An Executive Summary of My Reviews of Jonathan Neville’s Works

 

I have two recent publications in Interpreter that deal with Jonathan Neville’s unorthodox views of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Together, these constitute over 100 pages of text, and so I present this brief summary of claims Neville makes and my responses to them for any interested readers. This will hopefully be an appreciated resource for anyone who desires to know what Neville says and where to find my response to each claim.

Neville has also submitted a response to Interpreter that unfortunately deal with little more than a paragraph of my reviews. My rejoinder, which has been published alongside this poor attempt to defend his work, can be found at Spencer Kraus, “A Rejoinder to Jonathan Neville’s ‘Response to Recent Reviews’,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 53 (2022): 185-198.

On this blog, I also have two specific responses to Neville’s less official responses to my reviews. My post “A Swing and a Miss from Jonathan Neville” deals with a blog post Neville has made relating to Orson Pratt’s testimony as used in my reviews. My post “Jonathan Neville’s ‘Anathema’ and Support of Critics of the Church” deals with Neville’s claim that Joseph using a seer stone to translate is an “anathema,” while he likewise claims it is acceptable for faithful members to believe in an ahistorical Book of Mormon. I have also been invited on my friend Robert Boylan’s Scriptural Mormonism podcast where I discussed Jonathan Neville’s use of sources in his books (and from which I take the cover photo for this post) in Robert Boylan and Spencer Kraus, "Episode 15: Spencer Kraus on Jonathan Neville's Use of Sources," Scriptural Mormonism, 9 July 2022.

Additional responses to Neville and similar unorthodox claimants can be found here.

My two reviews can be found at Spencer Kraus, "An Unfortunate Approach to Joseph Smith's Translation of Ancient Scripture," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52 (2022): 1-64 and Spencer Kraus, "Jonathan Edwards's Unique Role in an Imagined Church History," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52 (2022): 65-102. I was invited to discuss these reviews on the Interpreter Radio Show, and our discussion can be found at Steve Densley, Mark Johnson, Matthew L. Bowen, and Spencer Kraus, Interpreter Radio Show, 26 June 2022.

Summary of “An Unfortunate Approach to Joseph Smith’s Translation of Ancient Scripture”

·         pp. 3–4 — Jonathan Neville states that should Joseph have used a seer stone, it would contradict the scriptural narrative and goes further to state that it would challenge the historicity of the Book of Mormon itself. He similarly claims that Joseph, Oliver, and other contemporary sources only claimed Joseph used the Nephite interpreters to translate.

o   pp. 4–6 — I cite multiple contemporary sources (which Neville himself quoted) to show this is a false premise. Namely, I cite Benjamin Winchester, David Whitmer, Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Orson Pratt (I discuss more on Orson Pratt’s views of the term “Urim and Thummim” here).

o   p. 7 — Neville misuses Ether 3 to claim that it is saying that only the Nephite interpreters could be used to translate the Book of Mormon, but that is not what the scripture actually says. Further, Wilford Woodruff claims that Joseph found his seer stone by revelation, making it a divine instrument as well.

o   pp. 7–9 — Neville cites the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon of Alma 37:21 and misquotes and ignores modern scholarship regarding this verse. While it originally, read “directors,” early Latter-day Saints understood this as a reference to the Interpreters and seer stone, as William McLellin and Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery demonstrate.

o   pp. 9–10 — I cite President Nelson, Elder Uchtdorf, Elder Christofferson, Elder Cook, and President George Q. Cannon discussing Joseph’s use of a seer stone. Should this contradict the scriptural narrative, Neville implicitly charges these brethren with this heresy.

·         pp. 10–11 — Neville makes other odd attacks against the seer stone, including attempting to wed it to Skousen and Carmack’s theory that the Book of Mormon employs Early Modern English. He also claims that nobody claims Joseph used the seer stone to write his 1832 history – a true statement, but completely out of touch with reality in that he expects this claim to prove anything.

·         pp. 11–12 — Neville claims that Joseph performed a scholarly translation of the plates, showing that he must not have been able to use a seer stone. However, he fails to provide any evidence to support his claim.

o   pp. 12–13 — Neville cites how Paul and other writers use phrases such as “or rather,” which he claims is evidence of Joseph being unhappy with his scholarly translation. Yet he himself shows it to be an authentic phrase to ancient writings.

o   p. 13 — Neville cites Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer describing how Joseph would read words off of his revelatory instrument, then attempts to say they never said that.

o   pp. 14–15 — I discuss Joseph’s other translation efforts, including the Book of Abraham, D&C 7, and the New Translation of the Bible to show that Joseph had a more inclusive view of translation than Neville permits and discuss the implications for the Book of Mormon.

·         pp. 15–16 — Neville’s Demonstration Hypothesis states that Joseph simply pretended to use the seer stone in his translation effort to assuage the Whitmers’ curiosity.

o   pp. 16–17 — In an effort to make others disbelieve that a seer stone was used, Neville cites William McLellin using a double standard.

o   pp. 17–19 — Neville misuses a statement from Zenos Gurley, and misuses a statement from David Whitmer to assert his opinion. In the case of the latter, Neville invents details not found in Whitmer’s statement in order to argue for his interpretation of the text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

·         pp. 19–21 — Neville claims, as part of his Demonstration Hypothesis, that Joseph simply memorized and recited Isaiah 3–21 for the Book of Mormon rather than translate the text, and implies that other parts of the Book of Mormon were similarly memorized and recited (notably the Sermon on the Mount) and that Joseph did so for Martin Harris as well. He relies on a number of logical fallacies for these claims, and it is at odds with what the historical records demonstrates.

o   pp. 21–25 — I have compared the Masoretic Text to the Book of Mormon and found many of the proposed memorization errors are closer in line with ancient texts than coincidence allows. Similarly, I have recorded a number of instances where Neville incorrectly transcribes the Book of Mormon text. Fifteen verses are included for comparison.

·         pp. 25–27 — Neville cites Mormonism Unvailed uncritically when it suits his needs, often misrepresenting it as the origin for the seer stone narrative while also defending its affidavits meant to disparage and destroy the character of the prophet Joseph Smith. By doing so, Neville supports the notion presented in the book that Joseph was a liar.

·         pp. 27–28 — Neville cites repeatedly from Mormonism Research Ministry, claiming that they are only “perceived” to be anti, but they are really just providing a resource.

·         pp. 28–31 — Neville attacks Church publications, including two Ensign articles, the new history Saints, the Gospel Topics Essay, and asserts that some truth has been withheld from the pulpit of General Conference since 2007.

·         pp. 31–32 — Neville attempts to discredit multiple witnesses throughout his book. He claims that they lied in order to refute the Solomon Spaulding theory, thus meriting their lies. His analysis is weak and contains multiple problems.

o   pp. 32–34 — Neville misrepresents the status of Oliver Cowdery’s eight letters, claims (against the historical evidence) that Oliver saw the plates before the manifestation to the Three Witnesses, and asserts his opinions as facts regarding Oliver’s belief about the seer stone.

o   pp. 34–35 — Neville makes many fallacious claims in an effort to dismiss David Whitmer’s testimony, and in so doing makes the rejection of the seer stone an article of faith for the Church. He also asserts blindly that David and his sister were influenced by William McLellin’s testimony.

o   pp. 35–40 — Neville attempts to place Martin as a second-hand, rather than a first-hand, account of the translation, asserts without evidence that his testimonies regarding the seer stone come from an addled and confused mind, and asserts that Joseph tricked Martin into believing that he used a seer stone. Neville treats Martin Harris the most dishonestly among all the witnesses and ignores earlier accounts that challenge his thesis.

o    pp. 41–43 — Neville misuses doubts about Emma’s Last Testimony by the brethren in Utah to assert they challenged her testimony of Joseph using a seer stone, attempts to assert that Joseph was fluent in the Bible while still not being aware that Jerusalem had walls, and makes odd jabs at Emma’s literacy while ignoring how this claim weakens his assertion that Joseph Smith was literate and fluent in the Bible.

o   pp. 43–44 — Additional false claims regarding the witnesses are made.

·         pp. 44–63 — My conclusion and footnotes constitute the remainder of the paper.

Summary of “Jonathan Edwards’s Unique Role in an Imagined Church History”

·         pp. 65–66 — Much like those who claim that Joseph Smith was influenced by Emanuel Swedenborg, I will demonstrate that Neville’s arguments are superficial, and any purported relation to Jonathan Edwards is explained by both being familiar with the Bible.

·         pp. 66–68 — Neville argues from presuppositions, stating that Joseph must have been familiar with the sources he cites, even when Joseph makes no reference to them in his own history. Neville misreads historical sources to try and argue that Joseph read many theological treatises when he was recovering from his leg surgery, but no substantive proof can be offered.

·         pp. 68–69 — Neville cites a portion of a critical source, and then misrepresents what the source is saying to try and argue that Joseph was reading an eight volume collection of Jonathan Edwards’ sermons while a youth in Palmyra.

·         pp. 69–71 — Neville uses presentism to attempt to argue that Lucy Mack Smith spoke of Joseph’s exceeding literacy, when the opposite is actually said (by Lucy Mack Smith’s own definition and use of the verb “peruse”). He further misrepresents a letter from George A. Smith to try and show that Joseph was literate, when George A. Smith was discussing the theological message Joseph shared rather than his literacy.

·         pp. 71–73 — Neville argues that Jonathan Edwards was an Elias figure for Joseph Smith, but is unable to demonstrate any connection between the two, and ignores the Lord’s description of Sidney Rigdon as a forerunner to the Restored Gospel. Neville, by his own admission, relies entirely on eisegesis for his claims. Such a heavily eisegetical reading of any historical text should merit caution.

·         pp. 73–74 — Neville proposes multiple theological influences from Edwards to Joseph Smith, all of which are weak and unfeasible (such as similar hymns in different hymnals).

o   p. 74 — Neville attempts to link the Book of Mormon’s teachings about prayer to Edwards.

o   p. 74 — Neville attempts to link Edwards’s minimal use of James 1:5 to the First Vision.

o   pp. 74–75 — Neville attempts to paint the Temple Endowment and description of Satan as “the god of this world” to Jonathan Edwards, even though that title is biblical.

o   p. 75 — Neville attempts to state that Joseph describing Christ as clothed in glory originates from Edwards.

o   pp. 75–76 — Neville attempts to state that Joseph obtained his ideas about the age of the earth from Edwards, but by Neville’s own admission, this did not originate with Edwards.

o   p. 76 — Neville attempts to state that Edwards influenced Joseph Smith’s ideas about Book of Mormon Geography and the Urim and Thummim, but Edwards had nothing to say about either of these topics.

o   pp. 76–77 — Neville attempts to state that Edwards influenced Joseph’s ideas about plural marriage, but Edwards’s ideas are entirely opposed to what revelation given to Joseph said on the matter.

o   pp. 77–78 — Neville misuses Edwards to suggest that Joseph’s views of hell and a near-Universalist heaven were influenced by Edwards, but the opposite is true.

·         pp. 79–80 — Neville proposes that there is intertextuality between Edwards and the Book of Mormon, but his findings are weak. The phrase “Infinite Goodness,” for example, was used by earlier Christians, as Neville admits.

o   pp. 80–81 — Neville misuses and miscites a source to argue that Joseph was quoting Edwards’s “sins of the world” rather than the New Testament, showing his inability to accurately use source material even when it is widely accessible.

o   p. 81 — Neville proposes that the Messiah’s link to redemption originates with Edwards, ignoring the biblical references.

o   p.  82 — Neville proposes that wrestling before God originates with Edwards, ignoring the Bible’s use of the motif (as well as other instances in the Book of Mormon).

o   pp. 82–83 — Neville proposes that various phrases that are clearly used in the Bible should be understood to originate with Edwards.

o   p. 83 — Neville proposes that Joseph Smith got the phrase “preparatory state” from Edwards, but the two used it in widely different contexts so as to destroy any proposed similarity.

o   pp. 84–85 — Neville proposes that various phrases that are clearly used in the Bible should be understood to originate with Edwards. This includes a reference to the Song of Songs, which Neville believes should be understood as a reference to Edwards citing the Song instead.

o   pp. 85–86 — Neville believes Edwards is the first to call Satan the father of lies, when the Bible and countless other commentators have already done so.

o   p. 86 — Neville believes that chiasmus is an evidence of Edwardsian influence, rather than a Hebraism.

·         pp. 87–88 — Neville proposes Joseph also drew from other works, such as The Late War, The First Book of Napoleon, The American Revolution, and The First Book ]of the American Chronicles of the Times. In the case of The Late War, Neville draws on the fact that both it and the Book of Mormon have a title page, a copyright page, and a preface. Such weak evidence is typical of Neville’s findings to this point.

·         pp. 88–102 — My conclusion and footnotes constitute the remainder of my paper.