© 2025 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
This is less a book review and more a full blown temper tantrum thrown by an academic enraged that anyone other than a full time historian would dare challenge his pet theory. Gardner only gets two things right – that Lucas and Neville frequently incorrectly use the term Urim and Thummim to only mean the Nephite Interpreters when it was used to mean multiple revelatory objects early in church history (including both the seer stone and the Nephite Interpreters) and that their theory that Joseph’s translation process was more like a traditional translation method where the translator has to work out which words to use in rendering a final translation is weak.
But these are largely making mountains out of molehills. His rant over their use of Urim and Thummin actively ignores that they mean the Nephite Interpreters and that they present significant evidence from primary sources involved in the translation showing that the Book of Mormon translation was performed solely with the Nephite Interpreters.
I’m sorry, but a quote from David Whitmer 50 years later about something he never saw happen is not as weighty as Oliver Cowdrey saying he knows for a fact that the Nephite Interpreters were the tool used to translate the Book of Mormon considering 95% of the book is in his hand. That historians give more credit to the latter sources over the earlier, primary accounts is a failure of their craft and produces shoddy conclusions.
And the translation rate debate is irrelevant and all built on assumptions on both sides about what they think about how things happened.
As a result, Gardner’s entire review is more of a poisoning the well fallacy full of ad hominem invective than it is an actual book review.
If I were in his position, I would be ashamed to have written this and would want it removed.
I am certainly not ashamed.
I enjoyed this review, and found it very helpful.
I did find a small number of typos though and thought I’d share them below so you can correct them. Feel free to delete this comment afterwards. – I love the bother of Jared typo 🙂
The Problem of Definitions:
By the time Joseph Smtih’s later history was written in 1839
This stone matches some descriptions of the seer stone used by Joseph Smtih
The problem with stones
… the bother of Jared:
Seers Using Stones
.. he releaved them of the strain.
Using invective as a substitute for academic srgumentation
I think I’ll leave this post, just to make sure that the rumor that I am infallible can be squashed. Oh, wait. There never nhs been such a rumor. I’m glad that finding those typos didn’t totally detract from your enjoyment of the review. For those interested, the fix is in. If you go looking for these typos, they should no longer be there. Thank you for letting us know.
Oh my… I just realized we’re being treated to a double-barrel, Gardner AND Lindsay shotgun pushback on Neville and Lucas!
I am uniquely well prepared to receive these essential contributions to the BoM translation puzzle BECAUSE I’ve been studying Eld. Uchtdorf’s Oct 24 Conf talk … “Nourish the Roots….. Don’t Mistake the Branches for the Roots …”!
Elder Uchtdorf’s encouragement, and his footnote 10, clear up this U&T, SITH, Interpreters controversy once and for all …. how timely….
“For example, if you want a stronger testimony of the Book of Mormon, focus on its witness of Jesus Christ. Notice how the Book of Mormon testifies of Him, what it teaches about Him, and how it invites and inspires you to come unto Him.”
Uchtdorf Footnote 10: “… Is it helpful to learn from the accounts of scribes and others about the details of how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon? It is for some. But none of this constitutes a lasting testimony that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. For that, you need to find the Savior in the Book of Mormon, to hear His voice speaking to you. Once this happens, it won’t matter to you where the ancient city of Zarahemla was actually located or what the Urim and Thummim looked like. Those are branches that can be pruned off your tree if needed, but the tree will remain.” End quote.
Many wonderful church historians and authors and lawyers have helped strengthen my testimony of Jesus Christ as found in the BoM! Thank you. But, many church historians, authors and lawyers have also confused me.
After reading Neville’s/ Lucas books and following R. Skousen’s BMCTP for 15 years and after reading S. Carmack’s, J. Welch’s, Brant Gardner’s, Grant Hardy’s, etc, etc… books & articles over the last many, many, many years and after having studied the BoM for the last 50 years I can authoritatively put this U&T translation mystery (and the strict vs loose vs. iron clad control head-scratcher) in its final resting place and give it a proper burial. Although I’m not a scholar or lawyer or historian … my authoritative answer is: “The BoM was translated by the gift and power of God by means of the interpreters that came with the plates. The BoM is a remarkable book of depth, beauty and complexity. The BoM is a miraculous work and a miracle. The BoM is the handbook on the atonement of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith has a huge prophetic gift that scholars, layman, lawyers and historians barely understand. Spend your time seeking to hear the Savior’s “voice speaking to you” in the BoM”!
I wish more faithful LDS authors, historians, lawyers & scholars would lead their readers to a better articulated summary than the above conclusion I’ve finally come to on my own.
Many historians, authors, historians, scholars, historians, commentators, historians and podcasters confuse themselves, then leave the church. They also confuse others with this constant back & forth.
Thank you Eld. Uchtdorf for your tree-trimming counsel.
I also read in one of the Oct 24 conf. talks that LDS Christians are under a permanent commandment to avoid contention … at all costs. In that same talk Pres. Oaks reminds scholars that some permanent commandments, to avoid contention, have taken considerable time to be fully implemented throughout the church. No duh!
In summary, I’ll take the Gift of the HG over historians & lawyers.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
Yours Truly, Blair Lucas (no relation)