The miraculous translation of the Book of Mormon is one of the greatest evidences of its authenticity and divine origin.
That an unlearned young man who struggled to write a coherent letter could dictate a complex, 500-plus-page volume in sixty-five working days is astounding. He did this while newly married, maintaining a household, working to support his family, and without notes, outlines, or a personal library.
The manuscript was produced in a single draft through steady, uninterrupted dictation. It contains ancient Israelite literary patterns, multiple narrative voices, long doctrinal discourses, authentic Hebrew structures, and detailed sermons that harmonize with both Old and New Testament theology. It also presents doctrines that were contrary to the Protestant beliefs of his day, such as the premortal existence of the soul, an embodied and personal Christ, the plan of salvation, and the nature of covenants and priesthood authority. None of these reflected the theological environment of frontier New York.
Witnesses of the Translation
The translation took place in full view of multiple scribes, including Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith, Martin Harris, and members of the Whitmer family. All gave consistent descriptions of the same process. Joseph dictated for hours at a time, spelling out difficult names when needed, but otherwise speaking fluidly and without hesitation. He did not refer back to earlier sections, even though the narrative structure contains flashbacks, embedded sermons, shifting narrators, and long chronological sequences. After breaks, he resumed the dictation exactly where he had left off without having anything read back to him.
The scribes confirm that Joseph did not consult books, notes, or manuscripts of any kind. They also describe that Joseph did not know the language on the plates. The words were revealed to him by God through the interpreters or seer stone, and Joseph simply spoke what he saw. The scribe then read the line back, and Joseph confirmed whether it was correct.
This process is unlike any other translation effort in history. It did not rely on Joseph’s linguistic ability or education, because he had neither. The translation unfolded as revelation, and the consistency, speed, and doctrinal depth of the text exceed what any reasonable expectation of Joseph’s natural ability could produce. The Book of Mormon has become a source of truth for millions of people, and its message continues to stand as the most compelling witness of the gift and power of God by which it came forth.
Joseph Smith Was Not Competent to Author the Book of Mormon
Evidence from Joseph’s Own Writing
Those who knew Joseph best knew that he struggled significantly with spelling and writing, especially at the time the Book of Mormon was being translated.
This is one of the oldest records we have of his own handwriting, and it comes four years after the translation of the Book of Mormon was complete, at a time when Joseph had significantly increased his education, particularly through his work on the Bible translation with Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon.
If this was his writing after several years of intensive writing and informal “home schooling,” imagine what his writing would have been like four years earlier when he began translating the Book of Mormon.
Critics Knew Joseph Couldn’t Have Translated It
Because the spiritual fruits of the Book of Mormon were so real and so immediate, with hundreds and then thousands of converts, the earliest critics who actually knew Joseph Smith understood how impossible it would have been for him to create such a book on his own. The first anti-Mormons Philastus Hurlbut and Eber Howe, gathered hostile testimonies against Joseph to prove that Joseph lacked the education, skill, and discipline to produce a Book like the Book of Mormon.
Solomon Spaulding Manuscript
Since Joseph could not have written it, they tried to explain the book by claiming he had stolen it from someone else. They argued that Joseph secretly found and copied Solomon Spaulding’s unpublished manuscript and repackaged it as the Book of Mormon. This theory became the foundation of early anti-Mormon literature and was the accepted origin story by non believers for decades.
But once Spaulding’s manuscript was actually discovered, the theory collapsed. It had nothing in common with the Book of Mormon. There were no Nephites, no Christianity, no sermons, no theology, and no similarity in plot, structure, or language.
Sidney Rigdon Wrote the Book of Mormon
Forced to abandon the Spaulding explanation, critics shifted to a new claim. Now they argued that Sidney Rigdon, an intelligent preacher with biblical knowledge, must have written the Book of Mormon and somehow delivered the manuscript to Joseph.
This theory also fell apart as there is no historical evidence that Joseph and Sidney ever met before the Book of Mormon was published. All available records show that Rigdon first learned about the book only after missionaries brought him a copy. Even after Rigdon later broke with Church leadership, he never claimed authorship or involvement in its creation.
Joseph Smith Was a Literary Genius
With both the Spaulding and Rigdon theories discredited, critics eventually changed their story completely. By the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when few people still had personal knowledge of Joseph Smith, the old argument that he was “too ignorant to write such a book” was replaced with the opposite claim.
Now Joseph Smith was a literary genius who produced the Book of Mormon from his own imagination. This directly contradicts the earlier anti-Mormon position, but it allowed later critics to avoid the Spaulding and Rigdon problems.
The genius theory also fails when weighed against firsthand evidence. Every eyewitness to the translation described Joseph dictating without notes, without manuscripts, and without revisions. His personal writings show he struggled with grammar and composition throughout his life.
If he had been a literary genius, why did he never write anything else even remotely similar? Why did he not produce profitable books or publish other works when he spent most of his life in financial poverty?
The only explanation that makes any sense is the one that was made by those who were present while the Book of Mormon was being translated. The Book of Mormon came forth by the gift and power of God.
“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.”Isaiah 29:11-12
How the Book of Mormon Was Translated
The translation of the Book of Mormon followed the pattern described in scripture, using sacred instruments God had prepared for revealing ancient records. Joseph Smith received with the plates two stones set in silver bows, called the interpreters. He also used a separate seer stone he possessed.
We don’t know exactly how the translation process worked by the gift and power of God, but eyewitnesses including Emma Smith, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Joseph Knight all described a similar process. Joseph placed the interpreters or seer stone into a hat to block out external light, and in the darkness characters from the plates appeared along with the English words to be written. He dictated these words to a scribe, who read them back for accuracy. If anything was incorrect, the words would not disappear until they were written correctly. Joseph dictated for long hours without notes, books, or manuscripts, and after any interruption he resumed exactly where he had left off.
Translation Only Worked in a Spiritual State
The firsthand accounts also show that the translation depended on Joseph’s spiritual state. If he was upset, distracted, or not spiritually focused, he could not translate until he prayed and regained the right frame of mind. Across all firsthand and early secondhand sources, the historical record is consistent. The translation did not rely on Joseph’s education or linguistic skill. It unfolded through instruments God prepared and through direct revelation, by the gift and power of God.
Understanding this divine method of translation also explains how Joseph Smith the Seer was able to receive revelations and later translate the Book of Moses, Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price as well as portions of the Bible when he had no original sources.
Check out this post for more details about the Book of Mormon translation.
Was Joseph Just Reading and Already Translated Text?
Research by Royal Skousen’s shows that the Book of Mormon translation was beyond Joseph Smith’s ability to compose or translate in the normal sense. By analyzing the original and printer’s manuscripts, Skousen demonstrates that Joseph was likely dictating a fixed English text rather than creating language, planning structure, or revising content. The translation process itself becomes one of the strongest evidences that the Book of Mormon did not originate with Joseph Smith but came forth by the gift and power of God.
Key evidences covered in the article include:
- The Book of Mormon uses forms of English Joseph Smith did not speak or write
- Hebrew grammar and structures preserved in the English text
- Word-for-word and letter-level control, including spelling of unfamiliar names
- Resuming dictation mid-sentence after long interruptions without review
- No outlines, drafts, rewrites, or evidence of narrative planning
- Quoting passages that had not yet been translated in dictation order
- Stable complexity from beginning to end without signs of improvisation
- Normal human transmission errors consistent with dictation, not fabrication
- The title page originating as an ancient-style colophon at the end of the record
While for me the Book of Mormon translation process is miraculous and faith promoting, Thomas Faulk
tries to argue that it is disturbing because, in his view, the Church taught a simple plate-to-book translation story and only recently “admitted” that Joseph used a seer stone and a hat to block out the light.
And the evidence to prove that the Church has been deceiving its members?
Yeah, pictures.
Because artwork by independent artists trying to convey a message through art is always an accurate representation of what “the Church was trying to teach.”
Did he really think these were meant to be accurate? Did he ignore all of the history and accounts stating that nobody could see the plates other than Joseph, yet in those pictures, if Oliver simply looked up, he could clearly see them?
The reality is that the early Saints always understood the translation process as occurring by the gift and power of God through the Urim and Thummim. It also appears that later in the translation, Joseph did not even need any seer stones and was able to receive the translation by inspiration alone.
Changes in Culture
What has changed over the last 200 years is our culture and our understanding of what “translation by the gift and power of God” means.
Because things like seer stones and revelation in that form are no longer part of our culture, people like Thomas assumed the translation happened the way it was depicted in the pictures he saw when he payed attention in Primary. There is a good chance his Primary teachers also assumed that. The reality is that most members of the Church are not trained historians, and the Church does not focus on—or offer a dedicated Sunday School class on—“how the Book of Mormon was translated,” because that is not the most important thing.
The important thing is the message of the book, the principles it teaches, and how those principles help people feel the Spirit, desire to improve, and draw closer to God. That has always been, and will always be, the focus of Primary, Sunday School, and seminary lessons.
This was never a shock to me because I grew up in a home with a fairly scholarly father. My dad actually taught a community class in Bountiful about the translation of the Book of Mormon. I was a surprised when I first saw what is presented as the Church’s image of Joseph Smith’s brown seer stone, as to me a seer stone was clear and translucent so as to work like a screen. I always knew that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by the Urim and Thummim and that at times he also used a seer stone. It made perfect sense to me that he would place it in a hat to block out glare and help him focus.
Other Book of Mormon Translation Claims
Below is a brief rebuttal to the most misleading claims in this section of Letter For My Wife. The goal is not to answer every point, but to correct the claims that rely on false framing, selective omission, or misrepresentation.
Claim 1: “The Church taught a simple plate-to-book translation and only recently admitted the seer stone.”
This claim is false. The use of a seer stone and a hat was recorded in early sources long before the modern era. Emma Smith, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and others described the process in the 1800s, and these accounts were available long before the 2013 essays. What changed more than anything was modern cultural familiarity with folk practices and revelation, not the existence of the historical sources. For documentation and examples, see FAIR’s rebuttal: FAIR rebuttal, Part 5.
Claim 2: “The Church knowingly used art and education to deceive members.”
This claim is an assumption, not evidence. Faulk treats religious artwork as if it were an official technical explanation of translation mechanics. Church-commissioned artwork is meant to teach broad religious ideas, not document process details with historical precision. Early Saints repeatedly stated the plates were not meant to be viewed, even when present in the room, which is one reason artistic depictions often conflict with eyewitness descriptions. See: FAIR rebuttal, Part 6.
Claim 3: “The seer stone was hidden for nearly 200 years.”
This is misleading. The Church did not “hide” the seer stone so much as it did not emphasize it. The stone’s existence and its reported use were discussed in historical sources available to researchers and historians for decades. The 2015 publication of a photo reflects modern interest in transparency and historical artifacts, not a sudden reversal or “admission.” See: FAIR rebuttal, Part 7.
Claim 4: “Joseph’s use of a seer stone proves folk magic fraud carried into religion.”
This argument relies on guilt by association. Faulk correctly notes that folk practices existed in early America, then assumes similarity equals fraud. That conclusion does not follow. Also, the 1826 legal story is completely taken out of context; the surviving record is fragmentary and does not support the claim that Joseph was convicted of fraud. FAIR addresses the exaggerations and missing context in its Letter For My Wife responses here: FAIR’s Letter For My Wife rebuttal series.
Claim 5: “If Joseph used the same stone for treasure seeking and translation, his credibility collapses.”
This is a philosophical assertion, not a historical conclusion. Even if someone dislikes the idea of a seer stone, that does not explain the evidence for how the text came forth. Manuscript-level research (including Royal Skousen’s work) shows the translation process does not resemble composition, planning, or conventional deception.
The “folk magic fraud” narrative does not account for the controlled wording, the spelling behavior, the continuity of dictation after long breaks, internal cross-references, or the lack of drafts and rewrites.
Conclusion
The main issue with Letter for My Wife’s chapter about the Book of Mormon translation is not that it raises unusual history. The issue is that it reframes documented facts as institutional deception, treats symbolic artwork as doctrine, and replaces evidence with assumptions about motive. When the sources are read in context, the “disturbing admission” storyline is just vain attempts to justify disbelief.