© 2025 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
I have a clarification for this sentence: “Further, the remarkable speed of translation seems more practical with a ‘Joseph read the text’ model rather than the much slower process of studying out a foreign script and coming up with a proposed meaning to verify in prayer.”
While Lucas and Neville require that Joseph had to be looking at the plates with their foreign script, in their model he wasn’t studying out and creating his own direct translation directly from that script, but was seeing a close-to-literal translation in English of the Nephite characters he was looking at. Then he had to pursue “a deliberative process that involved myriad word and grammar choices he had to study out in his mind using his own learning and linguistic resources” (p. 187). Then, of course, confirmation in prayer would be needed and revision possibly required. Still a very slow process.
Here are a few key issues to consider regarding Lucas’s and Neville’s book:
1. When Oliver attempted to translate, what was he doing? Looking at the plates through the clear seer stones of the Nephite interpreters? Certainly not. He was not yet a witness to the plates and did not have permission to see them. So what method was he imitating when he ‘began to translate” (Doctrine & Covenants 9:5)? The authors’ arguments that the only way to translate was to look at the plates, as shown on the cover of their book, seems invalidated.
2. There are serious problems with the popular assumption that the “it” in “study it out in your own mind” (Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-9) refers to coming up with a translation, whether it’s a translation of an unknown script or, as they authors speculate, a difficult reworking of a “literalistic” or close-to-literal translation in English of the language on the plates. This speculative theory has no backing.
3. Original sources are sometimes severely abused, such as claiming that Joseph Smith III repudiated his mother’s testimony about the use of a seer stone.
4. The “Demonstration Hypothesis” is illogical and troublesome. Making Joseph a deceiver to explain away the many witness statements about the use of a seer stone creates bigger problems than it attempts to solve.
5. The term “Urim and Thummin” can refer to objects other than the Nephite interpreters. In fact, Joseph Smith III, instead of repudiating the concept of translation with a seer stone, observed that if Joseph did use a seer stone, it would have served as a Urim and Thummim.
6. The neglect of the relevant history of B.H. Roberts’ work in creating his new theory of translation is one of many issues showing that the approach in the book is inadequate.
7. Ultimately, the authors’ good intentions fail to deliver a useful result due to many errant assumptions that are made, including an inadequate understanding of what “translate” means and of the factors that affected the evolution of terminology and conventions regarding the Urim and Thummim. Too much is shoehorned and stretched to make a speculative theory appear to be sound. It could be correct in the end, for there is much we don’t understand about how the translation is done, but the methodology of the book is clearly inadequate.
We can certainly agree that the message of the Book of Mormon is the key thing. At the same time, it is possible to allegedly support the Book of Mormon in a way that undermines respect for the Church and its modern leaders, makes detrimental claims about Joseph Smith, and creates animosity toward faithful scholars helping us to appreciate the Book of Mormon. When that happens, it’s valuable to point out the errors and set the record straight.
Testimonies have been injured by misunderstanding the details of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Sound understanding is needed in dealing with such issues.
If a trusted friend gave me a map to a treasure which I had every reason to believe was real, would my time be better spent grilling him over how he got the map, or following the map to the treasure? What greater treasure map could there be than one leading to eternal life?
If we agree that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel and points the way to God, is our time better spent arguing over how we got it, or studying and living by what’s in it?