Jonathan Neville on BOM Translation–Part IV

 

Another subject that Jonathan Neville has written and talked about quite a lot is the supposed influence of Jonathan Edwards in the Book of Mormon translation. The above video is one example among several. Jonathan Edwards was a Christian thinker, writer, and theologian of the Puritan era who was born around 300 years ago, and whose writings and sermons have had a lot of influence in shaping the thinking of later Protestant theologians and preachers, especially in the US. Spencer Kraus, in an article titled: “Jonathan Edwards’s Unique Role in an Imagined Church History,” published in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, June 2022, does a good job of discrediting Jonathan Neville’s arguments, and exposing their logical inconsistencies and flaws. Link

But I think there is one interesting point that Spencer Kraus has missed. How did Jonathan Neville come up with such an extensive (but at the same time shallow and superficial) list of similar words, phrases, and expressions, between the Book of Mormon and Jonathan Edwards’ writings—with all the flawed thinking, and embarrassingly obvious inconsistencies in his comparisons, that Spencer Kraus has correctly pointed out? I think that I know the answer. I don’t think that Jonathan Neville has made a careful, scholarly study of Jonathan Edwards’ writings—or of the Book of Mormon for that matter. If he had, he would have recognized the obvious flaws and logical inconsistencies in his comparisons that Kraus has pointed out. I believe what he has done is that he has used a computerized file comparison software tool to make the comparisons, and has accepted the results without looking into them too deeply, to find out if the results are meaningful or superficial.

There are several file comparison software tools, both commercial and free, some of which are very sophisticated, and can carry out such a detailed file comparison between two texts, and show all the similar words, phrases, and expressions. A Google search for “file comparison software tools” will produce many interesting results. There is even a Wikipedia article about it called, “Comparison of file comparison tools,” which lists and compares many different ones, and lists their properties, and what they are able to do (Link). My guess is that he has used one of these software tools to carry out such a comparison, and used the results without looking too deeply into their contextual relevance.

Such a file comparison between the text of the Book of Mormon and Jonathan Edwards’ writings—he being a Puritan theologian heavily influenced by the KJV—is likely to produce many such outward similarities. I get the impression that that is what he has done. I am guessing that if you carried out such a file comparison between the Book of Mormon and Paradise Lost & Paradise Regained by John Milton for example, or Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer, or Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan, you are likely to find many such similarities as well. So you could conclude that Joseph Smith had borrowed his ideas from them as well. So as Spencer Kraus has quite correctly exposed, Jonathan Neville’s arguments about the supposed influence of Jonathan Edwards on the translation of the Book of Mormon are entirely flawed, baseless, and speculative, and have zero credibility as far as establishing a source or origin for the translation of the Book of Mormon is concerned. But with this additional information provided, Spencer Kraus and others will be able to do an even more effective job of exposing the flaws in Neville’s arguments.

Try using such a file comparison software tool to compare the text of the Book of Mormon with Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll, or Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, or Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien, or Peter Pan by JM Barrie etc., and see what results you will get! My guess is that if you did, you will find some similarities! Then you can make a lot of money by publishing a book, claiming that Joseph Smith had borrowed his ideas from these! 😄

Jonathan Neville on BOM Translation–Part III

 

I just found this third video on the Scripture Notes channel, in which Oak Norton interviews Jonathan Neville on various aspects of the Book of Mormon translation. In this video, the focus is on the “two sets of plates” used as the source of the translation of the Book of Mormon. The first set is considered to be the original plates housed in a “stone box” that was delivered to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni, which included the “book of Lehi,” which was the first thing that Joseph Smith translated—comprising the first “116 pages” of the translated record that was lost by Martin Harris. The second set of plates was an abridgement of the record of Nephi by Nephi himself, which the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to translate as a substitute for the 116 lost pages of the initial translation attempt. The Lord commanded Joseph Smith not to retranslate the book of Lehi, or the portion that he had initially translated; but instead to translate this abridgement by Nephi (which contained the same material as the book of Lehi—and a bit more). Jonathan Neville argues that this second set of plates, which Joseph Smith translated as a substitute for the translation of the book of Lehi which was lost, was not included in the original set of records housed in the “stone box” that was delivered to Joseph Smith by Moroni; but was a separate set of records kept in the original “repository” of all the records; and was give to Joseph Smith separately later by one of the famed “three Nephites”. That is the main theme of the video. The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not support this account. The Book of Mormon is our most reliable source of information on this subject, and it tells a different story. It does not confirm the account favored by Jonathan Neville. Nephi in the Book of Mormon provides us with the following information:

1 Nephi 9:

2 And now, as I have spoken concerning these [smaller] plates, behold they are not the plates upon which I make a full account of the history of my people; for the plates upon which I make a full account of my people I have given the name of Nephi; wherefore, they are called the plates of Nephi, after mine own name; and these plates also are called the plates of Nephi.

3 Nevertheless, I have received a commandment of the Lord that I should make these [smaller] plates, for the special purpose that there should be an account engraven of the ministry of my people.

4 Upon the other [larger] plates should be engraven an account of the reign of the kings, and the wars and contentions of my people; wherefore these [smaller] plates are for the more part of the ministry; and the other [larger] plates are for the more part of the reign of the kings and the wars and contentions of my people.

5 Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me to make these [smaller] plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

6 But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is. Amen.

1 Nephi 19:

1 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded me, wherefore I did make plates of ore that I might engraven upon them the record of my people. And upon the plates which I made I did engraven the record of my father, and also our journeyings in the wilderness, and the prophecies of my father; and also many of mine own prophecies have I engraven upon them.

2 And I knew not at the time when I made them that I should be commanded of the Lord to make these [smaller] plates; wherefore, the record of my father, and the genealogy of his fathers, and the more part of all our proceedings in the wilderness are engraven upon those first [larger] plates of which I have spoken; wherefore, the things which transpired before I made these [smaller] plates are, of a truth, more particularly made mention upon the first plates.

3 And after I had made these [smaller] plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi, received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon these [smaller] plates; and that the things which were written should be kept for the instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord.

4 Wherefore, I, Nephi, did make a record upon the other [larger] plates, which gives an account, or which gives a greater account of the wars and contentions and destructions of my people. And this have I done, and commanded my people what they should do after I was gone; and that these [smaller] plates should be handed down from one generation to another, or from one prophet to another, until further commandments of the Lord.

2 Nephi 4:

14 For I, Nephi, was constrained to speak unto them, according to his word; for I had spoken many things unto them, and also my father, before his death; many of which sayings are written upon mine other [larger] plates; for a more history part are written upon mine other plates.

15 And upon these [smaller plates] I write the things of my soul, and many of the scriptures which are engraven upon the plates of brass. For my soul delighteth in the scriptures, and my heart pondereth them, and writeth them for the learning and the profit of my children.

2 Nephi 5:

29 And I, Nephi, had kept the records upon my plates, which I had made, of my people thus far.

30 And it came to pass that the Lord God said unto me: Make other plates; and thou shalt engraven many things upon them which are good in my sight, for the profit of thy people.

31 Wherefore, I, Nephi, to be obedient to the commandments of the Lord, went and made these [smaller] plates upon which I have engraven these things.

• • •

33 And if my people desire to know the more particular part of the history of my people they must search mine other [larger] plates.

What that tells us is that God knew in his foreknowledge that the translation of the initial part of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith would be lost, through the transgression of Martin Harris, and an error of judgment by Joseph Smith; and he made contingency arrangements to ensure that the text of the Book of Mormon would not be compromised, or suffer any loss as a consequence. The smaller plates of Nephi fully compensate for the loss of the initial translation pages—and add more to it. The second thing that the Book of Mormon informs us is that this smaller account prepared by Nephi was included by Mormon in the original set of plates deposited in the “stone box”:

Words of Mormon:

3 And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.

4 And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass—

5 Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people.

6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.

7 And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will.

What that proves is that the original smaller account, or abridgement made by Nephi, which Joseph Smith translated as a substitute for the translation of the book of Lehi, which had been lost, was included by Mormon in the original set of plates housed in the stone box, which contained the complete text from which the Book of Mormon was later translated. Nothing needed to be imported from outside of that original collection, delivered to Joseph Smith by Moroni. And in Doctrine and Covenants section 10, the Lord provides us with additional clarification and insight into the whole affair, as follows:

Doctrine and Covenants 10:

38 And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands [lost], is engraven upon the plates of Nephi;

39 Yea, and you remember it was said in those writings that a more particular account was given of these things upon the [smaller] plates of Nephi.

40 And now, because the account which is engraven upon the [smaller] plates of Nephi is more particular concerning the things which, in my wisdom, I would bring to the knowledge of the people in this account—

41 Therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the [smaller] plates of Nephi, down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin, or until you come to that which you have translated, which you have retained;

42 And behold, you shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words.

43 I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.

44 Behold, they have only got a part, or an abridgment of the account of Nephi.

45 Behold, there are many things engraven upon the [smaller] plates of Nephi which do throw greater views upon my gospel; therefore, it is wisdom in me that you should translate this first part of the engravings of Nephi, and send forth in this work.

46 And, behold, all the remainder of this work does contain all those parts of my gospel which my holy prophets, yea, and also my disciples, desired in their prayers should come forth unto this people.

Note especially that in verse 42, the Lord identifies the text of the Book of Mormon as his words, not Joseph Smith’s words (contrary to Jonathan Neville’s implied suggestions). And further into the Book of Mormon we have the following interesting reference:

2 Nephi 27:

19 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that the Lord God will deliver again the book and the words thereof to him that is not learned; and the man that is not learned [i.e. Joseph Smith] shall say: I am not learned.

20 Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee.

All of which is contrary to Jonathan Neville’s wild speculations. Joseph Smith was not learned, and he could have only translated the Book of Mormon by means of a revelation from God. So to summarize, we note the following:

1. God knew in his foreknowledge that the initial part of the translation of the Book of Mormon made by Joseph Smith would be lost.

2. Therefore God, in his infinite wisdom, made contingency arrangements to ensure that the loss of the initial translated pages would not compromise the integrity and essential content of the Book of Mormon.

3. He did this by first instructing Nephi to make a smaller, abridged version of his record, which focused less on the historical details, and more on the teachings, preaching, and instructions.

4. Secondly much later on, when Mormon compiled his sacred history which was later on to come forth as the Book of Mormon, he was instructed by the Lord to include in it this smaller account, or abridgement that had been previously prepared by Nephi.

5. Interestingly, neither Nephi, nor Mormon were informed by the Lord as to the reasons why this additional material needed to be written by Nephi, or later on, to be added to the collection of plates comprising the text of the Book of Mormon compiled by Mormon. What the Lord had required of them seemed superfluous and puzzling to both. Nephi, and later on Mormon, were both puzzled by the Lord’s requirement to add this extra material to the collection of records, which seemed superfluous to both. But they trusted the Lord that he knew what he was doing, or knew something that they didn’t know, and did what he commanded them to do. We are the lucky ones to have this information now supplied to us in Doctrine and Covenants section 10.

Conclusion: Jonathan Neville’s theorizing about the “two sets of plates” (like his theories about the translation of the Book of Mormon) is entirely baseless and speculative, and has no foundation in history, scholarship, revelation, scripture, or the Book of Mormon. All the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated were fully contained in the original set of plates delivered to Joseph Smith in a stone box by Moroni, with no extraneous material needing to be added to it later from any other source.

Jonathan Neville on BOM Translation–Part II

 

Following my previous blog post in which I had discussed Jonathan Neville’s views on the translation of the Book of Mormon, I have just noticed another recent video, interviewing Jonathan Neville on the same subject, hosted by Steven Murphy, owner of the YouTube channel “Mormonism with the Murph” seen above. It is a long video, more than 2½ hours long, most of which I am going to skip. I will briefly comment on something that was said right at the end. At around the 2:33:52 timestamp, Steven asks Jonathan the following question:

“But would you see it not compatible being both (other than, you know, the demonstration explaining); but you wouldn’t see it as sometimes using the spectacles, sometimes using the seer stone, throughout the translation? Would you see them as contradictory? It couldn’t have been both?”

The question he is asking is, why couldn’t Joseph Smith have used both instruments, or either instrument interchangeably, during the translation process? Why did it have to be only one of the instruments, and exclude the other? To that then Jonathan Neville gives the following answer:

“… Well for me it goes beyond that though, because the Urim and Thummim was specifically designed for the translation; and so in my view, the whole narrative collapses if you say, well, he could just use the seer stone; because then Moroni’s instructions about how they were preserved with the plates so that he could translate; there is no reason for any of that. I am sure you have seen the meme that has Joseph looking in a hat, and it says, you know, the prophets recorded all this history, and abridged it, and preserved the place, or anything just so Joseph …”

There are several issues with that argument. Firstly, the Urim and Thummim was not just an instrument of translation; it was first and foremost, and primarily an instrument of revelation. That was its primary purpose and function from the beginning, as described in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere. It could also be used as an instrument of translation, because it was an instrument of revelation. But that was not its exclusive, or primary purpose. That is how it is described in the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 8:

13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters; and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not, and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla, is the man that is commanded to do these things; and who has this high gift from God.

15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.

16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator, and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.

17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed; or rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them; and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

18 Thus God has provided a means that man through faith might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

So the Urim and Thummim was not exclusively an instrument translation. It was primarily an instrument of revelation, which could also be used as a means of translating unknown languages, because it was an instrument of revelation. Thus potentially any instrument of revelation could be used to translate the plates, not just the U&T. And we know that over time, Joseph Smith’s spiritual gifts and powers were developed to such an extent that he was able to receive revelation from God, or to translate, without using any “instruments” at all. We also know that over time in sacred history, God has provided men with several different instruments of revelation, not just the U&T. In the Book of Mormon, we have the example of the Liahona, which is described as a compass, but was also an instrument of revelation (1 Nephi 16:26-30). The seer stone that Joseph Smith had; as well as the “gift of Aaron,” and other spiritual gifts of revelation that was given to Oliver Cowdery (D&C 8), are other examples. The difference between the Urim and Thummim and other instruments of revelation it seems was that the U&T was a much more powerful means of receiving revelation than the rest. But all of them were instruments of revelation, and all of them could potentially have been used to do the work of translation—or none at all, as was the case with Joseph Smith later on. The fact that Moroni told Joseph Smith that the Urim and Thummim had been supplied with the plates for the purpose of their translation, does not rule out all possibility of any other similar instruments, or spiritual gifts, might likewise be used for the same purpose. That is simply not a valid logical conclusion.

After that, the conversation turns to the question of the need or usefulness of the plates at all, if Joseph Smith was able to translate without seeing or using the plates, as some of the accounts of the translation seem to suggest. Here is a quote taken from a book by Richard Bushman apparently:

“Among Latter-day Saints, the question is, why the plates at all? As long as it was believed Joseph read from the plates through the Urim and Thummim, their purpose was clear; but if he read the text from a seer stone, why the plates lay covered on a table, as many now believe? What part did they play? Why the effort to preserve them throughout the centuries? Why the trouble to recover and protect them? Why their presence? Sometimes it looks as if the plates were both essential to translation and useless?”

That is a very unwise and disingenuous comment. Firstly, as explained in my previous post, Joseph Smith never explained to anyone precisely how the Book of Mormon was translated. Secondly, the text of the Book of Mormon had to have been written by someone, on something, somewhere, and at some point in time, for it later to have been “translated”—regardless of how it was translated. How could Joseph Smith have “translated” something that had never been “written” by anyone, on something, somewhere, and at some point in time—regardless of the translation process? We also know that Joseph Smith was later commissioned by the Lord to make an inspired translation of the Bible; and he was able to do so purely by revelation, without looking at any of the ancient manuscripts—some of which would have been lost by then. Shall we then conclude that those original manuscripts had been useless, and need never have been written in the first place, because Joseph was later able to translate them without seeing the manuscripts anyway? That is absurd. It is a foolish argument. And of course, the plates served another important purpose; they were later shown to witnesses by the power of God, who were then able to testify to the world that they had seen them, and that they were genuine.