Roundtable reviews: William L. Davis’ “Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon”

Today we feature two reviews of William L. Davis, Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon (University of North Carolina Press, 2000), written by Erik Champenois and Christopher Angulo.

For more opinions on the book, see the recent Dialogue roundtable, with reviews by Elizabeth Fenton and Michael Austin.

Oratorial techniques and questioning time contraints

by Erik Champenois

A groundbreaking book on the making of the Book of Mormon – this will be one of the go-to books for anyone seeking to understand how the Book of Mormon was created. The author focuses on early American oratorical techniques and mnemonic cues used in preaching early 19th century revival sermons with little to no notes – and how these same techniques and cues are present in both Joseph Smith’s own sermons and in the Book of Mormon itself.

The book builds up the contextual historical background in four chapters before delving deeply into the Book of Mormon’s sermons and narrative structures in two chapters, with concluding thoughts on the nature of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon in a final chapter. The main conclusion is that Book of Mormon reflects conscious preparation and organization of the material by Joseph Smith – in the style of 19th century oratorical techniques and mnemonic cues – along with extemporaneous/near-extemporaneous expansions during the process of Smith’s “translation”/preaching of the Book to his scribes. In other words, the Book of Mormon is not just the result of 57-75 days of translation, but Joseph had been preparing for years before his final oral performance of the book in 1827-1829. And the book itself is a product of both.

I appreciate the author’s balanced approach in framing the book neutrally between defenders and critics of the Book of Mormon. Davis’ conclusion isn’t that Joseph Smith was disingenuous in producing the Book of Mormon – instead, as he stresses, the conclusions here are entirely consistent with Joseph Smith’s own understanding of the process of revelation (“study it out in your mind” and then ask). The book takes no stance on whether the Book of Mormon was a product of Joseph Smith alone or of divine revelation mediated through Joseph Smith. What it does, however, is question the religious mythology that the production of the Book of Mormon was so time-constrained and impressive that it cannot be explained without reference to the supernatural.

One weakness of the book is that the demonstration of Joseph Smith’s use of oratorical techniques outside of the Book of Mormon relies primarily on the 1844 King Follett discourse (Joseph’s sermon that we have the most complete written notes from). Granted that we have limited notes of Joseph’s sermons, and Davis draws from Joseph Smith’s 1832 history as well, but one wonders if additional examples could be found to show Joseph’s familiarity with these techniques closer in time to the production of the Book of Mormon. A counter-argument to Davis is that the oratorical techniques used in the Book of Mormon are fairly simple and common and may have been used by ancient Book of Mormon authors rather than by Joseph himself. Nevertheless, the examples given from contemporary school books and sermons, Joseph Smith’s likely training as a Methodist exhorter, the demonstrated use of these techniques in some of Joseph’s sermons, and above all, the fact that the Book of Mormon was an oral performance by Joseph Smith – constitute to my mind persuasive evidence that these techniques were used by Joseph himself.

A must for anyone interested in academic studies on the Book of Mormon, though I recommend that members of the LDS Church read Brant Gardner’s The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon first. Gardner’s book is better at helping ease believing members away from traditional assumptions about the Book of Mormon’s translation into more fruitful avenues – and does so from a faith-affirming perspective. But if you want to delve deeper into the production of the Book of Mormon, don’t stop with Gardner – from now on, Davis’ book is a must.

Erik Champenois is an avid reader of non-fiction, especially on history, international relations, and religion. He has a Master of Public Administration degree from Brigham Young University and lives in the rural suburbs of Maryland.

A unique but unproven idea

by Christopher Angulo

When Visions in a Seer Stone by William Davis was first announced I immediately checked Amazon to see if I could pre-order it. It wasn’t available for pre-order yet. I love the topic of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon and was excited for a new theory on translation. There is so much mystery surrounding its “translation” and to have a new, critical look at the process is always welcomed by me.

Many theories have been presented that attempt to define what Smith meant when he said that the Book of Mormon was brought for the by the “gift and power of God.” These various theories range from Smith translated a foreign language written on metal plates word-for-word into English, to, he stole the text from someone else or conspired to create it. In Visions in a Seer Stone, Davis puts forth a new theory for how Smith translated the Book of Mormon. In the introduction, Davis states that the “focus of this study is the oral performance techniques that Smith used to dictate the Book of Mormon, with specific attention to the methods of preaching in Smith’s contemporary sermon culture.” The author then spends two chapters explaining the different types of oratorical techniques that were taught and used during Smith’s day. In the later chapters, Davis dissects the Book of Mormon to show where these techniques are found in the book itself. Davis attempts to show that Smith was trained in the oratorical techniques of his day, and with those skills, he created the Book of Mormon over the space of many years.

From the outset, Davis’ task is difficult. It is estimated that Smith delivered around 450 sermons during his ministry, 250 of them in Nauvoo. The problem, however, is that many of these sermons are not well documented, if documented at all. Smith was not particularly keen in publishing his sermons, unlike his contemporaries Alexander Campbell and Ellen White.

Davis relies heavily on two documents to support his argument that Smith was trained in the contemporary oratorical techniques: the 1832 history Smith drafted and the King Follet discourse. To his credit, Davis deals with the obvious issues that the King Follet discourse presents to his argument: that it was not taken down word-for-word and that the notes of the discourse are made from multiple authors. Though there is no word-for-word transcription of this discourse, Davis points to many consistencies between the writers and the themes in Smith’s discourse. These consistencies and themes allow Davis to analyze Smith’s preaching style, and to correctly determine that the oratorical techniques were employed by Smith in this discourse. The problem, however, is that this discourse was given 15 years after the translation of the Book of Mormon was completed.

The 1832 history is closer in time to the translation of the Book of Mormon and would provide us a better understanding of the oratorical skills Smith had at the time the Book of Mormon was translated. On the surface, the 1832 history appears to be a powerful proof of Davis’ argument. The history employs the various techniques such as heads and skeletal outlines (bullet points) found in the contemporary oral performance techniques. The heads are similar to the heads found most explicitly in 1 Nephi in the Book of Mormon. On a deeper look, I am not as persuaded that the 1832 history is strong evidence for Smith’s use of these techniques.

The 1832 history has two writers: Fredrick G. Wiliams and Joseph Smith. Davis superficially addresses this issue by saying that Fredrick was a scribe. Because no further analysis of Fredrick’s involvement in the writing process was discussed, we are left to assume that Fredrick wrote whatever Smith dictated. Davis makes this assumption without closely analyzing whether or not this is true. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Fredrick, not Smith, created the heads for the 1832 history. (see Ronald O. Barney, Joseph Smith: Memory, Method and History, University of Utah Press, 2020). While it is true that Smith appears to expound on these heads, the fact that Smith may not have created the heads deeply hurts Davis’ argument.

I thoroughly enjoyed the section on the history of oratorical techniques employed by the preaching culture of Smith’s day, but I did not leave with the impression that these techniques were unique to Smith’s day, or time. In fact, while reading I was excited to find out that I employ the extempore technique when I preach (creating bullet points and expounding upon them in a discourse). It was a surprising that I fit the definition almost to the “T.” I have had this style since I first started public speaking as a young teenager before I was trained in oral speaking. No one that I can remember prepared and delivered talks the way that I did (all of my friends, family, and teachers wrote out their talks word-for word and told me to do the same). Some of these techniques appear to be part of a person’s natural tendency in public speaking, which doesn’t necessarily have to be learned.

Davis persuasively shows that the Book of Mormon is full of many oratorical techniques from Smith’s day. One would assume that a person this skilled in creating this book would have mastered the skill because it is well used throughout the Book of Mormon. But this doesn’t appear to be the case. We don’t see these skills employed in many of his teachings and writings. While some people found Smith to be a powerful speaker, both friendly and non-friendly observers agree that he was not a very skilled speaker. Smith himself has stated that he is not very good with words. Now, maybe this gift only applies to creating a story, and the Book of Mormon is an anomaly (I guess we could throw in Abraham and bits of Moses too). While this most certainly could be true, the entire argument fails to explain why we don’t see far more of the oratorical techniques throughout Smith’s ministry.

It appears more likely that Smith would have picked up these oratorical techniques from writing (translation process) and re-writing (printer’s manuscript preparation) the Book of Mormon, than from any of the possible sources Davis names (Hyrum and various preaching camps).This would support the data Davis provides that Smith did not often use these techniques, and that when he did, they were not skillfully employed. To me, it is far less likely that Smith would start off skilled in the techniques, but then lose the skill over the course of his 15 year ministry when he was actually preaching frequently to congregations.

Davis has put forth an idea that has great potential for explaining Smith’s translation process. His idea is somewhat unique and has a decent foundation for others to build upon.  In the end, Visions in a Seer Stone does not definitively answer the question as to how Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon. This task is left for a future writer.

Christopher Angulo is from “Los” Vegas. Lost in the worlds of Mormonism and book collecting. Earned a J.D. from UNLV. Still trying to skate every day until he dies.