The Gospel Topics Essays and the Book of Mormon Translation: A Response to Critics of the Church

Beginning in 2013, the Church began work to publish a series of Essays called the Gospel Topics Essays covering a wide range of topics from the Book of Mormon to Mother in Heaven to Plural Marriage. These Essays can be read in the Gospel Library app or the Church’s website, and I have even seen some Institutes create classes centered on these essays for study.

Lisa Olsen Tait is one of the historians who worked on these essays. Commenting at the 2018 FairMormon conference regarding the creation of these essays, she said:

Over the course of the project, historians in the Church History Department worked with a committee of Seventies to develop and write the essays. Scholars from outside the department also participated in discussions, reviewed manuscripts, and in some cases contributed substantial material… 

It’s important to stress that these essays were extensively reviewed and approved by Church leaders, up to and including the Twelve and the First Presidency. Few Church publications receive this same level of review and involvement of senior leadership… it’s worth emphasizing that the Gospel Topics essays are Church statements. We were very cognizant of this fact as we worked on them. The essays were to be published by the Church as Church statements and were not simply expressions of a given scholar’s work or of any individual’s views.

Again, in the introduction to the Essays themselves, we learn that these Essays “have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.” These Essays, in short, are worth studying and have been through both a massive peer review and an Apostolic review process.

Keep these details in mind as we look at how Jonathan Neville and Rian Nelson (a close friend of Neville) treat these Essays (specifically the Essay titled Book of Mormon Translation).

Rian Nelson recently posted a review of this Essay on his blog, and Neville has repeatedly done so in the past on his blogs. What is telling about Nelson’s post, however, is especially how it begins: a rant about how President Nelson and Elder Soares do not teach the translation like he wants them to.

General Conference’s All-Powerful Mystery Editors

Rian Nelson quotes President Nelson’s talk A Treasured Testament wherein then-Elder Nelson stated:

As Oliver Cowdery testified a few years later: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’” (JS—H 1:71n.)

Rian Nelson then makes this interjection:

After the ellipsis it should say, “with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,” This was left out of the ellipsis part of the quote.

After this, then-Elder Nelson quoted both David Whitmer and Emma Smith – two eyewitnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon, with Emma acting as a scribe – stating that Joseph used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. Rian Nelson includes this comment as a rebuttal of that idea:

I don’t think [David and Emma’s testimonies] are as credible as the scripture in JSH 1:75… Of course I love President Nelson and I am not accusing him of doing anything wrong. I am just commenting on a quote that I think has more value without the ellipsis and the same with Elder Soares’ quote below. I am trying to make the point that many trusted historians, intellectuals and editors, have their own agenda at times and they undermine the work of the Lord, whether intentionally or not (emphasis mine).

Elder Soares’s 2020 General Conference address, The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon, is targeted next. Elder Soares quotes President Nelson’s talk above, to which Nelson makes the following remark:

Elder Soares in 2020 gave a conference talk and said the same quote as Elder Nelson in 1997 with the same ellipsis as he left out the words “with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,” I don’t know if that is their editors that did this or what, but if we hear the rest of the quote the “scripture” clearly mentions Joseph’s true method of translation “with the Urim and Thummim or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘interpreters” (emphasis and bolding original).

As much as Rian Nelson tries to avoid criticism of two Apostles, he fails to realize the full implications of these statements he has made.

On one hand, President Nelson and Elder Soares are these historians who “undermine the work of the Lord, whether intentionally or not.”

On the other hand, there are mysterious editors who tell the Brethren what is allowed to be taught at General Conference and purposefully edit their addresses to conform to their standards, and the Brethren are powerless to stop them or deviate from their prepared remarks.

On the other other hand, the Brethren are duped and deceived by these historians, editors, and other scholars, as Jonathan Neville has recently said about Elder Gong.

While I believe it is okay to disagree on the method of the translation of the Book of Mormon – it isn’t a temple recommend question after all, and one can have faith in the Book of Mormon as a divinely translated book of scripture while disagreeing on the manner that book was translated – the fact remains that Rian Nelson thinks he knows what sources should and should not be cited in General Conference and makes clear implications that he is to be trusted more than those mystery editors who the Brethren are somehow beholden to.

Book of Mormon Translation and Rian Nelson’s Comments

Nelson’s comments can be summed up fairly easily into three categories:

1. Oliver didn’t use the term “seer stone!”
2. “Where does it say that?” (Often in conjunction with statements that don’t even make sense in light of seeking a scriptural backing).
3. Assumptions that cannot be authoritatively made from the historical record.

Often his comments are repetitive and fall into multiple categories.

Is a Seer Stone Mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

For example, one inserted comment asks “Where does it say in the scriptures that Joseph used this seer stone to translate the plates?”

Well, the clear answer would be Alma 37:23-25 (with my emphasis added in bold):

And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations. 

And now, my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, which he spake, saying: I will bring forth out of darkness unto light all their secret works and their abominations; and except they repent I will destroy them from off the face of the earth; and I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations, unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land.

From those verses we can see how the stone and the interpreters are prepared to do the exact same thing – two divine instruments with a singular purpose.

What makes this scripture of especial interest is that Rian Nelson cites verse 23 in full later in his review, yet he offers no commentary whatsoever, in response to the Essay citing the same verse in brief in the Essay. Nelson ultimately concludes, with this scripture in mind, that a historian “may have made this up unless someone can show me differently.”

Was the Seer Stone Ever Referred to as the Urim and Thummim?

Nelson also comments “Who said the term Urim and Thummim referred to the single stone as well as the interpreters? Where is the scripture?” when the suggestion is made that early Latter-day Saints viewed the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters as a Urim and Thummim.

This comment is really two issues that Nelson tries to package as one.

First, we have no scripture explicitly referring to the Nephite interpreters as the Urim and Thummim in the Book of Mormon. We have later scripture from Joseph Smith calling them such, but only Joseph Smith–History makes it clear that this term is referring to the Nephite instruments.

Joseph Smith’s 1838 history postdates William W. Phelps’ 1832 remarks that the Interpreters were “known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim”[1] – names for two biblical instruments used for divine revelation. Joseph Smith and the early Saints took the latter term – Urim and Thummim – and applied it to the translation instruments that were used, and the name has stuck ever since.

Second, what tools did this term describe?

This term was evidently applied to the seer stone as well, especially regarding a statement from David Whitmer:

The plates were never restored to Joseph–nor the spectacles, but a different Urim & Thummim–one oval or kidney-shaped–a seer’s stone, which he placed in his hat, and, face in the hat, he would see a character and translation on the stone.[2]

Now, I believe this account is wrong on a few details, namely I believe the plates and the interpreters were restored to Joseph Smith. However, this detail clearly describes the seer stone as a Urim and Thummim. Early Saints, reading this and other accounts of the translation, would have seen no conflict in describing the seer stone as such.

The Essay mentions that some later Saints viewed the Urim and Thummim later only in light of the Nephite Interpreters. Ironically, Rian Nelson, who is one of those Saints, asks “What Latter-day Saints understood this?”

Conclusion

The Gospel Topics Essays have been through an extensive review by the Apostleship themselves. The details in these Essays, including Book of Mormon Translation, are solid pieces of scholarship backed up by historical sources and Church authority.

Rian Nelson and Jonathan Neville are free to disagree with them insomuch as these statements are not articles of faith required for full fellowship in the Church. However, the arguments that Rian Nelson raises against this Essay are weak and untenable. In similar manner, his remarks regarding the Brethren hold serious implications that need to be responded to and Latter-day Saints warned about so that they do not find themselves on the dangerous path of apostasy.

---

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

[2] David Whitmer, quoted in “The Book of Mormon. David Whitmer, the Associate of Joseph Smith, Now on His Death-Bed,” Chicago Tribune, 17 December 1885, 3.