Jonathan Neville, Seer Stones, and Misquoted Historical Sources (Again)

In having made so many responses as of yet to Jonathan Neville, I feel a bit like a repeated record when I reiterate that he is a critic of the Church whose unorthodox viewpoints and ideas lead him on the “high road to apostacy,” as Joseph Smith once phrased it.

I recently responded to Jonathan Neville regarding strange theories he is presenting regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon and its role in missionary work (part one | part two). After coming across additional information, I would present the following as a third part to my response to Neville’s interview on the Mormon Book Reviews YouTube channel (and respond to two additional claims that he makes while I am at it).

This is inspired in part by recent comments he has made on his blogs reiterating his unorthodox views, which views were elaborated more in his interview. It is also inspired by finding sources I am more fully able to quote and compare with his own statements that show him again misusing and misquoting what has been reported.

The three claims I will respond to both relate to the translation of the Book of Mormon:

• First, a response to Neville’s claim that Emma Smith and David Whitmer used the seer stone narrative to challenge the claim that Joseph had copied his translation from the Solomon Spaulding Manuscript Found.
• Second, an additional challenge to Neville’s proposed “Demonstration Hypothesis” pointing out how Neville misquotes his source to say what he wants the source to say rather than what it actually says.
• Finally, I will respond to Neville’s claim regarding the book Mormonism Unvailed and the writing of Oliver Cowdery’s letters to snuff out the narrative of the seer stone being used as a translation tool in response.

Was the Use of the Seer Stone Narrative by Emma Smith and David Whitmer Simply a Falsified Report to Stop a False Report?

Neville makes the claim around the 34:00 minute mark of his interview:

What was happening in the mid-late 1800s in the press in the east coast was the explanation for the Book of Mormon was the Solomon Spaulding theory… And it was such a significant issue, that when Oliver Cowdery rejoined the Church… he specifically said Spaulding did not write the book…

A key point in the Spaulding theory was that Joseph Smith was just reading or dictating from behind a screen or a curtain so that nobody could see the plates, or the manuscript he was reading from… For David and Emma, it was critical to refute the Spaulding theory, and the only way to do that was to say there was no curtain there; he had nothing to read from, no manuscript to read from, which was true based on the demonstration that they saw…

So, the way I interpret all this evidence… whenever someone was possibly present, other than Oliver Cowdery, who presumably saw the Urim and Thummim because he tried o translate; anyone other than him, they’d have to draw a curtain across, because they were commanded not to show those items to other people. But that gave credence to the Spaulding theory. So David Whitmer and Emma had to say, “There was nothing there. There was no curtain, no manuscript.” And if you read all their accounts, they emphasize those points. But, the way I interpret the evidence, all they were talking about was the demonstration when Joseph was reciting Isaiah from memory.

To see my response to the claim that Joseph recited Isaiah from memory and the demonstration hypothesis, see part one of my response.

To be clear, the best historical facts that abound state clearly that Joseph Smith used a seer stone to translate (Michael Hubbard McKay and Nicholas J. Frederick’s book Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones have documented sources as early as 1829 discussing Joseph using it to translate the Book of Mormon). This was not a one-time recitation, but a day-after-day method Joseph used (as witnesses to the translation have stated explicitly).

Neville insinuates that Joseph did not translate via the seer stone, only tricked and lied to his family and friends to think he did. Likewise, any statement of a long-lasting translation effort using the seer stone must clearly be referring only to an instance where he recited five chapters of Isaiah from memory; any and all instances of long periods of time (I have collected a few in part one of for you to refer to; see especially notes 6 and 7) must therefore be falsified records in order to stop a false record from gaining any traction.

This was originally a claim I thought wasn’t even worth any considerable effort to respond to, but upon reviewing statements by David Whitmer, Neville’s theory fails on yet another front.

Did Emma Smith and David Whitmer Feel a Need to Respond to the Spaulding Theory?

Neville claims that the only way to refute the Spaulding theory was to deny 1) the curtain and 2) the manuscript. Virtually all of the sources from either do not include mention of the curtain, and Emma Smith directly stated that Joseph had “neither manuscript nor book to read from” and that Joseph “could not have concealed it from me” even if he did.[1]

In truth, I do believe that statements such as Emma’s cited above were in direct response to the Spaulding theory. Joseph Smith III more than likely asked his mother about that possibility exactly because others were making the claim that Joseph did indeed have a manuscript or book to read from during his translation process. Emma Smith responded that those were false claims; the Book of Mormon was indeed divinely translated. However, Neville veers off the beaten path of sound reasoning by claiming that the seer stone itself is a response to the Spaulding theory.

Did Joseph Employ a Veil While Translating, According to Emma or David?

A large part of this stems from the fact that there do remain sources indicating that David Whitmer was not concerned about the curtain separating Joseph and Oliver from the rest of the world. Likewise, potentially Emma; she makes no reference to the curtain anywhere, only stating that there was “nothing between us” when she was acting as scribe while Joseph placed the seer stone in the hat.[2] Had it been a point of concern, I imagine she would have been more explicit like she had been concerning the possibility that Joseph had merely read from a manuscript.

Another source from David Whitmer indicates that he still mentioned the curtain on some occasions. In a second-hand report of what David Whitmer had said, Nathan A. Tanner, Jr. wrote to his son stating that

He [David Whitmer] said that Joseph was separated from the scribe by a blanket, as I remember; that he had the Urim and Thummim, and a chocolate colored stone which he used alternately, as suited his convenience.[3]

Sources indicate that when Joseph used the Nephite interpreters, a veil was drawn but while he used the seer stone, no veil was necessary. While Nathan Tanner, Jr. uses vague language regarding the veil, his report fits well with the other reports previously offered.

Another instance of the blanket-curtain makes an appearance in another of Whitmer’s retellings (though again via a second-hand source):

In order to give privacy to the proceeding, a blanket, which served as a portiere, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eyes of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress. This, Mr. Whitmer says, was the only use made of the blanket, and it was not for the purpose of concealing the plates or the translator from the eyes of the [scribes]. In fact, Smith was at no time hidden from his collaborators, and the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned [Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer], but of the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith’s relatives besides.[4]

In fact, Neville appears to be aware of this source of a blanket concealing Joseph and his scribe from the world, since he alludes to it in a recent blog post wherein he states that “he used [the interpreters] behind a screen, blanket, or other concealment.” Neville very clearly is aware of the sources he cites, yet misquotes them and abuses them anyways. This becomes especially clear in my rebuttal below of his “demonstration hypothesis” wherein he further misaligns the same source a few sentences later.

The Spaulding Theory: Where Does it Fit in Neville's Demonstration Hypothesis?

Overall, I agree with Neville that the Spaulding theory was something that the early Saints would have felt the need to respond to and defend Joseph Smith as the translator of a book of scripture through divine means.

His argument that the “Demonstration Hypothesis” fits this narrative, however, does not align with what can be gathered from historical data the way he thinks they can be. No aversion appears to have arisen from the use of a veil to separate Joseph from the world, and the two second-hand sources attesting the blanket both show that some level of separation from the others was indeed used at the Whitmer farm – a fact Neville is clearly well aware of based on his use of Stevenson’s account (which use becomes even more clear in my point below).

That being said, they would have their own room to translate in at some point during their stay with the Whitmer family, and when they used the veiled-off family room is anybody’s guess, Neville again misquotes and misuses historical sources to attempt to paint a history that exists only in his imagination.

Neville's Proposed Demonstration to the Whitmer Family

Jonathan Neville has stated that Joseph lied to the Whitmers in explaining his translation via a seer stone demonstration. He doesn’t explicitly say Joseph lied, but there is no other way to phrase it when his ideas are laid out. (Again, I recommend reading part one of this series-in-brief to see what flaws in this theory that I have already pointed out).

He runs into another problem as well, when the sources come to light: the sources he uses don’t actually say what he says they say.

That being said, there could always be a source I am not aware of. After parsing through as many sources as I can, I believe I have found what source Neville relies on in making the claim that he does regarding the circumstances of Joseph’s “demonstration,” and this source fails to live up to Neville’s over-fantasized retelling. If, of course, there is a source I am unaware of, I gladly welcome the feedback and will point that out in all future endeavors.

According to Neville, the demonstration happened in this manner (with key details marked in bold text):

There is a very explicit explanation from David Whitmer. He says there was a table downstairs in the Whitmer home, people sat around it, Joseph had his three scribes there – which I think we can tell now it was Emma [Smith], John, and Christian Whitmer, possibly Oliver Cowdery – but, anyway, he had the three scribes there, and he put… the stone in the hat, put his face in, dictated, and they wrote it down. And he even said that they had to take turns writing, because Joseph was dictating so fast, these three scribes. So that was David Whitmer’s experience that he spelled out pretty clearly… [This is] what I call the demonstration in the Whitmer home, with the three scribes present.

He draws this story from Edward Stevenson’s retelling (which I have cited previously in part) of what David Whitmer had told him concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon, only there are a few key differences than how Neville retells it:

In order to give privacy to the proceeding, a blanket, which served as a portiere, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eyes of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress… In fact, Smith was at no time hidden from his collaborators, and the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned [Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer], but of the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith’s relatives besides. The work of translating the tablets consumed about eight months, Smith acting as the seer, and Oliver Cowdery, Smith’s wife, and Christian Whitmer, brother of David, performing the duties of [scribe], in whose handwriting the original manuscript now is. Each time before resuming the work, each present would kneel in prayer  and invoke the Divine blessing on the proceeding. After prayer, Smith would sit on one side of the table, and the [scribes], in turn, as they became tired, on the other. Those present and not actively engaged in the work, seated themselves around the room, and then the work began. After affixing the magical spectacles to his eyes, Smith would take the plates and translate the characters one at a time.[5]

Neville’s use of Stevenson’s account is strengthened by two blog posts he wrote that either directly cite other parts of Stevenson’s account (see here) or cite other details such as the blanket used as a veil that Stevenson mentions (see here).

How Does Neville's Demonstration Hypothesis Fit with What the Source Actually Says?

Key details between Neville’s retelling and Stevenson’s retelling have been marked in bold in the citations above. Details Neville gets right in his retelling are:

• At some point in the translation, Joseph and his scribes used a section of the family room downstairs.
• The Whitmer family and others would sit in and view the translation process, seated around the room.[6]
• Joseph employed three scribes who would take turns writing for Joseph.

That being said, here are details Neville invents or gets wrong:

• Neville says this was a one-time event wherein he “demonstrated” the translation process by not actually demonstrating the demonstration process with the Nephite interpreters. Stevenson’s retelling, however, gives the impression that this was a common occurrence, though not much can be ascertained as to how long the translation occurred downstairs.
• David Whitmer “stated pretty clearly” that Joseph used the seer stone during this event. In fact, while David does state very clearly on other occasions that Joseph used the seer stone (occasionally stating that the Nephite interpreters were not returned to Joseph after the loss of the Book of Lehi manuscript as well), this event is explicitly linked not to the seer stone, but rather to the Nephite interpreters. Neville rightly points out, however, that Joseph was under command not to show the interpreters to anyone, hence he used the seer stone – it could also be, however, that Joseph was given permission to show the Whitmers the spectacles if he had indeed received the interpreters back after his gift to translate had returned (I myself am impartial on whether or not he did because sources are mixed on the matter at the moment, but generally agree that Joseph having received the interpreters again). Unfortunately, this is all speculation, because no revelation is extant saying “you have my permission to show the spectacles to your family, the Whitmers, and others,” even though some of Joseph’s family gave very detailed descriptions of the Nephite interpreters. So, it cannot be said with any certainty what tool was used at this time Joseph translated downstairs, though the source supports the use of the Nephite interpreters rather than Joseph’s seer stone.
• Neville claims that Joseph was speaking too fast for the scribes to effectively work one at a time. That claim  comes strictly from Neville’s own imagination. According to Stevenson, they took turns when they grew tired, an ambiguous phrase that could mean anything. No mention of Joseph’s dictation speed (or rather, according to Neville, recitation speed) is given. This detail could easily be explained by the simple fact that writing for long periods of time requires breaks more often than reading for long periods of time like Joseph was doing. If you don’t believe this to be true, try and write constantly for a few hours and see how your hand feels. Joseph did not have to worry about that, and as such could read the translation off of the instruments much longer than his scribes could write, and so in order to keep the translation moving as quickly as possible, the scribes would take turns after one needed a break from writing.

How Does the Demonstration Hypothesis Hold Up in Light of These Details?

Overall, Neville’s Demonstration Hypothesis takes a serious beating.

Neville relies on this being a single occurrence, yet the details remain vague as to just how long the translation was downstairs and easily accessible to the entire Whitmer household. He also relies on the seer stone being used in this instance, while the Nephite interpreters are claimed to have been used[7] – which effectively makes the entire demonstration downstairs impossible. Neither does the source indicate Joseph was speaking unusually fast, and the scribes could have taken days or a few hours each before switching off.

Neville’s key details required for the demonstration hypothesis to occur appear only in his own imagination.

Mormonism Unvailed and the Urim and Thummim

Finally, around the 25:00 minute mark, Neville makes a claim regarding one of the first anti-Latter-day Saint books to be written by a man named Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, and its role in Oliver Cowdery’s letters published in the Messenger and Advocate. He has made these claims multiple times before, and I now present an alternative to Neville’s theory.

Neville states:

Those two threads, or alternative explanations [the Nephite interpreters and seer stone being used as a translation tool], were articulated in that 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed. And so – that was in 1834, ­and so this all started at an early stage in the Church’s history – but it was in response to that book that Oliver Cowdery wrote his Letter I that said, “I was there, Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim, or as the Nephites would call, the interpreters.” Okay? So in my view, he explicitly rejected the stone in the hat as the translation, and even when he rejoined the Church, he emphasized again – he had that little seer stone, the brown seer stone we see pictures of – in his pocket when he rejoined the Church, but he didn’t show it. He said, instead he said, “Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim.”

So in my view, Joseph and Oliver were clear that Joseph translated with the Urim and Thummim.

Neville then states that he does not believe that the claim that early Saints referred to both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters is “historically viable, because right in the Mormonism Unvailed book, they make the distinction between the two.”

After parsing through Mormonism Unvailed, however, the term “Urim and Thumim” [sic] appears only once on page 18, and it is wrongly assumed that the Urim and Thummim used is “the identical [tool] mentioned in Exodus 28-30.” However, even a general reading of those chapters will clue the reader in on the fact that the “big spectacles” resemble the Israelite Urim and Thummim not at all, at least not according to Howe’s description.[8]

In every other instance regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon, Howe distorts the truth to make the appearance of the Nephite interpreters spectacles made of gold and stones that seem to be larger than a man’s face, so both eyes would have to look through a single stone.[9] This is almost always mentioned alongside Joseph Smith’s seer stone, which Howe derisively calls a “peep-stone,” a “magic rock,” among other titles. Howe very clearly has an agenda – make the translation instruments appear as ridiculous as possible so that it will be clear that only a charlatan could come up with such a fanciful tale and only the weak-minded believe them.

However, Howe gets these details horribly wrong.

Eber D. Howe's Assumptions and Fabricated Details

He assumes that the Urim and Thummim mentioned must be the Urim and Thummim from the Bible – never mind the fact that the Israelite Urim and Thummim consisted of one white stone and one black stone that remained separate from one another while the Nephite interpreters were two clear stones wrapped in a silver bow. In fact, the first instance of the title “Urim and Thummim” ever being used to describe the Nephite interpreters comes not from Moroni in 1823[10] but from William W. Phelps in 1833:

[The Book of Mormon] was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles–(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim) and while it unfolds the history of the first inhabitants that settled this continent, it, at the same time, brings a oneness to scripture, like the days of the apostles.[11]

What is especially noteworthy about this statement is that Phelps produces the hypothesis that perhaps the Interpreters were anciently called the Urim and Thummim or Teraphim – both divine revelatory instruments attested to in the Bible. Phelps first presented the possibility that the Nephites may have called the Interpreters by the same name that the Israelites gave their own revelatory tools, and others followed the same pursuit. Howe, a year later, takes this reference out of context to imply that the Nephites must have used the exact same tool mentioned in the Bible, having stolen it away from Jerusalem, and Heartlanders ignore this statement entirely because it doesn’t fit their narrative that Moroni called them by that name.

Similarly, as I wrote about previously, even a single stone was seen as a divine instrument in Jewish thought, much like Joseph Smith’s seer stone was.[12] Howe would be unaware of these details, in all likelihood, but Joseph’s use of divine instruments and stones to receive revelation actually strengthens his claim to prophethood, not weakens them.

Oliver's Response to Mormonism Unvailed

In all honesty, I do agree that Oliver’s letters published in the Messenger and Advocate were indeed written in response to Howe’s book. After all, it would make sense to reclaim the narrative, if you will, and present the facts as they so stood.

However, that doesn’t preclude the fact that a seer stone could have been used.

Very few – especially few who were educated in the Bible as were the early Saints – would have connected Howe’s falsified report of the spectacles or seer stone to the Urim and Thummim as found in Exodus. Oliver was not, perhaps, concerned over the seer stone versus Nephite interpreter translation as Neville believes he was, but rather the disparaging comments Howe provides against both.

The best way to reclaim the narrative would be to take that title Urim and Thummim and apply it to all translation instruments. In doing so, Oliver linked Joseph’s ability to translate directly to the ancient prophets who could take the ephod and stones and receive revelation from God. Oliver responds to the narrative not by saying Joseph was a charlatan as Howe does, but by reaffirming Joseph’s prophetic calling. That was what Oliver responded to; that was the narrative he set forth.

Did Oliver Have the Seer Stone in His Pocket when He Rejoined the Church?

Finally, I feel that – as much as it doesn’t need to be said – I should respond to Neville’s last claim that Oliver had the seer stone in his pocket the day he rejoined the Church.

No source indicates whether or not this is true. While he was given the seer stone by Joseph shortly after the organization of the Church, this detail comes directly from Neville’s imagination.

It could again be easily explained that Oliver was simply sticking to the narrative he had reclaimed in the past in his Messenger and Advocate letters by saying “Urim and Thummim” when he addressed the Saints in Iowa when petitioning to be rebaptized. No mention in any records, however, is whether or not Oliver had brought the seer stone with him to this meeting.

Conclusions

In all fairness, I can agree with Neville on one last point he raises.

The interviewer states that he is trying to come to the conversation as objectively as possible near the 39:00 minute mark because of his desire to be respectful to all people ­ and he has admirably lived up to this in all of his videos that I have seen. He says that  he wants his audience to know “that there is a more sophisticated side to the orthodox position” within the Restored Gospel, as opposed to the progressive narrative that some others might push.

When Neville hears this, he makes this statement that I wholeheartedly agree with:

And I should qualify that just a little bit because this – what I’m saying is not exactly orthodox [chuckles].

Neville is, of course, entirely correct – none of his claims and theories are orthodox. The Demonstration Hypothesis, Joseph’s reliance on Jonathan Edwards’s sermons to translate, his recitation from memory and lying to the Whitmers and others involved, his belief that the Book of Mormon should not be used as a missionary tool ­– none of these are orthodox beliefs that have ever been advocated by the Church, and they are just the tip of the iceberg of Neville’s unorthodoxy.

Jonathan Neville, as I have stated before, is a critic of the Church, and his claims merit a response. I have little faith Neville will ever read seriously my blog or take these counterpoints into consideration – I do believe, however, that even if a single soul were to read my blog and come away with the desire to avoid critics of the Church such as Neville, I can rest easy knowing that I have done some good in the world when all is said and done.

In so putting alternatives on the record that are true to the historical facts, others can make their own decisions that may not have otherwise been aware of what else could be said regarding the topic. That is why I will continue to respond to critics of the Church on this blog whenever the need may arise, and I will do so without apology and seek the Spirit in all things.

---

[1] Emma Smith, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” The Saints’ Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-290.

[2] Emma Smith, “Last Testimony,” 289.

[3] David Whitmer, in Nathan A. Tanner Jr. to Nathan A. Tanner, 17 February 1909, 5. Church History Library. Nathan Tanner, Jr. had previously met David Whitmer in 1886, to which event he is undoubtedly referring to in this letter.

[4] David Whitmer, in Edward Stevenson, “The Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon,” Millennial Star 48 (12 July 1886): 436-438.

[5] David Whitmer, “Three Witness to the Book of Mormon,” 436-438. Bolding mine.

[6] David Whitmer testified that he and his family had been present during the translation process on at least one other occasion: “I, as well as my father’s family, Smith’s wife, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, were present during the translation.” David Whitmer in Albert Carrington, “Mormonism,” Millennial Star 43 (4 July 1881): 423. His sister, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, would also testify that she “often sat by” and watched the translation “for hours.” Joseph “would place the director in his hat, and then place his face in his hat.” Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery in William E. McClellan to "My Dear Friends," February 1879, Miscellaneous Papers and Documents, Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, MO. Cited in Grant Hardy, ed., The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ: Maxwell Institute Study Edition (2018), 619. Emphasis added.

[7] Another detail that can be raised against the Demonstration Hypothesis is that Joseph could just have easily borrowed a pair of spectacles from the Whitmers (assuming they were not allowed to view the interpreters after their return to Joseph), and explained “I am not allowed to show you the interpreters, but they look sort of like this, and when I translate this is what I do…” This form of a demonstration would not jeopardize Joseph Smith’s character, which Neville is entirely willing to do in an effort to explain away any source he doesn’t like.

[8] Indeed, the two instruments looked drastically different, though perhaps the Nephites had modeled the general shape and appearance of theirs after the Israelite Urim and Thummim in some way. See Book of Mormon Central, “Were Joseph Smith’s Translation Instruments Like the Israelite Urim and Thummim? (Alma 37:24),” KnoWhy 417 (March 20, 2018).

[9] While the unusual size of the Interpreters is attested to, Howe clearly exaggerates and pushes a false narrative to make the spectacles sound too ridiculous.

[10] Note that Joseph Smith’s 1838 history simply states that the interpreters were “called the Urim and Thummim,” though no mention is given to who first called them by this title (Joseph Smith–History 1:35).

[11]W.W. Phelps, "The Book of Mormon," The Evening and The Morning Star 1:58. Emphasis mine.

[12] See my blog posts “The Gift of Seership” and “Jewish Mysticism and Glowing Stones.”