hat, or box, into which he also thrust his face. Through the stone he could then discover a single word at a time, which he repeated aloud to his amanuensis, who committed it to paper, when another word would immediately appear, and thus the performance continued to the end of the book.
That passage looks like a transcript from an Informed Saints podcast, or one of the SITH sayer articles in the Interpreter, but it is actually from the 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed that Joseph Smith denounced. See
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/the-sith-problem-1829-2024.html
Now, you might think that a distinguished panel including a lawyer and several LDS scholars would point out this problem and how SITH broke the chain of custody.
But not this panel of Informed Saints.
Instead, this panel inverted the meaning of chain of custody to insist Joseph "preserved" the chain of custody by not even using the plates!
Imagine the outcry if Biblical scholars suddenly determined that parts of the Bible, such as the Book of Isaiah, was not actually a copy of Isaiah's original writings but instead the product of a subsequent scribe who produced the text by reading words in a crystal ball.
That's what our Informed Saints are trying to persuade us to believe.
To reiterate: they claim Joseph preserved the chain of custody by breaking it!
The entire narrative of Nephite recordkeepers writing and preserving the plates and then entrusting them to Joseph Smith was pointless if Joseph ignored the plates after all.
Imagine if Mormon had claimed that he did not refer to or quote from the plates in the Nephite archive but instead composed his record by reading words off a stone he put in a hat.
You could not break the chain of custody any more blatantly than by not even referring to the plates. The claims made in this podcast are so unbelievable that I put the transcript below so you can see for yourselves.
They, like all the SITH sayers, compound the problem by elevating David Whitmer's claims and the "Last Testimony of Sister Emma" above our own scriptures.
That is we look for credibility of witnesses. Were they honest? You know, the people who said they saw an angel. Were they honest? Were they competent? And I when I say competent, I mean were they in a position to know what they're claiming they saw and were they sane? Were they delusional? You know, what I'm talking about is things that we instruct juries or judges to instruct juries every day when they're asked to assess a claim that a that a witness gives on anything.
Um Are they What was the witness honest? Was the witness competent? Did the witness have bias? Are they trying to say something to you know, to get gain to for popularity for some motive that is other than to tell the truth? And is their testimony reasonable in light of all the other evidence? So, those are the four and I call it the legal truth test in in our book Authentic. The four criteria that we as humans are really good at.
In general, we as humans are good at assessing credibility on any subject.
This is a good explanation for how we assess the credibility of witnesses, but as applied here, it is a classic logical fallacy. To support their SITH claims, the panel members conflate the credibility of the 3 and 8 witnesses regarding the physical reality of the plates, which is solid, with the lack of credibility of David and Emma regarding SITH. David's SITH claims accompany his denunciation of Joseph as a false prophet. Regarding Emma, see https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/emma-smiths-credibility.html
Partial transcript of podcast
Here's the transcript. Original in blue, my comments in red.
The last writer who wrote in the Book of Mormon bridged time to come to deliver that record before witnesses in modern times. And those witnesses, you know, the three in particular, David, Oliver, and Martin, you know, were able to say, "I saw that last writer. I saw the gold plates. And I also heard the voice of God tell me that the translation is correct." So, I mean, there is a continuity there that uh in my mind is not accidental.
This is a good point. Their testimonies refer to the translation and the plates, which corroborate the chain of custody established by Joseph, Oliver and the Lord Himself when they explained that Joseph translated the engravings on the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.
And we could ask, "Why did God do this? Why is it so important?" He clearly did it. That is interesting that Joseph Smith didn't just find gold plates. The last author and owner of the plates essentially handed it off to Joseph. And so the provenance is intact in a way that is unique.
Excellent point.
...
But the Book of Mormon is different than the Bible. We do have eyewitnesses to the gold plates. We don't have any eyewitnesses to the original text of the of the Bible. We have people who saw the translation process. And if you don't mind, I think the translation process itself is one of the greatest pieces of provenance evidence to show that this book is true and authentic and is what it claims to be.
The last author (Moroni) emphasized that he included the interpreters with the plates, that they were prepared for the translation, that Joseph had the privilege to translate the plates "by the means of the Urim and Thummim" and that Joseph should not touch the sealed plates to translate them. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/69
None of this states, suggests, or implies that Joseph would not even use the plates or the Urim and Thummim, because that would break the chain of custody.
[10:00] In fact, when Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon in 1829, many of the people that saw that process were convinced of its authenticity because they could not explain how this was happening other than >> It was a miracle. >> A miracle. >> Garrett Dirkmaat made that same point on our podcast. Way back in the day, one of our first episodes was with Garrett Dirkmaat talking about the translation of the Book of Mormon. And you know, we have this image of Joseph Smith, he puts the the stone in his hat or he's looking at the through the spectacles, the Urim and Thummim, right?
Here is where the SITH sayers break the chain of custody.
Which they call them interchangeably.
They never once called the "peep stone" the Urim and Thummim. Even Mormonism Unvailed made the distinction clear, as anyone can see if they read the Mormonism Unvailed (which Dirkmaat omitted from his books). Mormonism Unvailed articulated two separate narratives: SITH vs U&T. In response, Joseph and Oliver formally, in print, declared that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates to translate the engravings on the plates.
That is a critical element of the chain of custody not only because that's what Moroni told Joseph and because that was the entire point of the narrative of creating and preserving the plates, but also because if, instead, Joseph ignored the plates and the Urim and Thummim, there was zero chain of custody between the Nephite records and the text Joseph produced.
It is only certain modern scholars who conflated these terms for apologetic purposes.
So, he's looking at the translation instrument. >> Yes. >> He's reading off words. And like that's such a funny image to us, right? Like people make fun of it, South Park makes fun of it or whatever.
South Park simply picked up the ridicule from Mormonism Unvailed. Any objective observer can spot the absurdity of rejecting what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation while still saying they were telling the truth.
But the people who actually were there, it was a miracle to them. How is this guy able to do this? He's able to produce words on a stone that he's reading to us, right?
Here they don't identify sources but they use the terminology from Emma's "Last Testimony," which was an apologetic composed by Joseph Smith III to refute the Spalding theory, and which others who knew Emma denounced as a lie.
...
But like whatever's going on there, they're locked in on the Book of Mormon. The translation process itself is powerful evidence....
There's one uh section in the Book of Alma. So, he's dictating and then Oliver, who's the scribe, he needs a break. Now, Royal Skousen, who's analyzed the forensic, they analyzed the manuscript just in detail, he theorizes that you know, he's guessing that Oliver was dead tired because a few lines before this asked for a break, Oliver starts writing gibberish.
Anyone can look at the Original Manuscript and see this is not true. There is no gibberish. Surely the Informed Saints know this, so why would they make this claim?
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/original-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-12-april-1828-circa-1-july-1829/145
We know why Skousen would make this claim, because as a SITH sayer he thinks the words came from the stone-in-the-hat in chunks of around 28 words (as if that many words could legibly fit on the stone).
Maybe Oliver did need a break. Maybe in the entire time he wrote both copies of the Book of Mormon this was the one place where he could not continue.
But alternatively, this looks like a passage that Oliver translated, which makes sense because it is a grammatical chunk that could be translated as a unit. The part in bold below is in Joseph's handwriting.
Helaman & his Brethren went forth to es[tablish the] church again in all the land yea in every citty throughout all [the land whic]h were <was> possessed by the people of Nephi and it came to pass t[h]at <they> did appoint priests and teachers throughout all the land over all the churches
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/original-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-12-april-1828-circa-1-july-1829/145
The other thing to point out here is that this is the earliest known example of Joseph's handwriting and it is perfectly legible. It is beautiful cursive, which takes practice, written along a straight line. This is not the handwriting of an ignorant, illiterate farm boy as Emma tried to portray him in her "Last Testimony."
[20:00] You know, it's like he's just he's just so tired he needs a break. And so, Joseph says, "Okay, let's take a break." But, Joseph had already received the next 28 words in the translation. And so, Oliver leaves, Joseph picks up the pen and he writes down those 28 words. He needed to get them down because apparently when they were gone, they were gone.
Think about this a moment. The Informed Saints want us to believe that, because Joseph was not referring to the plates or translating the engravings, the stone showed words only long enough for them to be dictated and written down (or, in this case, memorized and written down), or otherwise they would be lost forever.
What kind of "chain of custody" is that? What more useless "chain of custody" could there be then ephemeral disappearing words on a stone?
>> Yeah. >> So, he wrote them down and that's the only place in the in the manuscripts where we have Joseph Smith's own handwriting, 28 words in the entire Book of Mormon.
To be sure, we only have 28% of the Original Manuscript, so it is possible that Joseph wrote portions of the text elsewhere. But the timing of this passage in Alma is about right here in terms of D&C 8 and 9.
But, if if I'm remembering right, the handwriting of Joseph Smith what what's really kind of interesting about it is like kind of mid-thought. Like it doesn't complete a thought or a sentence before Oliver Cowdery's pen picks up again. >>
We can all see that the passage Joseph wrote is a complete thought, as shown above. The entire text is a run-on sentence without punctuation, but here, the passage is independent.
While most of the passage is fairly generic Book of Mormon language, there is a unique phrase that could reflect Oliver's version of what Joseph translated differently.
Joseph wrote here "possessed by the people of Nephi." In five other passages, the text reads "possessed by the Nephites" and once it reads "possessed by the Lamanites." The phrase "people of Nephi" is common throughout the text, but the connection with "possessed by" stands out.
He stops mid-sentence because it's only 28 words and it doesn't complete a sentence. It doesn't complete a thought, as you said.
We can all read it for ourselves. The preceding passage concludes with "all the land." The sentence could end there. That would be a natural spot for Oliver to say, "Let me try." So Oliver translates the ensuing engravings that amplify what was meant by "all the land." Then Oliver translates that they appointed priests and teachers and says, "Okay, that's enough," because it was more difficult than he realized (as we see in D&C 9).
After the interruption of however long, then Oliver Cowdery comes back and the next word in the middle of sentence is the word that follows what Joseph had you know, >> Interesting.
Actually, the passage Joseph wrote ended with "they did appoint priests and teachers." That's a perfectly fine conclusion of the sentence and a good place for Oliver to conclude his translation. Then Joseph reprises the translation of the engravings and adds "throughout all the land..."
So, this is evidence that Emma was right. She testified that hey, whenever there was an interruption, Joseph didn't need anything read back. It was just given to him. Out of the hat? >> Yeah.
Evidence that Joseph did not need to read anything back is consistent with him translating the engravings. He would know where he stopped so he could know where to resume the translation.
More importantly, the SITH claim that "it was just given to him" is a direct contradiction of D&C 9:7 "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me."
The Informed Saints forgot to explain the juxtaposition of their claim with D&C 9:7.
.....
[40:00]Nephi who started this whole, he started the launch of this record and he gave the instruction, I want this record handed down generation after generation and kept intact so that it when it, we have a beginning and an end. And that witness testimony that is in between almost gets compounded. The value of it, the treasure of it. People know the story of how they got these words in their hands. It's convincing. So Nephi says it's convincing.
And then I think Moroni's testimony is that there is power in these words and in the way they were preserved. Mormon and I'm going to say Mormon. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we value a prophet. And sometimes we think all a prophet does is give new revelation. But the Book of Mormon teaches us that a large part of a prophet's job is to just preserve what's already been given.
That's what the prophets did for a thousand years. Preserved the truth so that it's bright. A word Alma uses for his son when he hands off the custodial duty. It's bright, it's powerful, it's true. And so I would say the Book of Mormon is the most correct book of any book on Earth. Joseph Smith I was going to say that sounds familiar. >> Yeah. >> Because it was preserved by custodians who took that responsibility as sacred.
They did not want to have it diluted in any way. They recorded it, they recorded how they recorded it, how they preserved it, so that we could know that it was convincingly true.
This is all important, but it directly contradicts SITH. It is self-evident that the Book of Mormon authors did not want their record to be "diluted in any way." That is why they carefully recorded and preserved their records with a solid chain of custody.
To preserve that chain of custody, Joseph explained that he copied the characters and translated them with the Urim and Thummim. The Lord told him to translate the engravings on the plates. Moroni told him not to touch the sealed plates to translate them.
The 3 and 8 witnesses corroborated this narrative. The 3 witnesses said "we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon." (Testimony of Three Witnesses, 1) That corroborates the Lord's instructions that Joseph translate the engravings.
But the Informed Saints claim Joseph didn't really translate the engravings on the plates, which renders this testimony pointless, if not deceptive.
The 8 witnesses claimed that "as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon." (Testimony of Eight Witnesses, 1)
But the Informed Saints claim Joseph didn't even use the plates, which renders this testimony void, if not deceptive.
This podcast is a powerful denunciation of SITH, but the Informed Saints seem completely oblivious of that reality.
_____
Scriptural Chain of custody
To demonstrate the chain of custody, Mormon recorded that when he was about 10 years old, Ammaron told him "
when ye are about twenty and four years old I would that ye should remember the things that ye have observed concerning this people; and when ye are of that age go to the land Antum, unto a hill which shall be called Shim; and there have I deposited unto the Lord all the sacred engravings concerning this people. And behold, ye shall take the plates of Nephi unto yourself, and the remainder shall ye leave in the place where they are; and ye shall engrave on the plates of Nephi all the things that ye have observed concerning this people. (Mormon 1:3–4)
Later, Mormon explained how he took possession of the records, just as an investigator would sign the evidence bag.
I, Mormon, seeing that the Lamanites were about to overthrow the land, therefore I did go to the hill Shim, and did take up all the records which Ammaron had hid up unto the Lord.(Mormon 4:23)
The next step in the chain of custody was putting all the records in the hill Cumorah.
having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.(Mormon 6:6)
Most if not all of the SITH sayers are also M2C Cumorah deniers. A basic element of any chain of custody is knowing where the evidence has been all along. Accordingly, there was never any question about where the plates were.
Moroni preserved the chain of custody the first time he met Joseph Smith. When he appeared to Joseph, Moroni explained that "the record is on a side hill on the Hill of Cumorah 3 miles from this place remove the Grass and moss and you will find a large flat stone pry that up and you will find the record under it laying on 4 pillars of cement"
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/41
In a more detailed account, Oliver, working with Joseph, reported that, “He [Moroni] 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
During the 1830 mission to the Lamanites, Parley P. Pratt reiterated this chain of custody: "This Book, which contained these things, was hid in the earth by Moroni, in a hill called by him, Cumorah, which hill is now in the State of New York, near the village of Palmyra, in Ontario County." Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/44896/44896-h/44896-h.htm
Thus we have a solid chain of custody. We know who handled the records and where they were at all times.
But that chain is broken by those who advocate SITH, which teaches that Joseph did not really translate the engravings on the plates and that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the translation, and by those who advocate M2C, which teaches that we don't know where Cumorah is and that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about that as well.
