Characters and Correlations

Part 8 of a series on Martin Harris and the Anthon Transcript

Is the Caractors Document an accurate rendering of what appeared on the Gold Plates? What correlation does it have with the Anthon Transcript which Martin Harris took with him to show the learned men?

An important part of the story has to do with which characters Professor Anthon was shown. We have assumed that Anthon's description of the paper Harris gave him differs from the Caractors Document because it was arranged in vertical columns and contained a circular figure divided into compartments. But I have concluded that the characters Anthon viewed were the very same we have copied on the Caractors Document.

The Witness of David Whitmer
David Whitmer, who had come into possession of the Caractors Document, said that it was the text that Martin Harris showed to Charles Anthon. Stanley B. Kimball has traced this claim as follows:

"The first account of Whitmer's possession of this document was made by Edward Stevenson (later a member of the First Presidency of Seventies) who visited Whitmer in 1871 and made a copy of the document. Later, the March 25, 1881, edition of the Richmond (Missouri) Conservator reported that Whitmer had the original transcript, a claim which Whitmer made again in 1887 when he wrote, "I have in my possession the original paper containing some of the characters transcribed from one of the golden plates, which paper Martin Harris took to Professor Anthon of New York. . . ." In 1884 a committee of the RLDS Church conversed with Whitmer and were shown the transcript. Unfortunately we lack any further information regarding how, when, or why Whitmer acquired this document. Though inconclusive, it is of interest to note that Martin Harris neither confirmed nor denied Whitmer's claim. [1]

The RLDS transcript was given to the Church in 1903 by the heirs of David Whitmer, fifteen years after his death in 1888. In 1941, Frederick Smith wrote describing the Caractors Document: "the paper itself is old, and of the same quality and appearance of the paper of the [Book of Mormon] manuscript and of early Revelation, manuscripts undoubtedly made before 1833." [2]

Publishing of the Characters
Additionally, these characters were published several times within the lifetime of Martin Harris purporting to be the characters which Joseph was translating from the Book of Mormon, and which were taken to Professors Mitchill and Anthon. [3] When I began writing this post I was already convinced that if the Caractors Document was not the actual writing shown to Charles Anthon, it contained the same letters the Professor saw, and was an accurate representation of what Joseph said was the writing of the plates.

Arrangement of the Characters
When I was searching for an image of the characters as they appeared in the December 21 edition of the New York Prophet, I discovered the following:


The characters that appeared in the newspaper are a handwritten reproduction of the first three lines of those which appear on the "Caractors Document." [4] But notice that the bottom image is turned on its side. The characters in the newspaper appear in vertical columns, as was described in the Anthon letter! Since this was the only reason I had for not believing the Caractors Document was one and the same as the Anthon Transcript, I was shocked by the discovery!

This discovery explains some things, and brings up more questions. First, Anthon's letter describes the characters as "crooked." He says that "Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns." For example, we see letters similar to the Roman "H," "T," "V," "C," and "U," and if they were viewed in columns, they would appear to be "placed sideways." But the question might be raised: was the slip of paper we know as the "Caractors Document" written in columns, with the label "Caractors" written as an afterthought? Or had Martin Harris and Charles Anthon looking at the document turned the wrong way? Since Joseph was not there to instruct them, this is a possibility.

Here's something else to consider: an 1831 newspaper account reports that "Harris with several manuscripts in his pocket went to the city of New York and called upon one of the professors of Columbia College for the purpose of showing them to him..." [5] Some have speculated that a translation of the characters was one of these manuscripts. This is rather doubtful. Anthon's letters speak of only one paper. He is clear that Harris was coming to him to "decypher" the paper; and that no translation had been furnished. In the Mormon version of the story, there is no mention of a translation until many years later. Anthon did, however, mention that Harris had "a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decypher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable to understand." So what were the several documents Harris had in his pocket? Do we have one of these documents today?

Well, dear readers, I leave you with my impressions that the characters with which we are by now familiar were those viewed by Charles Anthon in 1828. Over the years, these characters have become well-known to members of the Church. In 1980 the Church came out with a gold-cover edition of the Book of Mormon which had the letters from the Caractors Document inscribed in black lettering. I had one in my possession until this last move. :( These characters and the story of the Anthon transcript fascinate us because, since we do not have the gold plates to handle and touch, they represent the most concrete and tangible evidence we have. Of course, a testimony of the Book of Mormon will never depend on evidence, but our mortal minds do appreciate what little there is.

_______________________________________________________

[1] Stanley B. Kimball, The Anthon Transcript: People, Primary Sources, and Problems, BYU Studies Vol. 10, No. 3, Pages 325-352 (Spring 1970).

[2] From a letter of Frederick M. Smith, May 9, 1941, to John A. Widtsoe as cited in Kirkham, A New Witness, Vol. 1, p. 176.

[3] BYU Studies, vol.20, no.4, p.325. Twice in late 1844, after the Prophet's martyrdom, portions of these symbols were published as characters that Joseph Smith had copied from the gold plates. Characters appeared in the December 21 issue of the Mormon newspaper The Prophet. Also, (right, click to enlarge) in 1844 the Latter-day Saints published a broadside with the title "Stick of Joseph" which contained these same characters copied from the plates.

[4] Kimball, _The Anthon Transcript_, "On Saturday, December 21, Samuel Brannan, the presiding Elder of the branch in New York City and publisher and editor of a semi-official Church publication, The Prophet, published in this newspaper a three-line reproduction of the 'Anthon transcript.' With no introductory remarks or any indication of source, this illustration was printed under a headline reading, 'The Stick of Joseph taken from the hand of Ephraim.' He then added that. . . 'The following is a correct copy of the characters taken from the plates which the Book of Mormon was translated from: the same that was taken to Professor Mitchell, and afterwards to Professor Anthon of New York, by Martin Harris in the year 1827 [sic] in fulfillment of Isaiah 29: 11-12.' (The quotation was given in full.)"

[5] Canandaigua (New York) Morning Courier and Enquirer of September 1, 1831.

Prophecy and Professor Anthon

Part 6 of a series on Martin Harris and the Anthon Transcript

Can you believe I am still blogging about the Anthon transcript? I don't know why this has intrigued me so much. Much of this information is not new to me, but I haven't seriously considered it in the past, or tried to come to any conclusions. If you're still reading me, here are some concluding ideas I've had as I've looked at the whole incident.

Anthon's and Harris' accounts changed over time. But there are certain undisputed historical facts from which we can form a coherent narrative. Joseph Smith copied some characters which he said he got from the gold plates onto a sheet of paper. Martin Harris took this and other materials back East to get the opinion of the classicists of the day. Professor Charles Anthon spoke with Martin Harris and gave him an opinion. Latter-day Saints believe this event fulfills the prophecy in Isaiah 29.

The disputed points are immaterial:

1. Were the characters Egyptian? The writings in the Book of Mormon were done in reformed Egyptian, and certainly changed even more during the many years in the New World before Mormon made his abridgement. [1]

2. Did Professor Charles Anthon possess the ability to recognize ancient Egyptian in 1828? It is unlikely that Anthon would have been able to actually translate ancient Egyptian texts. But he certainly had a familiarity with the hieroglyphics and possessed a reference book that would have contained Egyptian writings. However, being "reformed" and evolved, the characters did not necessarily have a recognizable correspondence with the Egyptian alphabets with which Anthon was familiar in 1828.

3. Did Anthon verify the characters in writing? A verification of the characters by Anthon was not necessary for the encounter to satisfy Biblical prophecy. In fact, if Anthon had been able to translate the characters in any way, it would have served to weaken the correlation between this story and the Isaiah prophecy that the learned man was unable to read the sealed book. A verification was only important to Martin Harris to satisfy him that he should contribute financially to the publication of the Book of Mormon. Apparently his interactions with the "learned men" were enough to convince him to do so.

Some Latter-day Saints have attempted to view the encounter with Anthon as a way to verify that the characters were of ancient origin. They would be better served to drop this approach and instead see the incident as did Orson Pratt: "...it was a sealed writing to the learned professor—the aboriginal language of ancient America could not be deciphered by him. He was as much puzzled as the wise men of Babylon were to interpret the unknown writing upon the wall. Human wisdom and learning, in this case, were altogether insufficient. It required another Daniel, who was found in the person of Mr. Smith." [2]

Although there are several questions in my mind as to whether the characters represent a form of ancient Egyptian, I can agree that the Anthon encounter fits well into Biblical prophecy:

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

Next: is the Caractors Document an accurate rendering of what appeared on the Gold Plates? What correlation does it have with the Anthon Transcript which Martin Harris took with him to show the learned men?
______________________________________________

[1] An interesting paper on this subject is _Reformed Egyptian: "In the Language of my Fathers"_ by Richard G. Grant.

[2] Orson Pratt, "Divine Authority, or the Question, Was Joseph Smith sent of God?" Doctrines of the Gospel (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1884), 9.

Stages of the Story

Part 5 of a series on Martin Harris and the Anthon Transcript

Now I am ready to look at the historical development of both the Martin Harris account and the Charles Anthon account of what happened at their meeting in 1828. In my study of this meeting, I would prefer to take each witness seriously. I do not believe either Harris or Anthon was deliberately misrepresenting the truth, but each has his own perspective. Perhaps we can learn something by attempting to reconcile the differences in their stories. Historians have noticed that when a primary source makes a record of an historical event, the telling of the story tends to change over time. An examination of these changes can further illuminate the event.

Changes in the Martin Harris Account

Martin Harris told the story of his visit to Charles Anthon in Palmyra immediately after he returned from New York City. The Reverend T. A. Clark in Palmyra wrote that "After his return he came to see me again, and told me that, among others, he had consulted Prof. Anthon, who thought the characters in which the book was written very remarkable, but he could not decide what language they belonged to." [1] In August of 1829 the first newspaper report of Harris' story appeared as follows: "So blindly enthusiastic was Harris that he took some of the characters interpreted by Smith and went in search of someone, besides the interpreter, who was learned enough to English them; but all of whom he applied (among the number was Professor Mitchell of New York) happened not to be possessed of sufficient knowledge to give satisfaction." [2] About a week later the Rochester Gem of September 5, 1829 reported the incident as follows: "Harris states that he went in search of someone to interpret the hieroglyphics, but found no one was intended to perform that all-important task but Smith himself." [3]

Orson Pratt wrote an account which agreed with the supposition that Professor Anthon was unable to identify the characters. Wrote he: "Isaiah says that 'the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned...' All this was fulfilled before Mr. Smith was aware that it had been so clearly predicted by Isaiah. He sent the "words of a book" which he found, as before stated, to Professor Anthon. But it was a sealed writing to the learned professor—the aboriginal language of ancient America could not be deciphered by him. He was as much puzzled as the wise men of Babylon were to interpret the unknown writing upon the wall. Human wisdom and learning, in this case, were altogether insufficient. It required another Daniel, who was found in the person of Mr. Smith. [4]

Some time later the Canandaigua (New York) Morning Courier and Enquirer of September 1, 1831 reported the incident: "Harris with several manuscripts in his pocket went to the city of New York and called upon one of the professors of Columbia College for the purpose of showing them to him. Harris says that the professor thought them very curious, but admitted that he could not decipher them. Said he to Harris, 'Mr. Harris, you had better go to the celebrated Dr. Mitchell and show them to him. He is very learned in these ancient languages and I have no doubt he will be able to give you some satisfaction'. . .Harris says that the Doctor. . .looked at his engravings--made a learned dissertation on them--compared them with the hieroglyphics discovered by Champollion in Europe, and set them down as a language of a people formerly in existence in the East, but now no more. [5] Also in 1831, W.W. Phelps wrote a letter in which he reported that Anthon had translated the Book of Mormon characters and declared them to be "the ancient shorthand Egyptian." This term was familiar to Anthon through a review of Champollion's Préçis in the American Quarterly Review, calling hieratic Egyptian script "short-hand" Egyptian. Anthon owned a copy of this review and he cited it in his Classical Dictionary. [6]

By 1841 there is evidence that the Harris-Anthon incident was being used by missionaries "claiming the patronage of Professor Anthon's name in behalf of their notions." [7]

In 1842 the May 2 issue of the Times and Seasons contained the fourth installment of what was then called "Church History." The chief significance of this publication was that it was the first official reference to the event. That same year the story was reprinted in the Millennial Star in October as the "History of Joseph Smith." This is the version which we find today in JS-H. Joseph gives his own recollection of what Martin Harris reported to him about ten years after the events took place: "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Anthony [sic], a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments;--Professor Anthony stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldeac [sic], Assyriac, and Arabac [sic]; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthony called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him. He then said to me, 'let me see that certificate.' I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him, he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, 'I cannot read a sealed book.' I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthony had said respecting both the characters and the translation. [8]


Stanley L. Kimball has observed that changes in the story of the Anthon consultation can be seen to fall into several stages. In the first telling of the experience (1) Harris visited the scholars, found that they could not translate the characters, and went home. Later, possibly as early as the summer of 1829, (2) Harris visited the scholars and found they could authenticate but not translate the characters. Then, in late 1830 or early 1831, (3) Harris visited the scholars and found that they could identify and translate the characters. Finally, in 1838 the story had evolved to the point that (4) Harris visited the scholars, found that they could authenticate the characters, identify the language, and verify Smith's sample translation. Harris received Anthon's certificate to the Palmyrans and then saw Anthon tear it up. The account expanded talk about reformed Egyptian characters to a discussion of the Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic alphabets. [9]

The earliest recountings of Martin Harris' story, including that given by Orson Pratt agree with Anthon's strong assertion that he did not attempt any translation, but offered to examine the plates, which Harris informed him was forbidden. It should not cause a problem for Latter-day Saints if Anthon made no identification of the characters shown him. In fact, this interpretation best fulfills the "learned man" prophecy in Isaiah 29:11. As the Martin Harris story was retold over the years, a number of additions were made. By the time the official account was written, the story had been circulating among missionaries and proponents of the Church for many years. In the effort to portray the Book of Mormon as an ancient record, there seems to have been an attempt to connect the characters with Egyptian writing. I think it is quite likely that Professor Anthon compared the characters with his copy of Champollion's Précis, perhaps in the process mentioning hieratic, or "shorthand" Egyptian. This was a phrase that Harris would certainly remember, with its similarity to "reformed Egyptian" mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This exchange could very well have given rise to the later claim that Anthon identified some of the characters as Egyptian and other languages.

Changes in the Charles Anthon Account

A comparison of the two letters written by Charles Anthon shows that the professor's emphasis also changed over time. I think it is interesting to see that Anthon admits a change in sentiments when he learns the source of the characters:
"On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues."

Harris and Anthon agree that there was a change of opinion regarding the characters when their provenance becomes known. But Anthon excises this from his later letter. I think that Professor Anthon was initially excited by the appearance of the transcript. He had a great interest in antiquities and recognized something unusual. Anthon may even have seen some similarities between the characters and ancient scripts, and expressed this to Harris. Then when he heard the strange story of the gold plates, Anthon changed his mind and decided the whole thing was a hoax. This was enough to convince Harris to the extent that he would mortgage part of his farm to pay for the publishing of the Book of Mormon. Let us assume that Anthon was sincere in wanting to dissuade Harris from investing his money in a fraud. He would naturally have wanted to disassociate his name from the whole affair. Thus his letters stress the oddity of Joseph Smith's translation process and the dissimilarities from ancient Egyptian, and he hesitates to admit that he had ever taken the characters seriously.

Another change in Anthon's account has to do with the written affadavit he allegedly gave to Martin Harris. In 1834 he writes that he declined to give Harris an opinion in writing. In 1841 Anthon says that he did give a written statement, "that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them." This and other indications in the later letter show that Anthon over time represents himself as more positive from the outset that the characters were a fraud.

Apparently Harris and Anthon's stories were rather similar soon after the event, but as time went on they diverged as both Anthon and the Mormons became anxious to promote their agendas. Agreement in the accounts centers around these points:

• Martin Harris showed Professor Anthon a transcript containing characters.
  
• Anthon agreed the characters were similar to certain ancient writings.
  
• A comparison was made to Egyptian characters, probably using Champollion's book.
  
• When Harris described the provenance of the characters, Anthon changed his mind and decided they consisted of a fraud designed to cheat Harris of his money.
  
• Anthon refused to verify the characters.
  
• Anthon gave an opinion of the characters in writing.

More to come...



________________________________________________________
[1] John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way (Philadelphia, 1842), pp. 222, 229.

[2] The account appeared in the Palmyra Freeman, August 1829, but is known only through a quotation reprinted in the Rochester Advertiser and Telegraph of August 31, 1829.

[3] The above two newspaper articles are cited in Kirkham, A New Witness, Vol. 1, p. 151.

[4] Orson Pratt, Orson Pratt's Works [Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1945], 18 - 19.

[5] see James Gordon Bennett's 1831 Report on "The Mormonites," by Leonard J. Arrington in BYU Studies. Stanley L. Kimball has shown that Anthon owned a copy of Champollion's _Précis du système Hiéroglyphique des Anciens Égyptiens_ (Paris 1824). This is now located at Cornell University and carries Anthon's signature on the flyleaf.

[6] John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992. Excerpt here.

[7] In September 1841 the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo printed a letter from Charles W. Wandell (1819-1875), a New York convert then laboring as a missionary in New Rochelle, New York. In this letter, written July 27, Elder Wandell reports that the Episcopal D.D. [T.W. Coit] had written to Professor Anthon inquiring about the Mormons' claim. Wandell includes an extract from the reply Professor Anthon made to Coit. (Clark, Gleanings, p. 232.)

[8] Times and Seasons, Vol. 3 (May 2, 1842), p. 773. (Usually cited as Joseph Smith 2:64-65).

[9] Kimball, Stanley B. "The Anthon Transcript: People, Primary Sources, and Problems." BYU Studies 10 (Spring 1970):325-52.

Letters From a Learned Man

Part 4 of a series on Martin Harris and the Anthon Transcript

It seems like I've taken a long time just to say that Martin Harris was in possession of a copy of some of the characters from the Book of Mormon and that he consulted some of the leading candidates of the day who might have been able to authenticate them. Now the time has come to more fully examine Professor Anthon's account of Martin Harris' visit. Extant are two letters in which Charles Anthon replied to enquiries about his encounter with Harris. I will reproduce them in their entirety and then discuss what they reveal about Mormon history and scholarship.

1. This letter was written to Eber D. Howe, Editor of the Painesville Telegraph (1822–1835), author, and publisher of Mormonism Unvailed. On February 9, 1834 Howe wrote to Charles Anthon about Mormon claims that he had authenticated Book of Mormon characters. Anthon answered in a response dated Feb. 17, 1834:

New York, Feb. 17, 1834
Dear Sir -

I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted farmer, called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decypher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person, who brought it, how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, the following account: A "gold book," consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of "gold spectacles"! These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at that time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered "by the gift of God." Every thing, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added, that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money towards the publication of the "golden book," the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York, and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics." Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practised upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the "curse of God" upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of rogues. He then left me.

I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics.

Yours respectfully, CHAS. ANTHON.

2. The second letter was in response to a letter from Reverend Dr. Thomas Winthrop Coit who was Rector of Trinity Church in New Rochelle, New York from 1839-1849. Having heard the Mormon claim that Anthon had actually validated Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Book of Mormon but had torn up the alleged affidavit before Harris could leave with it, Rev. Coit wrote to Anthon requesting a statement from him about his involvement in the affair. Anthon responded on April 3, 1841 with the following:

New York, April 3d, 1841.

Rev. and Dear Sir:

I have often heard that the Mormons claimed me for an auxiliary, but, as no one, until the present time, has ever requested from me a statement in writing, I have not deemed it worth while to say anything publicly on the subject. What I do know of the sect relates to some of the early movements; and as the facts may amuse you, while they will furnish a satisfactory answer to the charge of my being a Mormon proselyte, I proceed to lay them before you in detail.

Many years ago, the precise date I do not now recollect, a plain looking countryman called upon me with a letter from Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell requesting me to examine, and give my opinion upon, a certain paper, marked with various characters, which the Doctor confessed he could not decypher, and which the bearer of the note was very anxious to have explained. A very brief examination of the paper convinced me that it was a mere hoax, and a very clumsy one too. The characters were arranged in columns, like the Chinese mode of writing, and presented the most singular medley that I ever beheld. Greek, Hebrew and all sorts of letters, more or less distorted, either through unskilfulness or from actual design, were intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac. The conclusion was irresistible, that some cunning fellow had prepared the paper in question for the purpose of imposing upon the countryman who brought it, and I told the man so without any hesitation. He then proceeded to give me the history of the whole affair, which convinced me that he had fallen into the hands of some sharper, while it left me in great astonishment at his simplicity.

The countryman told me that a gold book had been recently dug up in the western or northern part (I forget which), of our state, and he described this book as consisting of many gold plates, like leaves, secured by a gold wire passing through the edges of each, just as the leaves of a book are sewed together, and presented in this way the appearance of a volume. Each plate, according to him, was inscribed with unknown characters, and the paper which he handed me, a transcript of one of these pages. On my asking him by whom the copy was made, he gravely stated, that along with the golden book there had been dug up a very large pair of spectacles! so large in fact that if a man were to hold them in front of his face, his two eyes would merely look through one of the glasses, and the remaining part of the spectacles would project a considerable distance sideways! These spectacles possessed, it seems a very valuable property, of enabling any one who looked through them, (or rather through one of the lenses,) not only to decypher the characters on the plates, but also to comprehend their exact meaning, and be able to translate them!! My informant assured me that this curious property of the spectacles had been actually tested, and found to be true. A young man, it seems, had been placed in the garret of a farm-house, with a curtain before him, and having fastened the spectacles to his head, had read several pages in the golden book, and communicated their contents in writing to certain persons stationed on the outside of the curtain. He had also copied off one page of the book in the original character, which he had in like manner handed over to those who were separated from him by the curtain, and this copy was the paper which the countryman had brought with him. As the golden book was said to contain very great truths, and most important revelations of a religious nature, a strong desire had been expressed by several persons in the countryman's neighbourhood, to have the whole work translated and published. A proposition had accordingly been made to my informant, to sell his farm, and apply the proceeds to the printing of the golden book, and the golden plates were to be left with him as security until he should be reimbursed by the sale of the work. To convince him more clearly that there was no risk whatever in the matter, and that the work was actually what it claimed to be, he was told to take the paper, which purported to be a copy of one of the pages of the book, to the city of New York, and submit it to the learned in that quarter, who would soon dispel all his doubts, and satisfy him as to the perfect safety of the investment. As Dr. Mitchell was our "Magnus Apollo" in those days, the man called first upon him; but the Doctor, evidently suspecting some trick, declined giving any opinion about the matter, and sent the countryman down to the college, to see, in all probability what the "learned pundits" in that place would make of the affair. On my telling the bearer of the paper that an attempt had been made to impose on him and defraud him of his property, he requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation, partly for the man's sake, and partly to let the individual "behind the curtain" see that his trick was discovered. The import of what I wrote was, as far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them. The countryman then took his leave, with many thanks, and with the express declaration that he would in no shape part with his farm, or embark in the speculation of printing the golden book.

The matter rested here for a considerable time, until one day, when I had ceased entirely to think of the countryman and his paper, this same individual, to my great surprise, paid me a second visit. He now brought with him a duodecimo volume, which he said was a translation into English of the "Golden Bible." He also stated, that notwithstanding his original determination not to sell his farm, he had been induced evidently to do so, and apply the money to the publication of the book, and had received the golden plates as a security for payment. He begged my acceptance of the volume, assuring me that it would be found extremely interesting, and that it was already "making great noise" in the upper part of the state. Suspecting now that some serious trick was on foot, and that my plain looking visitor might be in fact a very cunning fellow I declined his present, and merely contented myself with a slight examination of the volume while he stood by. The more I declined receiving it, however, the more urgent the man became in offering the book, until at last I told him plainly, that if he left the volume, as he said he intended to do, I should most assuredly throw it after him as he departed. I then asked him how he could be so foolish as to sell his farm and engage in this affair; and requested him to tell me if the plates were really of gold. In answer to this latter inquiry, he said, that he had never seen the plates themselves, which were carefully locked up in a trunk, but that he had the trunk in his possession. I advised him by all means to open the trunk and examine its contents, and if the plates proved to be of gold, which I did not believe at all, to sell them immediately. His reply was, that. if he opened the trunk, the "curse of heaven would descend upon him and his children.' "However," added he, "I will agree to open it, provided you take the 'curse of Heaven' upon yourself, for having advised me to the step." I told him I was perfectly willing to do so, and begged he would hasten home and examine the trunk, for he would find that he had been cheated. He promised to do as I recommended, and left me, taking his book with him. I have never seen him since.

Such is a plain statement of all I know respecting the Mormons. My impression now is, that the plain looking countryman was none other than the prophet Smith himself, who assumed an appearance of great simplicity in order to entrap me, if possible, into some recommendation of his book. That the prophet aided me by his inspiration, in interpreting the volume, is only one of the many amusing falsehoods which the Mormonites utter relative to my participation in their doctrines. Of these doctrines I know nothing whatever, nor have I ever heard a single discourse from any of their preachers, although I have often felt a strong curiosity to become an auditor, since my friends tell me that they frequently name me in their sermons, and even go so far as to say that I am alluded to in the prophecies of Scripture!

If what I have here written shall prove of any service in opening the eyes of some of their deluded followers to the real designs of those who profess to be the apostles of Mormonism, it will afford me satisfaction equalled, I have no doubt, only by that which you yourself will feel on this subject.

I remain, very respectfully and truly, your friend,

CHAS. ANTHON.

These two letters are rich with information about early Church history. The tidbit which fascinates me the most is Anthon's description of the translation process, as explained to him by Martin Harris. It adds more to our understanding of how Joseph Smith's contemporaries perceived the translating was done. W.W. Phelps explained that the translation was done "through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles — (known perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim) ..." [1] Some have disagreed with Phelps' speculation and supposed that the "Urim and Thummim" referred to the Seer Stone that Joseph later used in the translation process. [2] But Anthon's letter makes it clear that in 1828 Harris was describing the means of translating the Book of Mormon as a large pair of spectacles. David Whitmer explained that the "Interpreters" (spectacles) were taken from Joseph as a punishment after he and Martin Harris lost the 116 pages of manuscript of the Book of Mormon. Later Joseph was allowed to recommence the translation using a Seer stone. [3] Accounts of the translation done with the use of the Seer stone abound. Isaac Hale explained that the translation was done by use of the Seer Stone without the physical presence of the plates. Joseph placed his seer stone in a hat and the translation would appear. [4] Emma Smith's description of the process agrees with her father's, saying that Joseph translated with his face buried in a hat. [5] David Whitmer's account adds detail to this idea, explaining how the characters appeared one at a time. [6]

Anthon's letters thus help to clarify how the translation of the Book of Mormon was done. The 116 manuscript pages were translated using a large pair of spectacles. The portion of the plates which comprises our Book of Mormon was translated by the use of a Seer Stone. Since the various accounts call both the spectacles and the Seer Stone(s) by the words "Interpreters" and "Urim and Thummim," [7] I would speculate that these two terms might loosely be used to refer to any divine instrument of translation.

I will leave you now with this one interesting example of how the Anthon letters contribute to our understanding of Mormonism. Perhaps my readers may wish to add comments with other insights from the above letters.

To be continued....

____________________________________________________

[1] W.W. Phelps, Evening and Morning Star, vol. 1, no. 8, (Independence, Missouri, January 1833) p. 2.

[2] This confusion has resulted from the accounts of some of the early Saints which concatenate the Urim and Thummim, the Interpreters, and the seer stone. For example, Oliver Cowdery, who joined in the translation effort in the winter of 1828 exults: "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, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history, or record, called 'The book of Mormon." (Oliver Cowdery, Messenger and Advocate, (Kirtland, Ohio, 1834), vol. 1, no. 1, p.14.)

[3] In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints’ Herald, asked David Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied: "... he used a stone called a 'Seers stone,' the 'Interpreters' having been taken away from him because of transgression. The 'Interpreters' were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a 'Seers stone' which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English." (Elder Z.H. Gurley holograph in LDS Church archives, cited by Richard S. Van Wagoner in "Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 15:2 (Summer 1982), p. 54.)

[4] ""The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods." (Affidavit of Isaac Hale dated March 20, 1834, cited in Rodger I. Anderson, Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reexamined, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), pp. 126-128.)

[5] "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." (History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols., Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1951, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," 3:356.)

[6] "Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear." (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

[7] In 1823 Joseph Smith equated the Urim and Thummim with the spectacles: "...there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim--deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book." (JS-H 1:35) By 1835 the term "Urim and Thummim" was added to the revelation published as D&C 10 (verse 1), and thereafter, was used to refer to both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone(s) by Joseph Smith and numerous other people. Joseph Knight, Sr., an early member of the Church and a close friend of Joseph Smith, equates the Urim and Thummim with the Seer stone: "Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes then he would take a sentance and it would appear in brite roman letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go away the next sentence would come and so on. But if it was not spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated." (Cited in Dean Jessee, "Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History," BYU Studies, vol. 17:1 (Autumn 1976), p. 35.)

Assessing the Alphabets

Part 3 of a series on Martin Harris and the Anthon Transcript

Before I get to my next post, I'll take some time to respond to John F. and Sanford's questions on my last one. Keep in mind that I am completely out of my depth here, and feel free to correct or add to my thoughts.

In the Martin Harris account of his visit to Professor Anthon that we have in the JS-H, he asserts that Anthon verified the letters as true characters from the "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic" languages. Historians have shown that Anthon had at least a rudimentary knowledge of these languages, enough to recognize the alphabets when he saw them. Let us assume that Martin Harris was correctly recalling the languages mentioned by Anthon. We should be able to see some correlations with these ancient alphabets and the JS characters. Below I will post some charts of the alphabets, so we can compare them with the "Caractors Document."

EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS


CHALDEAN ALPHABET




Ancient Assyrian (Akkadian) differs somewhat from modern Assyrian (Neo-Syrian). Akkadian was in use until about 750 BC, and was gradually replaced when writing began to be done on parchment, leather and papyrus rather than clay tablets. Aramaic gradually replaced the Ancient Assyrian because of the technological breakthrough in writing. It is sometimes assumed that Martin Harris meant to say "Aramaic" rather than "Arabic" in his report of Anthon's words because the Arabic language did not come into usage until after Lehi's group left for the New World, and would not have been represented on the plates. Arabic is descended from Aramaic and first appeared about 512 AD.

Now, here again is the "Caractors Document:"


Do you see any correlations here? I don't. It's especially disappointing to see the lack of similarity to Egyptian. In his 1834 letter to E.B. Howe, Anthon denied that the characters he saw included Egyptian, but rather wrote that he saw "Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways..." Doesn't this seem more descriptive of the characters to you?? (See especially Greek letters alpha, eta, lambda, tau, and upsilon.)



This post is intended to be a simplistic view of the alphabets as discussed by the major players in the Anthon drama. Other authors have gone into further depth on the relation of the characters to different scripts. [1] I do indeed have a working theory as to how the assertions of Martin Harris came about, but there are a few more points to cover before I get into my conclusions.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Here are only a few samples the many which are available on line.

Apologetic Sources:

Ariel L. Crowley, The Anthon Transcript: A Series of Articles in
The Improvement Era, Jan. - Mar., 1942.

Russell Littlecreek, Evidence for Reformed Egyptian. This is really cool. Click on the letters in the "Caractors Document" and you are taken to a possible corresponding Egyptian Hieratic or Hieroglyph. (Keep in mind as you do this that Professor Anthon would not have had complete knowledge of all these characters.)

John Gee, Some Notes on the Anthon Transcript:Review of Stan and Polly Johnson. Translating the Anthon Transcript.

Stanley B. Kimball, A Visit With Dr. Hayes, Sunstone, July 2002, pp. 12-13

Critical Sources:

Richard Stout, A Singular Discovery: The Curious Manuscript, Mitchill, and Mormonism. (scroll down and read about the close resemblance between the "Caractors" and Tironian notes!)

Sigils From a Sealed Book

Part 1 of a series on Martin Harris and the Anthon Transcript

This week in SS we discussed 2 Nephi 27 (Isaiah 29) where a book comes forth from the dust and is presented to a learned man who cannot read it. The book is then delivered to one who is not learned. The teacher made the usual parallel in Church history when Martin Harris takes characters from the Gold Plates to learned professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University. As Martin Harris tells the story, Anthon first gives him a certificate of authenticity, verifying that the translation is correct, and that the characters are true representatives of Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic writing. (JS-H 1:64-65)

As always when this story is discussed, I wondered idly what qualifications Professor Anthon had that qualified him to make these statements, and why he seemed so sure of the translation when the study of the ancient Egyptian language was in its infancy in 1828.

In response, I've written a post which is quite long, so I'll break it up into sections and post it over the rest of the week. Many of you may be familiar with these facts, since they are available on the net, but I'd like to discuss them and see what people think. Let's start with the Anthon transcript itself.

The Anthon Transcript was a sheet of paper upon which Joseph Smith copied sample "reformed Egyptian" characters from the plates of the Book of Mormon. In the winter of 1828, Martin Harris showed these characters, along with a translation, to at least three scholars in the eastern United States, including Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell, described as a "Magnus Apollo" because of his extensive and broad learning; and Charles Anthon, an acclaimed classicist and lover of antiquities at Columbia College. No one knows what happened to the sheet of paper Martin Harris had in his possession. (Perhaps it is now languishing somewhere along with the 116 lost manuscript pages! :) ) We do have several clues which help us learn more about the Anthon Transcript.

First, Charles Anthon wrote at least two letters describing Martin Harris' visit. I will discuss these letters in their entirety in a forthcoming post. However, in both of these letters Anthon included a description of the paper which was shown him:

"This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived." [1]

"The characters were arranged in columns, like the Chinese mode of writing, and presented the most singular medley that I ever beheld. Greek, Hebrew and all sorts of letters, more or less distorted, either through unskilfulness or from actual design, were intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac." [2]

As I read these narratives, I was taken by the description of the Mexican-looking "circle divided into various compartments."
Pictured at left are a pictorial horoscope chart and a Mexican calendar stone. A Mexican calendar stone was rediscovered in 1791 and Anthon, with his fascination for antiquities, would surely have been familiar with it. But to me the description seems reminiscent of the hypocephalus which Joseph Smith would later obtain from Michael Chandler and include as Facsimile #2 in the Pearl of Great Price Book of Abraham. However, Chandler did not obtain his mummies until 1833, and did not bring them to Kirtland until 1835. Actual historical events and coincidences of this period seem so fantastic that Joseph's metaphysical claims almost pale in comparison.

The Community of Christ possesses a handwritten text which is known as the "Caractors Document." This fragment contains seven horizontal lines of characters apparently copied from the plates, as seen in the image below:


The characters are written on a piece of paper measuring 8 by 3¼ inches. The paper appears to be of the same quality and appearance as that on which the manuscript of the Book of Mormon was written. David Whitmer, who once owned the document, claimed that it was this text that Martin Harris showed to Charles Anthon. [3] But the Caractors Document in no way corresponds with Anthon's description. The characters are not arranged in vertical columns, and there are no images of moons or stars. Neither is there evidence of a circular figure.

Though this document is not the original, it almost certainly represents characters either copied from the plates in Joseph Smith's possession or copied from the document carried by Harris. Twice in late 1844, after the Prophet's martyrdom, portions of these symbols were again published as characters that Joseph Smith had copied from the gold plates. Characters appeared in the December 21 issue of the Mormon newspaper The Prophet. Also, in 1844 the Latter-day Saints published a broadside with the title "Stick of Joseph" which contained supposed characters copied from the plates. [4] These are somewhat different from the Anthon transcript. We don't know who prepared this 1844 sheet.

Considering that we have this sample of the "Reformed Egyptian" characters, I would think that Mormon linguists would be interested in attempting to translate them and match them with the corresponding Book of Mormon text. And indeed I found a few attempts to do this by several authors. Back in 1942 Ariel Crowley, an LDS attorney from Boise, presented evidence that the characters might be of Egyptian origin. He discussed Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic in relation to hieratic and demotic Egyptian, and Martin Harris's report that Anthon mentioned those languages when he reviewed the transcript. He also presented 194 pairs of photographs comparing characters from the Anthon Transcript with similar or identical characters in recognized Egyptian works such as the Book of the Dead and the Rosetta Stone. [5]

In 1970 Carl Hugh Jones published another serious study of the characters. [6] Jones identified more than 224 characters from the various available sources, and assigned reference numbers to each. Though he felt linguistically unprepared to do so himself, he felt that he had found evidence for an alphabet of between 20 and 32 letters and was confident that a translation could be made. Jones also did some work matching certain of the characters with various Oriental and Mexican scripts.

Community of Christ adherent Blair Bryant claims to have found correlation between the Caractors document and the Book of Mormon title page. [7]

Lastly, Stan and Polly Johnson argue that the Anthon transcript corresponds to Ether 6:3–13 in the present Book of Mormon. [8]

Apologist John Gee is more pessimistic about the possibility of translation of the characters. He postulates that the characters came from the text Joseph was then translating--the 116 missing manuscript pages. Additionally Gee feels that the sample of letters is not large enough to render decipherment feasible. [9] Even so, I would be interested to see a comparison of the claims of Martin Harris with those of Charles Anthon. Harris says that Anthon identified Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic figures in the sample that was given him. Anthon writes that he saw recognizable though deformed Greek, Hebrew, and Roman letters. Can we tell, by a study of the Caractor Document, which of these languages are represented?

In this age of computer assisted research, I am baffled as to why cryptographic studies have not yielded results in this area. Unfortunately, to date no Mormon "Robert Langdon" has cracked the code of the Anthon Transcript. Do my readers still think the characters are in fact authentic? Do Latter-day Saints retain faith that translation might one day be done?

In 1980 a document surfaced which more closely resembled Anthon's specifications and appeared to be the original Anthon Transcript. But in 1987, Mark W. Hofmann admitted that he had forged it. The forgery certainly fits the picture I have in my mind of the Anthon transcript! But what does it say about the state of our linguistic study of the characters that Latter-day Saints were so easily fooled?



___________________________________________

[1] letter written by Charles Anthon to Eber D. Howe dated Feb. 17, 1834. Originally published in Eber D. Howe, _Mormonism Unvailed_, 1834, chapter xviii. The letter appears in full in B. H. Roberts, _A Comprehensive History of the Church, Century One_ (Brigham Young University Press, Provo, UT: 1965), pp. 102-104.

[2] letter written by Charles Anthon to Rev. T. W. Coit dated April 3, 1841. Originally published in Rev. T. W. Coit, _Gleanings By The Way_, 1841. The letter appears in full in Roberts, _CHC_, pp. 104-107.

[3] A photograph of the characters was published in a 1908 history of the Reorganized LDS Church. Twenty-two years later LDS historian B. H. Roberts published a new photograph of the same document in his Comprehensive History of the Church. There is little question that this transcript was at least part of the material presented to Anthon to display characters copied from the gold plates.

[4] BYU Studies, vol.20, no.4, p.325

[5] Improvement Era, Feb 1942

[6] “The ‘Anthon Transcript’ and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals, Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historical Archaeology 122 (Sept. 1970): 1–8. An online FARMS article New Light: "Anthon Transcript" Writing Found? mentions the study and laments, "Issues that Jones raised remain today a challenge not yet taken up by scholars."

[7] See Blair Bryant's Caractors Translation.

[8] Stan and Polly Johnson, _Translating the Anthon Transcript_ (Parowan, Utah: Ivory Books, 1999)

[9] Some Notes on the Anthon Transcript by John Gee


*

5 LDS Interpretations of the Isaiah Passages that Should Not be Perpetuated

I promised some posts on upcoming Book of Mormon Sunday School lessons. But I have to warn you, I've been in a blue funk lately. So I suspect my thoughts are neither inspiring nor fit for Sunday School consumption. But maybe it will help you know what not to say.


LDS Sunday School students will soon take a quick leap through 13 chapters of Isaiah which are quoted by Nephi in 2nd Nephi chapters 12-24. All too often, some uniquely Mormon interpretations are given to these chapters which merit a critical analysis. In this post I present five Mormonisms which I believe hinder a deeper and more accurate understanding of Isaiah's writings.

1. 2 Nephi 12:2,3 Popular LDS commentary on this verse identifies it as Isaiah's vision of people from many lands coming to Salt Lake City, Utah.

Many prophecies of Isaiah are dual and can be applied to more than one time, situation or people. I am aware that latter-day prophets and apostles have related this verse to the Salt Lake temple or even to the Conference Center from which the word of the Lord is issuing forth in these days. However, if we insist too strongly on this Mormon-centric view, we can miss the primary application which this verse has to the millennial reign of the Messiah. The word "mountain" as used in the Bible is a metaphor for "nation," "government," or "political system." In verses 2 and 3 Isaiah is speaking of the millennial condition when Christ shall establish the political Kingdom of God upon the earth. This will be established "in the top of the mountains," or in other words "as the head of the nations."

2. 2 Nephi 12:3 Isaiah wrote that the word of the Lord will come from Jerusalem, and the law will come from Zion, the New Jerusalem, located in Jackson County, Missouri. There will be two distinct centers of influence for God's people.

This may be, but verse 3 should not be used as a proof-text. Here we have a synonymous chiastic parallel where

the Law = the Word of the Lord, and
Zion = Jerusalem (one and the same)

The chiastic structure of this phrase indicates that Isaiah equated Zion with Jerusalem (the one located in Israel!) If we accept this, we will be able to learn more about Zion as it relates to the ancient City of David.

3. 2 Nephi 12:9 In the Book of Mormon, verse 9 is clarified by adding the word "not" to the following statement: "And the mean man boweth [not] down and the great man humbleth himself [not], therefore forgive him not."

This verse actually makes much more sense in its original context, without the extra "not" added in the Book of Mormon version. Verse 8 speaks of idols which are found throughout the land. And the mean (common) man and the great (important) man boweth down (to these idols). This version makes more sense coming as it does right after the description of people worshipping idols, the work of their own hands.

4. 2 Nephi 12:13-17 Some Mormons still insist that this passage is an example of the restoration in the Book of Mormon of passages that were lost in the Old Testament. As noted in footnote 16a, “The Greek (Septuagint) has ‘ships of the sea.’ The Hebrew has ‘ships of Tarshish.’ The Book of Mormon has both, showing that the brass plates had lost neither phrase.”

Pike and Seely have shown the challenges of accepting this interpretation. I love the poetry of the passage and find that the addition of the extra phrase and other interjected words spoils the beauty of the chiastic tripled bicola. Isaiah used poetic conventions frequently to emphasize his points. The Book of Mormon addition does not enhance the poetic structure of the passage, but instead inhibits it. The Greek "ships of the sea" and the Hebrew "ships of Tarshish" are probably different translations of one original phrase and it is not necessary or preferable to include both. Observe the perfection of the Masoretic text with the pattern of w- (conjunction) + al (preposition "upon") followed by kol- ("all/every") and then two words (here in English translation):

For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be

upon every one that is proud and lofty,
and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

and upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up,
and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

and upon all the high mountains,
and upon all the hills that are lifted up,


and upon every high tower,
and upon every fenced wall,

and upon all the ships of Tarshish,
and upon all pleasant pictures (fine craft)

and the loftiness of man shall be bowed down,
and the haughtiness of men shall be made low;

and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.

(if all this fascinates you, there is a well-reasoned apologetic view here. But I stand by my opinion.)

5. 2 Nephi 14:1 The Mormon speculation on this verse goes as follows: With so many men killed in war, righteous single priesthood holders are in short supply. Thus, plural marriage is reinstituted, with many women stating they will support themselves in order to receive priesthood covenant protection.

My examination of the Hebrew of this verse makes me confident in translating "one man" as "a certain man." The verse thus teaches that in the latter day seven women (symbolic number of completeness, denotes the covenant people) shall take hold of a certain man (guess who that would be?) and ask him "let us be called by thy name," which will take away their reproach (effects of atonement). In my view this verse is Messianic and has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.

Update: Our SS teacher gave 2 of these very interpretations while presenting the lesson! How about yours??


*

Enough About Keystones!

I'm getting bored with the obligatory lesson every time we begin a study on the Book of Mormon which involves the teacher drawing a very poor diagram of an arch on the board and explaining the importance of a keystone. This year we are subjected to the convention twice, once in Sunday School Lesson #1 and now in the JS Manual Lesson #4.

Just FYI on keystones: A keystone is the architectural piece at the crown of a vault or arch and marks its apex, locking the other pieces into position. Although a keystone is important, it serves primarily an aesthetic purpose. Some say that a keystone is not as important structurally as the voussoirs, since the removal of any of the voussoirs would cause the arch to collapse but this is not necessarily true of the keystone. A keystone is not the main load-bearer in an arch. The stresses are greatest at the bottom and least at the top. The forces along the center line are horizontal, so an arch can work perfectly well with an even number of voussoirs, and no keystone at all!

Joseph Smith's statement that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion is no more than a figurative and not strictly legitimate use of the term to suggest that the book is the central supporting element of the larger structure of the Church. In our lessons we are stretching the metaphor to the point of being grossly inaccurate. (Besides that, I like to think of Christ as the central element.)

Now I wouldn't have any problem if a qualified architect or mason came to SS prepared to discuss the intricacies of archwork and new applications we could bring to the metaphor. For example, here's an interesting definition:

The keystone is the block without which the structure is not whole; it receives and joins forces of upwardly-reaching members of an arch and creates a structure that soars with lightness yet with solid integrity and strength. The integrative strength of the keystone is a natural one that does not depend for its function on massiveness but rather works because everything falls into place around it and is strengthened and brought together by it, making all the components work together. A keystone is synergistic, yielding a structure that is stronger than the individual parts would be if they were merely stacked together, one on top of the other. It exists to unite structural elements.

But I think I'd rather just drop the overemphasis on this old chestnut. There are more fascinating things in this lesson to discuss. Tomorrow I will blog about one of them.

Immigration Policy Based on 2 Nephi 1

Warning: Do not discuss in Sunday School Lesson #6

As a hard core pacifist, I've always wondered why Mormons don't put greater faith in Second Nephi, chapter 1. In this chapter, Lehi tells his sons that he has obtained a promise from the Lord. Whoever has been led out of the land of Jerusalem and brought to the land of promise (which we are told is the American continent) will prosper as long as they keep the commandments. In fact, no other nations will be able to molest them or take them into captivity. They will not be overrun by other nations, and they will always have a place for an inheritance.

A more careful reading of these verses reveals that this promise applies to more than just the Book of Mormon peoples. "None shall come into this land," prophesies Lehi, "save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord." God promises to give the American continent to ALL THOSE who in the future shall be led out of other countries by his power. Thus, the promise found in verse 7 is quite comprehensive. Anyone who lives here, who is keeping the commandments shall be protected. The land is a land of liberty, and as long as we are righteous, we will never be brought into captivity.

In the past, I've wondered why Latter-day Saints who live in the U.S. support war as a necessity for protecting and defending our country. If we really believe this promise, wouldn't it be much more effective to protect our country, our homes, and our families by concentrating on our personal righteousness rather than espousing military action?

Today in Sunday School, I realized the scripture has an additional application. Lehi is told in verse 8 that the Lord is keeping the Promised Land from the knowledge of other nations, so that they will not overrun the land and keep the branch of Israel which has been led there from having place for an inheritance. Should we not apply these verses to ourselves also? Does a careful reading of this chapter suggest that we should allow the Lord to bring to this land whom he will? Will he not keep them from overrunning the land if we are righteous? If we keep the commandments, shall we not maintain an inheritance, be safe and protected, and even be blessed and prosper upon the land?

What applications does 2 Nephi 1 have to the immigration policies now being discussed in the United States?



"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses
yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of
your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless,
tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp
beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883

Around The Book of Mormon in 97 Days

I'm a sucker for a challenge, especially a reading challenge. A group of Latter-day Saints is getting together to read the Book of Mormon in 97 days as a tribute to our 97-year-old Prophet who passed away this week. Their website is found at The Hinckley Challenge, and it is really cool. You log in your reading each day, and it tells you how many pages per day you must read. Right now I have to read 5.42 pages a day to finish by May 11, 2008. There is a nifty graph to put on your sidebar so as to brag about your progress.

So far there are 3673 people who are taking the Hinckley Challenge, and I am sure there will be many more. We start tomorrow, but you can join in any time. I hope you will go check out the site.

President Gordon B. Hinckley on the Book of Mormon:

"I take in my hand the Book of Mormon. I read its words. I have read Joseph Smith's explanation of how it came to be. To the unbelieving it is a story difficult to accept, and critics for generations have worn out their lives writing books intended to refute that story and to offer other explanations than the one given by Joseph the Prophet. But to the open-minded, this critical writing has only stimulated them to dig deeper; and the more deeply they dig, the greater the accumulation of evidence for the validity of Joseph Smith's story. Still, as has been demonstrated for a hundred and fifty years, the truth of the Book of Mormon will not be determined by literary analysis or by scientific research, although these continue to be reassuring. The truth about the origins of the Book of Mormon will be determined today and tomorrow, as it has been throughout the yesterdays, by reading the book in a spirit of reverence and respect and prayer." ("Praise to the Man," Ensign, Aug. 1983, 4)

The Daughter of Jared

Although it takes a lot of reading between the lines to get to know the women of the Book of Mormon, it is an enjoyable exercise for LDS feminists. One of the more interesting characters I have encountered is the daughter of Jared. I wonder, if someone had thought to ask Brother Joseph what her real name was, what he would have come up with. Surely this woman was no "Sarah" or "Mary." I like to think she would have had a name as exciting as "Mahonri Moriancumer."

The daughter of Jared, like all worthy women everywhere, was "exceedingly fair." *heavy sarcasm intended* If we only had the full account instead of Mormon's abridgment, I'm sure her hairstyle, wardrobe, headscarf, and shoes would have been rigorously critiqued.

Although the daughter of Jared is painted as extremely wicked, I have come to admire her somewhat. She was "exceedingly expert." When her father had a problem, she berated him by saying, "have you not read the record which our fathers brought across the great deep?" Which means she had actually read the Old Testament-type records and understood them well enough to be able to plot intrigue based on their principles. In a male dominated society, it is surprising that she had access to the plates and that she was sufficiently motivated to read and ponder them. This required a bit of intelligence.

The daughter of Jared came up with a plan to entice Akish with her dancing, whereby Jared could promise her hand in marriage if he would bring Jared the head of his father the king. The Biblical student will recognize this same scenario occurring much later in the case of Salome and the head of John the Baptist. (Matthew 14) We can speculate that Herodias got the idea from the same source as did the daughter of Jared.

One can sympathize with her motivations, since the daughter of Jared became involved in secret combinations primarily to help her father, who was sorrowful because he had lost his kingdom. However, because of her great influence, Jared searched out the wicked secrets of old, and he taught them to Akish, who administered them unto his kindred and friends, leading many away into darkness.

As often happens, the daughter of Jared's plan backfired. Her father-in-law was warned to desert his throne, Jared took over the kingdom and she was given in marriage to Akish. Akish, having been stirred up to desire for power, then proceeded to have the head of his father-in-law. He murdered Jared as he sat upon the throne, and took over the kingdom. We hear no more of the fate of the daughter of Jared.

Although this daughter went over to the "dark side," she is of great interest. She is a symbolic character representing the strength and influence of woman. She is a reminder that a woman can be intelligent and talented, well versed in scriptural and political knowledge, and capable of exerting a strong influence over her male associates. In the portrayal of a woman with a great potential for evil, we might also assume that a woman can have a great influence for good. Indeed we see this in other stories in the Book of Mormon.

And now, blog friends, a chance to use your creativity!!
If you were to pick a name for the daughter of Jared, what would it be? Carmen? Phylinda Gadiantonfollower? How does the name you chose reflect your opinion of this Book of Mormon character?

Three Weeks of NaBoMoReMo

Still going strong and right on track for finishing the Book of Mormon by the end of the month! You know what is harder for me than making it through the Isaiah passages? You guessed it, I can't stand all the war stuff in the latter chapters of Alma. We're into the large plates now, so we have a lot of historical information (thankfully) abridged by Mormon. These chapters on wars and war strategies are very difficult for me to read. There are many yukky parts like kings being stabbed and Amalickiah swearing an oath to drink Moroni's blood, and dead bodies, and well, you know.


I just cannot see why it is necessary for the righteous Nephites to involve themselves in so many battles. Supposedly they believe the promise that the Lord made them that if they were righteous they would be protected and never brought down into captivity. It seems to me that they could rely on their righteousness and/or leave the lands of the Lamanites' possession, like Nephi did early in the book.

I've always really admired Moroni because of the verse that says that if all men had been, and were, and ever would be like unto him, the very powers of hell would be shaken forever. But I was disappointed to read one of his letters today. He just doesn't sound very nice, kind or fair. Ammoron sends to Moroni to ask him to exchange prisoners. Moroni writes back telling Ammoron how ignorant he and the rest of the Lamanites are concerning the gospel (I would tell you these things if ye were capable of hearkening unto them), he tells him he is a child of hell, and he refuses to negotiate unless the Lamanites will exchange a Nephite man, wife, and children for one Lamanite prisoner.

Ammoron's response to all this is actually pretty admirable, considering his point of view. He says: you have murdered my brother, I am not afraid of your threats, I will exchange prisoners according to your request since I want my men of war back, so we can fight you. Furthermore, we don't know anything about a God, but neither do you, and if there is a God, he has made us as well as you! And if there is a hell, won't God send you there for murdering my brother?

Anyway, I don't think I'm getting what I am supposed to be getting out of these war chapters. Peace out.

NaBoMoReMo Update

An update on the first week of my NaBoMoReMo: It's been 7 days and I have already read to Jacob 5. I haven't read the Book of Mormon so quickly in quite some time! I usually prefer to take a chapter or even a verse very slowly, looking up relevant scriptures and studying thematically. So it's interesting to be able to see the events in quick succession. I'll just note for you a few things that I saw from reading the Book of Mormon this way.




1. Two stumbling blocks. We all know that the main stumbling block for the Jews was not being able to accept Jesus as the Messiah. 2 Nephi 18:14 (quoting Isaiah 8) says that Christ will be a sanctuary for those who accept him, but for the house of Israel he is "a stone of stumbling" and a "rock of offense." Normally I wouldn't have read 2 Nephi 26 so soon after reading chapter 18. But since I did I noticed Nephi's explanation that the Gentiles must also be convinced that Jesus is the Christ. (v. 12) Their stumbling block is a bit different than that of the Jews. In 26:20 Nephi describes the greatness of the Gentiles' stumbling block: they are lifted up in pride. They have built up many churches but deny the power of God, preaching their own wisdom and making money in the bargain. I sure recognize Jewish and Gentile tendencies in these two descriptions!

2. The second thing I noticed was a repetition by Nephi of the same Isaiah passage. In 2 Nephi 21:4-9 Nephi quotes the famous passage from Isaiah 11 where the lamb shall lie down with the lion. (Except it actually says the wolf shall dwell with the lamb--the lion eats straw like an ox. We must get that lamb and lion image from Hymn #2!) Later in 2 Nephi 30:9-15 Nephi repeats that very same passage. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain. That's important to me, and I'm glad that Nephi had such strong feelings for the establishment of peace among both man and beast in the last days that he repeated this message twice.


There were many other interesting passages in my Book of Mormon reading, such as the reasons for the Nephites following the Law of Moses when they had already accepted Christ, but these are just two that I hadn't noticed before and that jumped out at me as a result of reading quickly straight through.

If you are reading the Book of Mormon this month, tell us if you've noticed anything new!

Brag Along With BiV!

If you don't already have enough to do during the month of December, join NaBoMoReMo in reading the Book of Mormon. When President Hinckley challenged us to read the Book of Mormon two years ago, I took the challenge. I didn't really notice any special blessings regarding my testimony or the Spirit of the Lord in my home, but I did get the blessing of not feeling guilty when church leaders mentioned the challenge over the pulpit. I liked doing it, and I'm sure it was good for me. I also got bragging rights for having taken the challenge and finished the Book in the time allotted. So I've decided to do it again with NaBoMoReMo. They've got a nifty little site up with a reading schedule and a place to blog about it and get motivated. I'll be bragging, I mean blogging about my experiences here. Join the group, and let me know how you're doing, too!