Seth Payne

It is with keen interest that I have watched a recent discussion at the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (MADB) regarding the translation process Joseph Smith used to dictate the Book of Mormon and so-called “Truth in Advertising” ethics.

In short, Jeff Ricks, the founder of postmormon.org, and Wade Englund, a long-time defender of the Mormon Church, are discussing the ethics of the Church using specific artwork depicting the Book of Mormon translation process in proselyting efforts generally, and in the Church’s recent Truth Restored campaign, specifically.

The artwork (and film representation) in question depicts Joseph Smith studying the gold plates from which he claimed to have translated the text of the Book of Mormon. Artistic depictions of this kind should be familiar to members of the Mormon Church; as such depictions have long been used to represent the translation process.

The “offending” depiction below is about 1:30 in.

From a historical viewpoint, however, these depictions are problematic as there is no evidence that Joseph Smith employed the gold plates in this way. Rather, several independent eyewitness accounts of the translation process all concur that Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon by 1) inserting a seer-stone at the bottom of a hat and 2) placing his face inside the hat to observe, and the dictate, the English words that appeared on the seer-stone. Perhaps the most succinct account is provided by Emma Smith, Joseph’s wife, who served as Joseph’s scribe at the beginning of the translation process.

In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

(Last testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90.)

From David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon’s Three Witnesses:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.

(David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri: 1887, p. 12)

Both Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris give similar accounts.

So, the question is, what is the modern LDS Church’s ethical obligation in portraying, through art and film, the translation of the Book of Mormon? Is the Church obliged to present a historically accurate depiction or one, which to modern audiences at least, is less foreign and strange?

This question highlights one of the difficulties modern Mormonism faces as a relatively young religion. Unlike traditional Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, whose foundational stories and texts are hundreds of years old, the foundational stories of Mormonism are much more open to scrutiny as they are part of the relatively recent past.

It should be made clear that the Mormon Church has made no effort to “hide” Joseph’s head-in-the-hat translation method. The above eyewitness accounts can be found in LDS Church periodicals dating from the early 20th century up to the present day. Therefore, we must assume that by depicting Joseph Smith’s translation process as one that is more “traditional”, the Church is attempting to convey a message more amenable and perhaps easier to understand. After all, the Church’s claim is that the Book of Mormon came forth by the “gift and power of God”, not that Joseph Smith simply happened upon ancient plates and began translating them with a “Reformed Egyptian” lexicon in hand.

Also, there are periods of the translation for which we have no eyewitness accounts of the process. Thus, it is entirely possible that Joseph did study and look at the plates during these times as is depicted in art and film. After all, Joseph reports having the plates in his possession for long periods of time when no translation actually took place. It would not be unreasonable, therefore, to assume that he took occasion to browse through the plates. He must have looked at the plates at some point, for example, in order to produce the Anthon transcript.

So, back to the question: what is the modern LDS Church’s ethical obligation in portraying, through art and film, the translation of the Book of Mormon? Is the Church obliged to present a historically accurate depiction or one, which to modern audiences at least, is less foreign and strange? In my view, if the Church chooses to artistically portray the Book of Mormon translation process, it would be best to do so in a way that is faithful to the historical accounts we have available. I put this assertion forth for two primary reasons; 1) Remaining absolutely faithful to the historic accounts would allow the Church to “avoid the very appearance of evil” and in no way could be considered misleading, and 2) the Church is actually doing itself a disservice with its “media-friendly” portrayal of the translation process. As I studied hundreds of ex-Mormon exit narratives, a common theme throughout these narratives was that the Church has “lied” or “covered-up” its history and Joseph’s head-in-the-hat translation is often cited as an example. In reality, of course, the Church has done no such thing. However, perception is reality, so to speak, and for those who have sat in Mormon Sunday School classes for years hearing no mention of Joseph’s head-in-the-hat and seeing “traditional” translation being depicted, learning about the head-in-the-hat can be a bit jolting and may potentially produce feelings of hurt, anger, and betrayal.

My advice: Just leave it out. State that the Book of Mormon was translated by the “gift and power of God” and be done with it. If people want more details, we can point them to the plethora of Church resources, such as the Improvement Era, the Ensign, and BYU Studies, which outline more detailed specifics.