§
INTERPRETER
A Journal of Latter-day Saint
Faith and Scholarship
Volume 53 · 2022 · Pages 185 - 198
A Rejoinder to Jonathan Neville’s
“Response to Recent Reviews”
Spencer Kraus
Offprint Series
© 2022 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0
International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444
Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.
ISSN 2372-1227 (print)
ISSN 2372-126X (online)
The goal of The Interpreter Foundation is to increase understanding of scripture through careful
scholarly investigation and analysis of the insights provided by a wide range of ancillary disciplines,
including language, history, archaeology, literature, culture, ethnohistory, art, geography, law, politics,
philosophy, etc. Interpreter will also publish articles advocating the authenticity and historicity of
LDS scripture and the Restoration, along with scholarly responses to critics of the LDS faith. We
hope to illuminate, by study and faith, the eternal spiritual message of the scriptures—that Jesus is
the Christ.
Although the Board fully supports the goals and teachings of the Church, The Interpreter Foundation
is an independent entity and is neither owned, controlled by nor affiliated with The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, or with Brigham Young University. All research and opinions provided
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 journal is a weekly publication of the Interpreter Foundation, a non-profit organization
located at InterpreterFoundation.org. You can find other articles published in our journal at
Journal.InterpreterFoundation.org. You may subscribe to this journal at InterpreterFoundation.
org/annual-print-subscription.
A Rejoinder to Jonathan Neville’s
“Response to Recent Reviews”
Spencer Kraus
Abstract: Jonathan Neville has offered a response to my two recent reviews
of his works; however, in his response, Neville offers a poor defense regarding
what he wrote and misrepresents my reviews of his works. As such, I present
the following rejoinder in response to Neville’s concerns.
J
onathan Neville has offered some thoughts regarding my two recent
reviews, and I am happy to discuss and defend what I wrote. In Neville’s
response, he claims that I offered “caricatures” of his arguments that are
“inaccurate” and that I “omitted” context in my reviews.1 I do not believe
this is an accurate assessment, and Neville misrepresents what I wrote
and ignores citations that he himself included in his books to which I
responded. Ultimately, his response fails to defend his works.
After offering a brief overview of his Demonstration Hypothesis
(which I will discuss shortly), Neville states the important context to
be aware of is the competing claims regarding the origin of the Book
of Mormon. This is true, and it is context with which many believers
in the Restoration are intimately familiar. Neville cites Eber D. Howe’s
Mormonism Unvailed as proof for his view of competing origins, but
misunderstands and misappropriates Howe’s arguments to apparently
make this an issue regarding how the Book of Mormon was translated.
This is not the issue for Howe, however. The issue for him— and the
entire basis of his book—is not how the Book of Mormon was translated,
but whether it was translated at all.
1. Jonathan Neville, “A Man that Can Translate and Infinite Goodness: A
Response to Recent Reviews,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and
Scholarship 53 (2022): 172.
186 • Interpreter 53 (2022)
Howe believed that Joseph Smith was a fraud and the Book of
Mormon was false. Latter-day Saints claim otherwise. Howe, in his work,
relates two different options for the translation of the Book of Mormon,
but as I discuss in my review of Neville’s work, he attacks any and all
forms of translation and revelation in modern times. It is disheartening
to see a response defending one’s work avoid dealing with the points
raised in my reviews regarding Howe’s work, and does not bode well for
the rest of Neville’s response.2
In fact, Howe was not the first to claim that a hat was used in the
translation process, with this detail found as early as 1829.3 Another
important witness to the translation of the Book of Mormon came in
1830 from Josiah Stowell, a faithful friend of the prophet Joseph who
staunchly defended the young prophet and never lost his faith in Joseph’s
prophetic gifts. In 1830, as Joseph was (again) on trial for allegedly being
a “disorderly person,” Stowell testified of the translation of the Book of
Mormon in defense of Joseph, stating that: “as aforesaid, the prisoner
[Joseph] said he translated the book of Mormon, prisoner put a certain
stone into his hat, put his face into the crown, then drew the brim of the
hat around his head to prevent Light—he could then see as prisoner said,
and translate the same, the Bible, got from the hill in Palmyra.”4 Should
Joseph had desired to clarify how the Book of Mormon was translated
had this been a factually incorrect statement, that would have been the
perfect opportunity to do so.
Neville does not take these early witnesses of the translation into
consideration when determining that Joseph and Oliver decided to refute
the seer-stone method only in 1834 (without even mentioning the seer
2. For my discussion on Howe and Mormonism Unvailed, see Spencer
Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach to Joseph Smith’s Translation of
Ancient Scripture,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and
Scholarship 52 (2022): 25–28, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/
an-unfortunate-approach-to-joseph-smiths-translation-of-ancient-scripture/.
3. See “Golden Bible,” Palmyra Freeman, August 11, 1829, [2]; Christian
Goodwillie, “Shaker Richard McNemar: The Earliest Book of Mormon Reviewer,”
Journal of Mormon History 37, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 143 also relates an 1831 account
involving the hat. This 1831 account also claims to have been written based on
reports by Oliver Cowdery.
4. “Trial Report, 28 August 1832 [State of New York v. JS–C],” p. [2], The Joseph
Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/trial-report28-august-1832-state-of-new-york-v-js-c/1, emphasis added. Significantly, earlier
in his remarks, Josiah Stowell mentioned seeing a corner of the plates as they were
passed to him through the window.
Kraus, Rejoinder to Neville’s “Response to Recent Reviews” • 187
stone as they did so). Through his focus on and misuse of Mormonism
Unvailed, it could lead a reader to erroneously believe that Howe was the
first to assert this method of translation.
Neville next responds by claiming that “the fulcrum of the translation
issue is the direct conflict” between Joseph and Oliver’s statements when
faced with other witnesses to the translation.5 Similarly, at the outset of
his response, Neville reiterates his Demonstration Hypothesis, claiming
that it offers “a faithful alternative reconciliation … between … what
Joseph and Oliver claimed … and ... what others claimed—that Joseph
produced the Book of Mormon by dictating words that appeared on a
stone he placed in a hat.”6 This is coy rhetoric, used in an attempt to paint
the debate between those who believe Joseph versus those who disbelieve
the prophet. As has been shown in my review and as will be shown again,
this is a false dichotomy upon which to base the debate.
As evidence for his claim, Neville cites three instances of Joseph
claiming that he translated the Book of Mormon with the Urim and
Thummim that Joseph had obtained with the plates (after possibly
implying that I had purposefully left them out of the discussion), and
then claims that “Joseph specified that the sole instrument he used to
translate came with the plates.”7 Except, upon examination, it becomes
obvious that this is a misreading of Joseph’s statements. He does not say
that no seer stone was used or that only one instrument was used —
Neville reads his own presuppositions into Joseph’s statements, as he has
done in his books and as I have discussed at length in my two reviews.
Neville closes this portion of his response by claiming there are three
explanations that Latter-day Saints can make regarding the origins of
the Book of Mormon. He further asserts that “any of these explanations
can be accepted by faithful Latter-day Saints.”8 These explanations are
as follows:
1. Joseph Smith translated the ancient engravings into
English, using “translate” in the ordinary sense of the word
of converting the meaning of a manuscript written in one
language into another language.
2. Joseph Smith (and/or confederates) composed the text and
Joseph read it surreptitiously, recited it from memory, or
performed it based on prompts or cues.
5.
6.
7.
8.
See Neville, “A Response to Recent Reviews,” 175.
Ibid., 172.
Ibid., 176.
Ibid.
188 • Interpreter 53 (2022)
3. Joseph Smith dictated words that supernaturally appeared
on a seer stone he placed in a hat.9
Neville’s first and third explanations are simply a false dichotomy, as
Neville demonstrates: “explanation 1 was the ‘faithful’ explanation, while
explanations 2 and 3 were the critical or unbelieving explanations. Lately,
explanation 3 has been embraced by many believers (including Kraus) as
a faithful explanation that replaces explanation 1.”10 This is an inaccurate
claim, as the two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to believe that
Joseph translated ancient engravings into English (explanation 1), and it
is possible to simultaneously believe that Joseph did so as he read words
that appeared on a divine instrument (explanation 3). Neville’s definition
of translation appears to be a scholarly endeavor, which I have responded
to at length in my review of A Man That Can Translate.11 By offering a
false dichotomy between “ordinary” translation (by divine means, per
explanation 1) and dictating the translation with the aid of a seer stone
(per explanation 3), however, Neville inadvertently avoids responding to
my reviews of his work.
Neville then mischaracterizes explanation 3 by asserting that it
was historically a view of critics or unbelievers, only recently gaining
acceptance by some believers, when in fact it is a form of miraculous
translation compatible with the faithful belief that Joseph translated
the plates through the power of God. This leads to another point of
discussion raised in my reviews, which Neville also should have offered
a response to in order to defend his work. I discuss two citations from
Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer that state that Joseph read words
off of his translation instruments. David Whitmer even describes that
it was Joseph who related that information to him. From these citations,
it would appear that Oliver, David, and likely Joseph himself saw no
conflict between Neville’s first and third explanations, because none
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. See Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach,” 11–15.
Kraus, Rejoinder to Neville’s “Response to Recent Reviews” • 189
truly exists.12 (Neville cited these statements in his book, which makes
his false dichotomy all the more unconvincing.)13
This is further contrasted with Neville’s premise of believing Joseph
and Oliver versus those who claimed “that Joseph produced the Book of
Mormon by dictating words that appeared on a stone he placed in a hat”
— especially because Oliver and probably Joseph (indeed, there is little
reason to doubt David Whitmer on this subject) both claimed that exact
method of translation.14
This was all detailed in my review, and because Neville leaves this
unrebutted in his response, it is entirely improper for him to attempt
to frame the debate in this manner.15 It is also worth keeping in mind
that the term Urim and Thummim could be used to refer to multiple
instruments — as early Latter-day Saints understood.16
While Neville claims his ideas are “neo-orthodox” in his abstract,
his framing of orthodoxy would challenge the faithfulness of multiple
Church leaders in the Book of Mormon translation.17 Russell M. Nelson,
Dieter F. Uchtdorf, D. Todd Christofferson, and Quentin L. Cook have
all discussed Joseph’s use of the seer stone in the hat, as discussed in my
review.18 The Church’s Gospel Topics essay further demonstrates that it
is an entirely faithful and orthodox view that Joseph did read words off
of a divine instrument placed in his hat.19
12. Ibid., 13. The relevant sources from Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer are
Oliver Cowdery, quoted in Abram W. Benton, “Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine
and Gospel Advocate 2 (9 April 1831): 120; David Whitmer, in “Questions asked of
David Whitmer,” 1885, Zenos Gurley Collection, Church History Library; David
Whitmer, quoted in E. C. Briggs, “Letter to the Editor,” Saints’ Herald 31 (21 June
1884): 396–97.
13. See Jonathan Neville, A Man That Can Translate: Joseph Smith and the
Nephite Interpreters (Salt Lake City: Digital Legends Press, 2020), 267–68, 273, 301.
14. Neville, “A Response to Recent Reviews,” 172.
15. See Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach,” 11–15.
16. See ibid., 3–6. I also discuss Orson Pratt’s use of the term Urim and
Thummim to refer to multiple instruments in Spencer Kraus, “Orson Pratt and
the Urim and Thummim of Joseph(s),” Latter-day Light and Truth (blog), 16 July
2022, https://latterdaylightandtruth.blogspot.com/2022/07/orson-pratt-and-urimand-thummim-of.html. Orson Pratt’s comments may hint that he likewise viewed
Joseph’s seer stone as a Urim and Thummim.
17. Neville, “A Response to Recent Reviews,” 171.
18. Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach,” 9–10.
19. See “Book of Mormon Translation,” Gospel Topics Essays, https://
w w w. c hu r c h o f j e s u s c h r i s t . o r g /s t u d y/m a nu a l /g o s p e l - t o p i c s - e s s a y s /
book-of-mormon-translation.
190 • Interpreter 53 (2022)
Neville’s second explanation is also troublesome. It is difficult to
see how surreptitiously reciting a text that Joseph or his confederates
composed could be accepted by faithful members as anything but
deception or fraud. However, Neville appears to adhere to a portion of
this claim regarding the Isaiah portions of 2 Nephi.
Responding to this particular concern, I would challenge the
assumption that it is acceptable for faithful Latter-day Saints. Elder Kim
B. Clark recently discussed Book of Mormon historicity in no uncertain
terms, which would rule out this explanation permanently:
The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ and in His restored Gospel means
that we believe exactly what Joseph said it was. If you
reverence it as a sacred text, but don’t believe in its
historicity, you essentially deny its origin … as Joseph said.
And so I think it is absolutely essential [for a] robust faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ and in His restored Gospel.20
Indeed, as Joseph Smith likewise stated on no uncertain terms,
“Take away the book of Mormon, and the revelations, and where is our
religion? We have none.”21 Stephen Smoot has similarly offered persuasive
arguments for the necessity of a historical Book of Mormon, which is
entirely incompatible with Neville’s second proposed explanation.22
Next, Neville discusses the “caricature” I provide of his ideas, quoting
the outset of my review of Infinite Goodness. Relating the conclusions
reached in my previous review of A Man That Can Translate, I state that
Neville argues
20. Elder Kim B. Clark, “Seeking the Lord Jesus Christ,” presented at the 2020
FAIR Conference. The quote in question comes from the question-and-answer
segment, and a recording with this segment is available online at fairlatterdaysaints.
org and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il1QJf-5Vr8. The quoted remarks
begin at 22:45 and end at 23:45 responding to the question, “How important is a
literal belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon as opposed to reverencing it
as an allegorical text?”
21. “Minutes and Discourse, 21 April 1834,” p. 44, The Joseph Smith Papers,
accessed August 24, 2022, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/
minutes-and-discourse-21-april-1834/2.
22. See Stephen O. Smoot, “Et Incarnatus Est: The Imperative for Book of
Mormon Historicity,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and
Scholarship 30 (2018): 125–62, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/
et-incarnatus-est-the-imperative-for-book-of-mormon-historicity/.
Kraus, Rejoinder to Neville’s “Response to Recent Reviews” • 191
that (1) Joseph Smith memorized and recited Isaiah from
memory rather than translate it from the Book of Mormon
record; (2) Joseph Smith tricked his close friends and
family, making them believe that he was translating the
aforementioned sections of the Book of Mormon; (3) many
witnesses to the Book of Mormon are not to be believed; and
(4) we should instead rely on sources hostile to The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to properly understand
Joseph’s translation effort.23
As Neville discusses each of the four points in depth, I will respond
to him accordingly.
First, Neville argues at length that Joseph memorized portions of
Isaiah to recite in his “demonstration” to the Whitmers (this appears to
involve Neville’s explanation 2) and continues to do so in his response.
He falsely asserts that the argument provided in my review “is a semantic
mess because he argues that Joseph read words off a seer stone instead
of translating the Book of Mormon record.”24 Rather than respond to
my claims — including an analysis of the Masoretic text compared with
the Book of Mormon — Neville avoids discussion by claiming it to be a
“semantic mess,” without explanation.25
He then claims I “forgot to quote” a passage of his book relating to
his Demonstration Hypothesis, although no real mistake was made on
my part and signifies mind-reading on the part of Neville.26 Neville’s
argument that “it is impossible to determine what portion of the Book
of Mormon was being dictated”27 when the seer stone was used is
inconsequential, and did not merit an in-depth response — of course
it is impossible to date with exact precision any part of the Book of
Mormon translation and what tool was used. However, Emma Smith
and Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery relate observing Joseph using the
seer stone for extended periods of time — day after day and hours at a
23. Spencer Kraus, “Jonathan Edwards’s Unique Role in an Imagined
Church History,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and
Scholarship 52 (2022): 65–66, https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/
jonathan-edwardss-unique-role-in-an-imagined-church-history/.
24. Neville, “A Response to Recent Reviews,” 177.
25. For my response to the claim that Joseph memorized and recited Isaiah from
memory, see Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach,” 19–24. This includes an analysis
of multiple textual variants in the Book of Mormon with the Masoretic text.
26. Neville, “A Response to Recent Reviews,” 177.
27. Ibid.
192 • Interpreter 53 (2022)
time.28 Neville should offer a defense of why these timeframes provided
by Emma and Elizabeth should be discounted in favor of his proposed
Demonstration Hypothesis involving Joseph’s recitation of Isaiah, but
he fails to do so.
Neville defends his claim that Joseph cited Isaiah by citing an
article by Stan Spencer that claims that many Isaiah variants do not
offer substantial differences to the meaning of Isaiah’s message.29
Indeed, Spencer’s analysis is true, but it is in no way indicative that
Joseph memorized Isaiah. Neville further asserts that he believes Joseph
memorized Isaiah, but does not deal with my review wherein I compare
many of his proposed “memorization errors” to the Masoretic text in
light of modern scholarship. I conclude that many of the Isaiah variants
in the Book of Mormon that Neville believes were memorization
errors are supported by ancient sources and would therefore be better
understood as a translation of an ancient text. Neville would have done
well to respond to my arguments rather than avoid them.
Regarding the Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon, there must
be a logical point where coincidence for memorization errors matching
ancient texts is too fantastical a claim when weighed with the evidence.
Unfortunately, Neville continues to ignore the decades of scholarship on
this issue in favor of a single statement from Stan Spencer that he can use
in a context Spencer did not intend.
An odd remark in Neville’s response is his declaration that “whatever
Joseph was doing with the seer stone, it was — by his own declarations —
not translating the plates.”30 No citation is offered, and I know of no
declaration by Joseph that he never used a seer stone to translate the
Book of Mormon. Neville relies exclusively on his own speculation.
Neville also states that he “never wrote nor implied that Joseph
tricked anyone.”31 This is an issue of semantics — Neville never explicitly
writes in his books that Joseph lied to anyone, nor does he use the word
“tricked.” He does, however, imply that Joseph did trick and lie to his
28. See “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saint’s Herald 26 (1 October 1879):
289; Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, quoted in William W. McLellin, “My Dear
Friends,” manuscript, February 1870, Community of Christ Library and Archives.
29. See Stan Spencer, “Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation
of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader,” Interpreter:
A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 45–106, https://
journal.interpreterfoundation.org/missing-words-king-james-bible-italics-thetranslation-of-the-book-of-mormon-and-joseph-smith-as-an-unlearned-reader/.
30. Neville, “A Response to Recent Reviews,” 178.
31. Ibid.
Kraus, Rejoinder to Neville’s “Response to Recent Reviews” • 193
close friends regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon. This was
not only done to the Whitmers, but to neighbors such as Jacob Ingersoll,
who Neville claims is a trustworthy source when he states that Joseph
informed him there were no actual gold plates.32
Regarding Ingersoll’s claims that Joseph lied to a toll collector,
Neville claims this “demonstrates Joseph’s willingness to let others
make inferences without correcting them.”33 Joseph comes out on top
in this instance, without having had to pay for half of his journey —
hardly honest behavior. (This is contrasted with Joseph ensuring that his
debts were paid before leaving for Harmony later in life.) Neville next
claims that “it seems plausible that Joseph would seek to deter [efforts to
steal the plates] by spreading the word that he didn’t really have plates. A
confidant such as Ingersoll would be an effective method to spread such
a rumor.”34
Neville would do well to recall that you do not have to say something
explicitly to discuss any certain principle; how one says something is
just as important, if not more so — he does not have to say Joseph lied
or tricked others about having the plates, he just has to say it seems like
Joseph said that. The word “lie” and “trick” were not specifically used, but
for all intents and purposes, that is exactly what Neville describes Joseph
as doing. “Pious fraud,” as critics often call Joseph’s actions, is still fraud,
and there is little that distinguishes Joseph lying about having plates and
lying about not having plates, since both were allegedly performed to
further his prophetic career.
Neville further insinuates that such trickery (although he fails to
call it such) occurred in relation to the witnesses. He claims that Martin
Harris’s account of swapping the seer stone with one found by the stream
offers proof for his Demonstration Hypothesis:
The way Martin tells the story comes across as Joseph playing
along with Martin’s test. He sits, silently (as Martin infers he
is unable to read anything on the stone). Then he looks up and
asks Martin what the problem was.35
Later, Martin may have “realized Joseph was merely playing along
with him,” but still shares his experience anyway.36 “Playing along with”
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
See Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach,” 15–19, 26–28.
Neville, A Man That Can Translate, 84.
Ibid., 85, emphasis added.
Ibid., 182.
Ibid., 183.
194 • Interpreter 53 (2022)
Martin’s need for evidence through a “demonstration” is no evidence
at all, and would be more harmful to faith than helpful once Martin
learned the truth. While Neville relates instances of the Prophet’s sense
of humor as proof for his alleged tendency “to let others make inferences,”
the examples he cites are wholly at odds with his certain desire to assuage
Martin’s insecurities.37 Joseph “playing along” with Martin versus Joseph
“tricking” Martin becomes merely an issue of semantics.
In like measure, the same could be said for all of the witnesses
who Neville claims were left to “infer” that they were witnessing a
translation.38 While it might be possible for Neville or his readers to
claim that the Whitmers understood this as a demonstration, such
does not accord with the historical record or Neville’s insistence that
they simply inferred Joseph was translating when they witnessed this
proposed event. The above points are clearly laid out in my review.
As a final note regarding this important point, there is a large
discrepancy between Neville’s proposed method for the translation of
the Book of Mormon and Joseph’s alleged demonstration of such. Neville
fails to consider why Joseph must have felt obligated to use a stone in a hat
when a pair of spectacles borrowed from a neighbor would have sufficed.
If Joseph wanted to appease their curiosity regarding the translation
method, a device that resembles the Nephite interpreters would have
been a much more understandable approach. By “demonstrating” the
translation in a method completely at odds with what he had actually
done (and one which he would allegedly try to refute later in life), Joseph
is performing a dishonest action to get his friends to stop bothering him.
Whether intentionally or not, Neville has painted Joseph in a negative
light.
Third, Neville does not respond to any of my in-depth analyses
regarding his claims about the various witnesses to the translation where
I claim that Neville argues they should not be believed. He states that
these witnesses merely inferred that a translation was occurring, but his
37. See Neville, A Man That Can Translate, 83. The two examples Neville cites
are Joseph’s humorous response in the Elder’s Journal that money digging “was
never a very profitable job to him” and Joseph’s remarks to Joseph Knight Sr. the
day he received the plates. See “Elders’ Journal, July 1838,” p. 43, The Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed August 21, 2022, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/papersummary/elders-journal-july-1838/11; “Joseph Knight Sr., Reminiscence, Circa
1835–1847,” reprinted in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City:
Signature Books, 1996), 4:15.
38. See Neville, A Man That Can Translate, 81.
Kraus, Rejoinder to Neville’s “Response to Recent Reviews” • 195
historical analysis is fundamentally flawed. As he has not responded to
any of my arguments, I would simply refer the reader to my review.39
Fourth, Neville claims that “it’s difficult to know what to make of
this allegation” that we ought to believe sources critical of Joseph per
Neville’s analysis.40 A lengthy portion of my review, however, deals with
that exclusively — Neville defends affidavits in Mormonism Unvailed,
defends his use of Mormonism Research Ministry, and attacks multiple
sources published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.41
(Indeed, it is ironic that he should again claim in his review that I parrot
Mormonism Unvailed regarding the translation, when I clearly lay out
my arguments against using Mormonism Unvailed apologetically as he
does in his books.)42 Neville should be under the onus, in a defense of his
work, to offer some explanation why he had done so, but none is offered.
Regarding my review of Infinite Goodness, Neville states that my
conclusions are flawed because I did not “not consult [Neville’s] database
of over 1,000 nonbiblical terms and phrases used by Edwards” nor did I
cite his “separate biblical intertextual database.”43 Neither of these were
available at the time I wrote my reviews, although upon review it is easily
determined that his databases suffer from many of the same problems
that his appendices in Infinite Goodness do. A single word — sometimes
just a different conjugation of a verb or alternative spelling — or phrase
is poor “proof” for intertextuality.44
Neville also claims that my “review invokes sources not known to
be readily available to Joseph Smith,” thus weakening my conclusions.45
However, as I point out in my review, the use of these sources is done to
demonstrate that the words and phrases that Neville sees as influenced
by Edwards do not originate with Edwards and reflected a wider religious
tradition.46 These words and phrases were in the common vernacular,
and it does not require any theological treatise to have been consulted on
Joseph’s part. That Neville appears to believe I would argue that Joseph
39. See Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach,” 31–44.
40. Neville, “A Response to Recent Reviews,” 179.
41. See Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach,” 25–31.
42. See Neville, “A Response to Recent Reviews,” 174–75.
43. Ibid., 180–81.
44. See Kraus, “Jonathan Edwards’s Unique Role,” 79–87. His appendices are
discussed especially on p. 79.
45. Neville, “A Response to Recent Reviews,” 181.
46. I conclude my review by stating that “Even [Neville’s] best suggestions are
weak — they consist of phrases common in the religious literature and discourses
of three centuries.” Kraus, “Jonathan Edwards’s Unique Role,” 88.
196 • Interpreter 53 (2022)
was familiar with each of the sources I cite (such as Martin Luther)
underscores how little he understood my arguments.
Finally, in Neville’s response, he argues that believing that Joseph
used a seer stone links the Book of Mormon to “mystical origins”47 that
can lead to false claims regarding its nature. This is a false dichotomy yet
again — the Urim and Thummim provide the same “mystical origins”
that a seer stone would provide. What Neville fails to consider is how
his definition of translation differs from mainstream Latter-day Saint
thought since 1830.
In A Man That Can Translate, Neville argues that
Joseph translated the engravings on the plates in the ordinary
sense of the word …. The translation was inspired both
because of the aid of the interpreters and because, although
Joseph had to study it out in his mind (D&C 9:8), the Spirit
confirmed the translation he came up with as he dictated it
to his scribe. Viewed in this way, the idea that Joseph actually
translated the Nephite records into English seems obvious.48
Neville does not offer an explanation as to how, should Joseph
have been performing a scholarly translation, the Urim and Thummim
would truly be used. An inference many readers might make is that
the interpreters became incidental to the translation process, which
is further strengthened by his claims that Joseph could have “ended
previous [translating] sessions at the bottom of a particular plate” in an
effort to explain how Joseph could reportedly begin translating from
where he left off, as witnesses such as Emma Smith testified.49 A scholarly
translation of the plates removes the mystical origins from the Book of
Mormon, ultimately providing a disservice to the book of scripture.50
By making the Book of Mormon a scholarly feat rather than a divine
translation as described by Joseph, Neville’s historical analysis falters in
multiple points.
My two reviews offer many other claims that Neville does not
mention. Many of these are critical to his theses, and as such a defense of
them is warranted on Neville’s part. Examples include:
47.
48.
49.
50.
Neville, “A Response to Recent Reviews,” 182.
Neville, A Man That Can Translate, 193–94.
Ibid., 241.
See Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach,” 11–15.
Kraus, Rejoinder to Neville’s “Response to Recent Reviews” • 197
• His presentism when discussing the word “peruse” in Lucy
Mack Smith’s history51
• Why Joseph should be understood as having great literary
capacities when his own testimony and the testimonies of his
family suggest otherwise52
• My rebuttal to Neville’s claim that Jonathan Edwards was an
Elias figure to Joseph53
• My critique of the proposed theological influences that
Jonathan Edwards had on Joseph Smith, such as the doctrine
of plural marriage (of which Joseph’s revelations and
Edwards’s sermons are deeply at odds with one another)54
• My critique of the various errors in Neville’s proposed
intertextuality with Edwards, all of which are considerably
weak55
• My response to Neville regarding chiasmus in the Book of
Mormon being another influence of Jonathan Edwards on
Joseph Smith56
• My response to Neville’s weak conclusions regarding
additional outside influences on the Book of Mormon,
including The Late War merely because (when comparing
it to the Book of Mormon), “In both cases, we have a Title
Page, a Copyright Page, and a Preface.”57
• Neville’s misuse of Alma 37’s reference to a seer stone in
regard to both modern scholarship and historical sources58
• My response to Neville’s conflation of the seer stone with
Skousen and Carmack’s theories regarding Early Modern
English in the Book of Mormon59
• My critique of Neville’s definition of “translation” and how it
differs from Joseph’s definition60
51. See Kraus, “Jonathan Edwards’s Unique Role,” 66–71.
52. See ibid., 66–71.
53. See ibid., 71–73.
54. See ibid., 73–79. The claim regarding plural marriage is rebutted on pp.
76–77.
55. See ibid., 79–87.
56. See ibid., 86.
57. Neville, Infinite Goodness, 190. See also 191–93. I respond to this in Kraus,
“Jonathan Edwards’s Unique Role,” 87–88.
58. See Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach,” 7–9.
59. See ibid., 10–11.
60. See ibid., 11–15.
198 • Interpreter 53 (2022)
• My critique of Neville’s use of David Whitmer to argue for a
large “demonstration,” when David’s statement Neville cites
from does not support such a reading (this includes Neville’s
erroneous belief that David described the seer stone in this
purported demonstration, when the record states that the
“spectacles” were used)61
• In addition to my analysis of Isaiah variants that better reflect
ancient manuscript evidence rather than memorization
errors, Neville has made multiple transcription errors
regarding Isaiah in the Book of Mormon that deserve
acknowledgment62
Ultimately, Neville’s response to my two reviews is weak. He does not
deal directly with the substance of my arguments, instead doubling down
on his claims provided in his two books. This is troublesome behavior
for one who claims to be open-minded and willing to discuss anything
he has overlooked or mistaken.63 As I discussed in the conclusion to my
review of A Man That Can Translate, “History … is written through the
careful analysis of documents in their context and against a wide array
of evidence.”64 This includes determining the method in which Joseph
translated the plates, especially in light of Joseph’s few references to the
method throughout his life. Neville is under no imperative to accept any
of my conclusions, of course — but he has not adequately dealt with my
arguments in his response nor has he adequately dealt with the historical
evidence regarding Joseph’s translation of ancient scripture.
Spencer Kraus is a student at Brigham Young University majoring in
Computer Science and minoring in modern Hebrew and Ancient Near
Eastern Studies. He works with Book of Mormon Central as a research
associate and also as a research assistant for Lincoln Blumell studying
early Christianity and the New Testament.
61. See ibid., 16–19.
62. See ibid., 19–25 for the full discussion regarding Nephi’s use of an ancient
version of Isaiah in 2 Nephi. For Neville’s transcription errors specifically, see
ibid., 22–23. Only a handful of scriptures Neville cites were used in my response
to highlight significant errors in his transcription and analysis, as due to length
constraints my review could not deal with all of his errors.
63. See Neville, A Man That Can Translate, 21.
64. Kraus, “An Unfortunate Approach,” 44.