Book of Mormon/Translation

FAIR Answers Wiki Table of Contents

Translation of the Book of Mormon

Summary: What do we know about the translation of the Book of Mormon?

• How were seer stones and the Urim and Thummim used?
  • What are the Nephite interpreters?
  • Which stones did Joseph use to translate the Book of Mormon?
  • Did Joseph ever place the Nephite interpreters into his hat?
  • Are there any Biblical parallels to Joseph's use of the seer stone?
  • "The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation"
• What do we know about the gold plates?
  • What descriptions do we have of the gold plates?
  • What do we know about the weight of the gold plates?
  • Why were the gold plates needed?
• Was the translation dictated to Joseph Smith?
• What is the relationship between the Bible and the Book of Mormon?
  • How can text from the New Testament appear in the Book of Mormon?]]
  • What Biblical passages were modified?
  • How does the Joseph Smith Translation relate to the Book of Mormon?
• Artistic depictions of the translation

Question: What are the Nephite interpreters?

The Nephite interpreters are two seer stones set in a framework resembling a set of "spectacles"

The Lord provided a set of seer stones (which were formerly used by Nephite prophets) along with the plates. The term Nephite interpreters can alternatively refer to the stones themselves or the stones in conjunction with their associated paraphernalia (holding rim and breastplate). Some time after the translation, early saints noticed similarities with the seer stones and related paraphernalia used by High Priests in the Old Testament and began to use the term Urim and Thummim interchangeably with the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's other seer stones as well. The now popular use of the term Urim and Thummim has unfortunately obscured the fact that all such devices belong in the same class of consecrated revelatory aids and that more than one were used in the translation.

The manner in which the interpreters were used was never explained in detail

The Nephite interpreters were intended to assist Joseph in the initial translation process, yet the manner in which they were employed was never explained in detail. The fact that the Nephite interpreters were set in rims resembling a pair of spectacles has led some to believe that they may have been worn like a pair of glasses, with Joseph viewing the characters on the plates through them. This, however, is merely speculation that doesn't take into account that Joseph soon disassembled the fixture, the spacing between seer stones being too wide for his eyes. The accompanying breastplate also appeared to have been used by a larger man. Like its biblical counterpart (the High Priest's breastplate contained 12 gems that symbolized him acting as a mediator between God and Israel), the Nephite breastplate was apparently non-essential to the revelatory process.

Back to top

Question: Did Joseph Smith use the Nephite interpreters to translate? Or did he use his own seer stone?

Joseph Smith used both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone, and both were called "Urim and Thummim"

Joseph Smith used both the Nephite Interpreters and his own seer stone during the translation process, yet we only hear of the "Urim and Thummim" being used for this purpose.

1. He described the instrument as ‘spectacles’ and referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim.
2. He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed, called ‘seer stones’ because they aided him in receiving revelations as a seer. The Prophet received some early revelations through the use of these seer stones.
3. Records indicate that soon after the founding of the Church in 1830, the Prophet stopped using the seer stones as a regular means of receiving revelations. Instead, he dictated the revelations after inquiring of the Lord without employing an external instrument.

Emma Smith confirmed that Joseph switched between the Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone during the translation

Emma Smith Bidamon described Joseph's use of several stones during translation to Emma Pilgrim on 27 March 1870 (original spelling retained):

Now the first that my <husband> translated, [the book] was translated by use of the Urim, and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color.”

Joseph Smith's small, egg-shaped seer stone. Emma said that "he used a small stone, not exactly, black, but was rather a dark color." Photograph by Welden C. Andersen and Richard E. Turley Jr. Copyright © The Church Historian's Press.

Back to top

Question: Did Joseph ever place the Nephite interpreters ("Urim and Thummim") into his hat?

There is evidence that indicates that Joseph did place the "Urim and Thummim" into his hat

The Church states that, "These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters." and "According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."

Contemporary accounts indicate that Joseph began the translation using the Nephite interpreters, and finished it using his own seer stone after the loss of the 116 pages of manuscript. Note this account from Martin Harris:

The two stones set in a bow of silver were about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eighths of an inch thick at the centre; but not so thick at the edges where they came into the bow. They were joined by a round bar of silver, about three-eighths of an inch in diameter, and about four inches long, which, with the two stones, would make eight inches. The stones were white, like polished marble, with a few gray streaks. I never dared to look into them by placing them in the hat, because Moses said that “no man could see God and live,” and we could see anything we wished by looking into them; and I could not keep the desire to see God out of my mind. And beside, we had a command to let no man look into them, except by the command of God, lest he should “look aught and perish.”

Martin Harris said that Joseph placed the interpreters in a hat

Harris states that Joseph used the "two stones set in a bow of silver" by "placing them in the hat." He is referring to the Nephite interpreters, what we today refer to as the "Urim and Thummim". Joseph may have therefore placed the Nephite interpreters into his hat - a method of receiving revelation that he was already quite familiar with.

Based upon these accounts, it appears that Joseph began the translation process using the Nephite interpreters, and that at some point he may have used them with a hat. After the loss of the 116 pages, he may have either switched to his own seer stone or continued to use the Nephite “spectacles,” again with the hat. In fact, given the consistent reports of the use of the hat during translation, it is not possible to know with certainty whether Joseph was using the Nephite interpreters or the seer stone in the hat during this period of time. One thing seems certain based upon witness accounts—during the period of the translation process after the loss of the 116 pages, Joseph sat in the open, without a curtain, dictating to his scribe while looking into his hat.

Back to top

Question: Are there any Biblical parallels to Joseph Smith's understanding of the use of seer stones?

The idea of sacred stones acting as revelators to believers is present in the Bible

The idea of sacred stones acting as revelators to believers is present in the Bible, and Joseph Smith embraced a decidedly "non-magical" and "pro-religious" view of them:

In Revelation, John incorporates past religious symbols into his message. Thus the most internally consistent interpretation of the "white stone" combines with the book's assurance that the faithful will become "kings and priests" to the Most High (Rev. 1:6). These eternal priests will be in tune with God's will, like the High Priest with the breastplate of shining stones and the Urim. In Hebrew that term means "light," corresponding to the "white" stone of John's Revelation. This correlation should be obvious, but Joseph Smith is virtually alone in confidence that John sees the redeemed as full High Priests: "Then the white stone mentioned in Rev. 2:17 is the Urim and Thummim, whereby all things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms, even all kingdoms, will be made know." As for genuine religion, Joseph Smith perceived the stone of John's vision not as a stone of chance but as a conduit of enlightenment and a reward of worthiness of character.

Back to top

"The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation"

Roger Nicholson, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (June 7, 2013)

This essay seeks to examine the Book of Mormon translation method from the perspective of a regular, nonscholarly, believing member in the twenty-first century, by taking into account both what is learned in Church and what can be learned from historical records that are now easily available. What do we know? What should we know? How can a believing Latter-day Saint reconcile apparently conflicting accounts of the translation process? An examination of the historical sources is used to provide us with a fuller and more complete understanding of the complexity that exists in the early events of the Restoration. These accounts come from both believing and nonbelieving sources, and some skepticism ought to be employed in choosing to accept some of the interpretations offered by some of these sources as fact. However, an examination of these sources provides a larger picture, and the answers to these questions provide an enlightening look into Church history and the evolution of the translation story. This essay focuses primarily on the methods and instruments used in the translation process and how a faithful Latter-day Saint might view these as further evidence of truthfulness of the restored Gospel.

Eyewitness descriptions of the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: What material were the plates made from?
• Question: How much did the gold plates weigh?
• Question: What was the size of each of the gold plates?
• Question: What was the thickness of each gold plate?
• Question: What was the thickness of entire volume of gold plates?
• Question: What were the characteristics of the sealed vs. unsealed portion of the gold plates?
• Question: What were the characteristics of the rings which held the gold plates together?
• Question: What was the appearance of the engravings on the gold plates?
• Question: What is the description of the stone box in which the plates were hidden?
• Question: What happened to the stone box in which gold plates were deposited?

Back to top

The weight of the Book of Mormon "gold plates"

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: How much did the gold plates weigh?
• Question: What did Joseph Smith say about efforts that were made to steal the gold plates from him?
• Lucy Mack Smith: "They stood in the yard near the door, and were devising plans to find "Joe Smith's gold bible," as they expressed themselves"
• Question: Is it inconceivable that anybody could run carrying a 50 lb. set of metal plates, jumping over logs and such and be able to outrun three men?

Back to top

Question: Why were the gold plates needed at all if they weren't used directly during the translation process?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #366: Why Were the Plates Present During the Translation of the Book of Mormon? (Video)

Joseph did not need the plates physically present to translate, since the translation was done by revelation

Much is made of the fact that Joseph used a seer stone, which he placed in a hat, to dictate the text of the Book of Mormon without viewing the plates directly.

Joseph Smith translates using the seer stone placed within his hat while the plates are wrapped in a cloth on the table while his wife Emma acts as scribe. Image Copyright (c) 2014 Anthony Sweat. This image appears in the Church publication From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith's Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, by Michael Hubbard Mackay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, Religious Studies Center, BYU, Deseret Book Company (May 11, 2015)

Some witness accounts suggest that Joseph was able to translate while the plates were covered, or when they were not even in the same room with him. Therefore, if the plates themselves were not being used during the translation process, why was it necessary to have plates at all?

Joseph did not need the plates physically present to translate, since the translation was done by revelation. The existence of the plates was vital, however, to demonstrate that the story he was translating was literally true.

The existence of the physical plates attested to the reality of the Nephite record

If there had been no plates, and Joseph had simply received the entire Book of Mormon through revelation, there would have been no Anthon visit, nor would there have been any witnesses. The very fact that plates existed served a greater purpose, even if they were not directly viewed during all of the translation process.

The plates served a variety of purposes.

1. They were viewed by witnesses as solid evidence that Joseph did indeed have an ancient record.
2. Joseph's efforts to obtain them over a four year period taught him and matured him in preparation for performing the translation,
3. Joseph's efforts to protect and preserve them helped build his character. If Joseph were perpetrating a fraud, it would have been much simpler to claim direct revelation from God and forgo the physical plates.
4. Joseph copied characters off the plates to give to Martin Harris, which he subsequently showed to Charles Anthon. This was enough to convince Martin to assist with the production of the Book of Mormon.

The plates' existence as material artifacts eliminated the possibility that Joseph was simply honestly mistaken. Either Joseph was knowingly perpetuating a fraud, or he was a genuine prophet.

The existence of actual plates eliminates the idea that the Book of Mormon was "spiritually true," but fictional

Furthermore, the existence of actual plates eliminates the idea that the Book of Mormon was "spiritually true," but fictional. There is a great difference between an allegorical or moral fiction about Nephites, and real, literal Nephites who saw a literal Christ who was literally resurrected.

Back to top

Was the translation dictated to Joseph Smith?

Research conducted by Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack on the original text of the Book of Mormon evidences a "tight translation," meaning Joseph simply read the words that appeared in the stones.

• Royal Skousen, "Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript," in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, 1997.
• Stanford Carmack, "Joseph Smith Read the Words," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 18 (2016): 41–64.

Back to top

Question: How can text from the New Testament appear in the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon claims to be a "translation," and the language used is that of Joseph Smith

It is claimed that the Book of Mormon cannot be an ancient work because it contains material that is also found in the New Testament. In fact, in the Book of Mormon, Jesus quotes a paraphrase of Moses' words found in Acts 3:22-26. However, all these parallels demonstrate is that:

1. the Book of Mormon translation language is closely based in KJV English; and
2. King James phrases were exceedingly common in the speech and writing of Joseph's day.

Neither of these is news, and neither can tell us much but that the Book of Mormon was translated in the nineteenth century.

The Book of Mormon claims to be a "translation." Therefore, the language used is that of Joseph Smith. Joseph could choose to render similar (or identical) material using King James Bible language if that adequately represented the text's intent.

Only if we presume that the Book of Mormon is a fraud at the outset is this proof of anything. If we assume that it is a translation, then the use of Bible language tells us merely that Joseph used biblical language.

If Joseph was a fraud, why would he plagiarize the one text—the King James Bible—which his readers would be sure to know, and sure to react negatively if they noticed it? The Book of Mormon contains much original material—Joseph didn't "need" to use the KJV; he is obviously capable of producing original material.

Furthermore, many of the critics examples consist of a phrase or a concept that Joseph has supposedly lifted from the New Testament. This complaint, however ignores several factors.

Chief among the difficulty is that the critics seem ignorant or unconcerned about the extent to which the language of the King James Bible dominated preaching, common speech, and discussion of religious and non-religious topics in Joseph Smith's day.

In a Bible-based culture like Joseph Smith's, Biblical phrases are simply "in the air," and are often used without an awareness of where they come from (this is especially true for those whose literary exposure did not extend much beyond the Bible—like Joseph). By analogy, many modern authors or speakers will use phrases like the following, completely unaware that they are quoting Shakespeare!

Common phrases originally from Shakespeare

List	Phrase	Shakespeare	Reference
*	"All's well that ends well"	All's Well That Ends Well	Title of play
*	"As good luck would have it"	The Merry Wives of Windsor	III, v, 1822
*	"Bated breath"	The Merchant of Venice	I, iii, 433
*	"Be-all and the end-all"	Macbeth	i, vii, 474
*	"Beggar all description"	Antony and Cleopatra	II, ii, 914
*	"Brave new world"	The Tempest	V, i, 2333
*	"Break the ice"	The Taming of the Shrew	I, ii, 818
*	"not budge an inch"	The Taming of the Shrew	Prologue, i, 12
*	"Dead as a doornail"	Henry IV, Part II	IV, x, 2924
*	"Devil incarnate"	Titus Andronicus	V, i, 2173
*	"Fool's paradise"	Romeo and Juliet	II, iv, 1316
*	"For goodness' sake"	Henry VIII	Chorus, I, i
*	"Full circle"	King Lear	V, iii, 3331
*	"Good riddance"	Troilus and Cressida	II, i, 977
*	"Household words"	Henry V	IV, iii, 2253
*	"Heart of gold"	Henry V	IV, i, 1890
*	"In...a pickle"	The Tempest	V, i, 2357
*	"Lie low"	Much Ado About Nothing	V, i, 2122
*	"Love is blind"	Henry V The Merchant of Venice	V, ii, 3286 II, vi, 944
*	"Melted into thin air"	The Tempest	VI, i, 1877
*	"Naked truth"	Love's Labours Lost	V, ii, 2648
*	"I have not slept one wink"	Cymbeline	III, iv, 1826
*	"One fell swoop"	Macbeth	IV, iii, 2099
*	"Play fast and loose with"	King John	III, i, 1149
*	"We have seen better days"	As You Like It Timon of Athens	II, vii, 1016 IV, ii, 1632
*	"The short and the long of it"	The Merry Wives of Windsor	II, ii, 853
*	"Too much of a good thing"	As You Like It	IV, i, 1900
*	"Wear my heart upon my sleeve"	Othello	I, i, 42
*	"What the dickens"	The Merry Wives of Windsor	III, ii, 1327
*	"The world's my [mine] oyster"	Henry IV, Part 2	II, i, 797

Would we accuse someone who used these phrases of "plagiarizing" Shakespeare? Hardly, for they are common expressions in our language—most people are probably unaware that they even come from Shakespeare, and most have probably not read the plays at all. In a similar way, some biblical phrases and vocabulary were likely part of Joseph Smith's subconscious verbal world. It would be strange if it were otherwise.

There are related issues to which the critics pay little attention

• often the relation between the texts is not that close; only a few words are used that are the same. It is sometimes hard to see how there would be a different way of discussing the same sort of issue. Even if one believes Joseph forged the Book of Mormon, it seems more plausible that these cases are just a coincidence, or a case where one is almost "forced" to use the same type of language (e.g., 1 Nephi 1:18, Alma 19:10, Mosiah 16:7).
• some phrases which approximate the New Testament are quite famous, classic renderings in the King James. Such phrases might be used almost instinctively or subconsciously when translating (e.g., 1 Nephi 12:11, 2 Nephi 4:17). Even academic translators sometimes struggle to avoid using the type of scriptural language with which they are very familiar—it can take a real effort to give a different rendering than one that is well known.
• the Book of Mormon never hides its intent to use King James style English. It is not surprising, then, that there are parallels in language and vocabulary. The translation may even intend to call to mind these biblical verses or phrases, since the Book of Mormon is intended to complement the Bible
• Joseph is clearly able to produce huge amounts of text that do not rely on the KJV at all. Why, if he wants to produce a believable forgery, does he adapt the occasional well-known phrase that could be noticed by even a relatively casual Bible reader? The critics require Joseph to be clever enough to produce independent text, and yet foolish enough to betray his dependence on the Bible.
• Often, although the wording may be similar, the concept being explored is expanded, or the context is substantially altered in the Book of Mormon. The critics seem to think that Joseph flips through the Bible to find something, but the Book of Mormon certainly extends and adapts this material dramatically. The "copying" model seems more complex than needed, as it has Joseph taking small snippets of text from the Bible and other sources and somehow weaving it into the Book of Mormon text. Yet, eyewitnesses do not describe anything like this process; it is not even clear that Joseph owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation.

Oddly enough, the high quantity of New Testament/Book of Mormon intertextuality should not lead one to believe that Joseph Smith simply plagiarized from the King James Bible. Using the Original and Printer's Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen has definitively shown that none of the King James language contained in the Book of Mormon could have been copied directly from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that when quoting, echoing, or alluding to the passages, Oliver (Joseph's amanuensis for the dictation of the Book of Mormon) consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't have misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJB.

A Proposed Scenario

When considering the the data, Skousen proposes that, instead of.Joseph or Oliver looking at a Bible (which is now confirmed by the manuscript evidence and the statements of the 6 witnesses to the translation to the Book of Mormon), that God was simply able to provide the page of text from the King James Bible to Joseph's mind and then Joseph was free to alter the text as he pleased. In those cases where the Book of Mormon might simply be alluding to or echoing the text, the Lord may have simply given the translation as would be more comprehensible/comfortable to his 19th century, Northeastern, frontier audience. This theology of translation may feel foreign and a bit strange to some Latter-day Saints, but it seems to fit well with the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith. The Lord speaks to his servants "after the manner of their language, that they may come to understanding" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). Latter-day Saints should take comfort in fact that the Lord accommodates his perfection to our own weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.

Book of Mormon Central's 9 Part Series on New Testament Language in the Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon Central has produced a 9 part series exploring this criticism in depth. This is the latest take on New Testament - Book of Mormon Intertextuality and will prove the most beneficial.

• Why Do New Testament Words and Phrases Show Up in the Book of Mormon?
• Why do New Testament Words and Phrases Show Up in the Book of Mormon? Part 2: The Resurrected Jesus as the Source
• Why Do New Testament Words and Phrases Show up in the Book of Mormon? Part 3: Revelations to Nephite Prophets as a Source (Part A)
• Why Do New Testament Words and Phrases Show Up in the Book of Mormon? Part 4: Revelations to Nephite Prophets as the Source (Part B)
• Why New Testament Words and Phrases Are in the Book of Mormon Part 5: How Often Were Scriptures on the Plates of Brass the Common Source?
• Why New Testament Words and Phrases Are in the Book of Mormon? Part 6: Why Do Similar Clusters of Old Testament Texts Appear in Both?
• Why New Testament Words and Phrases Are in the Book of Mormon Part 7: How Often Did These Commonalities Come through the Hand of Mormon or Moroni?
• Why New Testament Words and Phrases Are in the Book of Mormon Part 8: Were These Expressions Parts of Joseph Smith's Linguistic Toolbox?
• Why New Testament Words and Phrases Are in the Book of Mormon Part 9: Above All, Were These Words Given by the Gift and Power of God?

Back to top

Modification of the italicized text in Book of Mormon Biblical passages

Summary: It is claimed that in the Book of Mormon material which parallels the KJV, Joseph Smith generally modified the italicized text.

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: What do the italicized words in the Bible represent, and why is it relevant to the Book of Mormon?
• Question: Did Joseph know what the italics in the Bible meant?
• Question: Could Joseph have used a Bible during and simply dictated from it during Book of Mormon translation?
• Question: Did Joseph own a Bible at the time of the Book of Mormon translation?
• Question: Why does 2 Nephi 19:1 change the word "sea" in Isaiah 9 to "Red Sea"?
• Barney: "three types of evidence favoring the conclusion that Joseph understood the meaning of the italicized words"
• Ensign (Sept. 1977): "If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible"

Back to top

Relationship of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible to the Book of Mormon

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: Why does the Book of Mormon match the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible so closely?
• Question: Why are many of the quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon identical to those in the King James Bible?
• Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?
• Question: If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?
• Question: How do we explain multiple "Isaiahs" and the Book of Mormon?

Back to top

Question: What message does the Book of Mormon translation painting convey?

The translation was carried out openly—Joseph had no opportunity to hide notes or books

Image from video "Seer Stones and the Translation of the Book of Mormon," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Copyright (c) 2015 Intellectual Reserve

What religious message(s) does the Del Parson translation picture convey?

Artist Del Parson's rendition of Joseph and Oliver translating the Book of Mormon.

1. The translation was carried out openly—Joseph had no opportunity to hide notes or books. This was confirmed by Elizabeth Ann Cowdery and Emma Smith.
2. The plates had a physical reality, and Oliver Cowdery was convinced of this reality. Unlike some of the other Three Witnesses, who spoke only of seeing the angel and the plates, Oliver Cowdery insisted that "I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true…I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet." Oliver is also quoted in one account as describing Joseph "as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the "translators" over the hieroglyphics..." This alternative technique was confirmed by John Whitmer, who said of Oliver that "[w]hen the work of translation was going on he sat at one table with his writing material and Joseph at another with the breast-plate and Urim and Thummim. The later were attached to the breast-plate and were two crystals or glasses, into which he looked and saw the words of the book."
3. The translation was not a weird, esoteric exercise.

The hat detail causes problems for the critical theory that Joseph cheated with notes while dictating. With a curtain in place, it is much easier to postulate that Joseph used notes or a Bible in the translation process. With the stone and the hat, however, witnesses were able to view the entire process, thus highlighting the total lack of notes or Bible in the translation process. Note also that in Parson's painting, with it's open setting, the cheat-notes theory can't get any traction.

One needs to consider the impressive witness testimonies of the plates' reality, and the fact that the use of a seer stone in a hat is not intrinsically less plausible than the use of two seer stones mounted in a set of "spectacles" attached to a breastplate. In fact, there are even accounts which effectively mix the two methods, with Joseph purportedly removing one of the stones from the "spectacles" and placing it in a hat.

Efforts to diminish the miracle of the translation effort by emphasizing the substitution of one seer stone for another seems to convey something to a modern audience that it never portrayed to the participants—that the Book of Mormon was uninspired and uninspiring.

Back to top

Book of Mormon Articles

Text and Translation

• Did Joseph Smith create the Book of Mormon?
• What did the translation involve?
• What witnesses are there to its divine origin?
• How was it published?
• What changes have been made to the text since it was published?

Historicity

• How does historicity relate to the Book of Mormon?
• What anachronisms are claimed to exist?
• Is there archaeological or anthropolical evidence?
• Is there DNA evidence?
• Does the geography in the Book of Mormon align with known geography?

Doctrine and teachings

• Does the Book of Mormon contain all the doctrines of the Church?
• Who are the Lamanites, and are they cursed?
• What about Nephi killing Laban?
• What doctrinal questions have come up from the Book of Mormon?
• How can I know it is true?