Authorship of the Book of Mormon

How Was the Book of Mormon Composed?

William L. Davis argues that the Book of Mormon demonstrates clear markers of nineteenth-century authorship. He writes, “The ubiquitous presence of nineteenth-century compositional techniques, the pervasive residue of contemporary sermonizing strategies, and the saturation of the work with nineteenth-century concepts, phraseology, and vocabulary all point directly and specifically to Joseph Smith as the source and assembler of these narrative components.”1

Davis proposes that Smith engaged in years of preparation before the 1829 dictation. He suggests “a scenario in which he announced the existence of the gold plates containing the narrative of the Book of Mormon in September 1823, after which he spent several years constructing and revising preliminary outlines (not fully written manuscripts) that framed the work before dictating the current text in 1829.”2

What Materials Did Smith Prepare?

The evidence points to organized outlines rather than complete manuscripts. Davis explains that these outlines “would have included the organization of such story elements as the many chronologies within the work (e.g., the hundred-year reign of the Nephite judges and the various genealogies of leaders); the dramatic shape of the successive and parallel narrative episodes; the names and general descriptions of the main characters; and perhaps the basic content of some sermons.”3 At the same time, “the evidence also suggests that Smith’s flexible semi-extemporaneous method left much of the actual language of the work—along with the amplification of narratives, sermons, tangential topics, and story elements—to improvisations in the moment of performance.”4

Davis notes that “Smith may well have developed a small collection of private notes for personal use and reflection.”5 This preparation period was substantial. “Using the ways and means available to his understanding and ambition, Smith engaged in a years-long project to bring that history to light.”6

Did Witnesses See Smith Use Notes?

Emma Smith and David Whitmer, who observed the dictation process, claimed Joseph consulted no written materials. However, Davis identifies problems with accepting their accounts uncritically. He writes, “Emma Smith and David Whitmer, both firsthand witnesses of the creative process, insisted that Joseph never consulted written materials during dictation. Their statements ostensibly appear to preclude the use of notes—or even a Bible, for that matter—during Smith’s oral performance of the text. Yet, a close examination of their descriptions reveals problems that resist the uncritical acceptance of their claims.”7

The timeline matters significantly. Davis observes, “After this brief initial meeting, Joseph returned a little over a year later and eloped with Emma, marrying her on 18 January 1827. Thus, by the time Emma had the opportunity to observe her husband’s day-to-day behavior, Joseph would already have had more than three years to prepare, memorize, and internalize material for the translation work.”8

Furthermore, “another challenge to Emma’s account concerns the timing and reliability of her recollections. Her 1879 statement is fifty years removed from the actual translation events in 1828 and 1829, and the distance shows.”9

What Did the Witnesses Describe?

David Whitmer provided a detailed account of the translation method. He wrote:

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.10

This account has become the standard description of the translation process among Latter-day Saints, though it raises questions about how such a method could produce the compositional patterns Davis identifies.

What Do Latter-day Saints Say About Authorship?

Some Latter-day Saint scholars have proposed theories that allow for human input in the translation. Blake T. Ostler’s “expansion theory” suggests:

Joseph Smith... was influenced by nineteenth-century American culture in rendering its message...

It is likely that Joseph Smith expanded the Book of Mormon... Some doctrines in the book’s pre-Christian sections are simply too developed and too characteristic of the nineteenth century...

The expansion theory of the Book of Mormon has far-reaching implications... The model of revelation I propose here is that of creative co-participation... What we have therefore is neither an ancient document nor a translation... Joseph Smith imposed an interpretation on the text which was foreign to that ancient text...11

Ostler continues, “The Book of Mormon reflects the influence of Joseph Smith’s earliest belief structure... largely derived from... nineteenth-century Protestantism... Later revelations, however, necessitated so much revision... that the assumptions... reflected in the Book of Mormon were largely abandoned...”12

More recently, Kent P. Jackson has proposed that the translation occurred in the spirit world, writing, “My assumption (shared by some others) is that someone in the world of spirits, a faithful but imperfect human like the rest of us, was tasked with translating the words of the ancient Nephites into English. Perhaps it was a group of people.”13

Did B.H. Roberts Question Joseph Smith’s Authorship?

B.H. Roberts, a historian and leader in the LDS Church, explored other explanations for the Book of Mormon in his private studies:

If… the view be taken that the Book of Mormon is merely of human origin; that a person of Joseph Smith’s limitations in experience and education, who was of the vicinage and of the period that produced the book - if it be assumed that he is the author of it, then it could be said there is much internal evidence in the book itself to sustain such a view. In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency.14

Did Smith Use the King James Bible?

The Book of Mormon contains extensive quotations from the King James Bible, including some unique translation errors. Daniel L. Belnap, a believing Latter-day Saint scholar, acknowledges the uncertainty about physical access to a Bible during dictation: “Whether Joseph used an actual KJV text is unknown, though all of the witnesses state that he did not.”15

This raises questions about how King James language, including its distinctive phrasings and translation choices, appears so extensively throughout the Book of Mormon text if no Bible was present during dictation.

References

  1. William L. Davis, Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon, 163.

  2. Ibid., 163-164. “The best explanation of Smith’s process involves a scenario in which he announced the existence of the gold plates containing the narrative of the Book of Mormon in September 1823, after which he spent several years constructing and revising preliminary outlines (not fully written manuscripts) that framed the work before dictating the current text in 1829.”

  3. Ibid., 164. “These outlines would have included the organization of such story elements as the many chronologies within the work (e.g., the hundred-year reign of the Nephite judges and the various genealogies of leaders); the dramatic shape of the successive and parallel narrative episodes; the names and general descriptions of the main characters; and perhaps the basic content of some sermons. At the same time, the evidence also suggests that Smith’s flexible semi-extemporaneous method left much of the actual language of the work—along with the amplification of narratives, sermons, tangential topics, and story elements—to improvisations in the moment of performance.”

  4. Ibid.

  5. Ibid. “Smith may well have developed a small collection of private notes for personal use and reflection.”

  6. Ibid., 165. “Using the ways and means available to his understanding and ambition, Smith engaged in a years-long project to bring that history to light.”

  7. Ibid. “Emma Smith and David Whitmer, both firsthand witnesses of the creative process, insisted that Joseph never consulted written materials during dictation. Their statements ostensibly appear to preclude the use of notes—or even a Bible, for that matter—during Smith’s oral performance of the text. Yet, a close examination of their descriptions reveals problems that resist the uncritical acceptance of their claims.”

  8. Ibid., 185. “After this brief initial meeting, Joseph returned a little over a year later and eloped with Emma, marrying her on 18 January 1827. Thus, by the time Emma had the opportunity to observe her husband’s day-to-day behavior, Joseph would already have had more than three years to prepare, memorize, and internalize material for the translation work.”

  9. Ibid. “Another challenge to Emma’s account concerns the timing and reliability of her recollections. Her 1879 statement is fifty years removed from the actual translation events in 1828 and 1829, and the distance shows.”

  10. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, MO: David Whitmer, 1887), 12.

  11. Blake T. Ostler, “The Expansion Theory and the Book of Mormon,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 66-67. “Joseph Smith... was influenced by nineteenth-century American culture in rendering its message... It is likely that Joseph Smith expanded the Book of Mormon... Some doctrines in the book’s pre-Christian sections are simply too developed and too characteristic of the nineteenth century... The expansion theory of the Book of Mormon has far-reaching implications... The model of revelation I propose here is that of creative co-participation... What we have therefore is neither an ancient document nor a translation... Joseph Smith imposed an interpretation on the text which was foreign to that ancient text... The Book of Mormon reflects the influence of Joseph Smith’s earliest belief structure... largely derived from... nineteenth-century Protestantism... Later revelations, however, necessitated so much revision... that the assumptions... reflected in the Book of Mormon were largely abandoned...”

  12. B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 251.

  13. Daniel L. Belnap, “The King James Bible and the Book of Mormon,” in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011).

  14. Kent P. Jackson, “Adam Clarke and Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 66 (2025).

Generated from sources• Submit feedback