Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon

by William L. Davis

In this interdisciplinary work, William L. Davis examines Joseph Smith's 1829 creation of the Book of Mormon, the foundational text of the Latter Day Saint movement. Positioning the text in the history of early American oratorical techniques, sermon culture, educational practices, and the passion for self-improvement, Davis elucidates both the fascinating cultural context for the creation of the Book of Mormon and the central role of oral culture in early nineteenth-century America.

Drawing on performance studies, religious studies, literary culture, and the history of early American education, Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition. How did he produce a history spanning a period of 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative? Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts, or books—he simply spoke the words of this American religious epic into existence. Judging the truth of this process is not Davis's interest. Rather, he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation, with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by the renowned George Whitefield and John Wesley.

Genres: Religion, History, Mormonism, Nonfiction

272 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 25, 2020

About the author

I received my PhD from UCLA in Theater and Performance Studies, where I split my time between the English department (early American literature) and the theater department (cultural performance focus).

My research ranges from cultural and historical performances (especially in religious history) to Shakespeare's texts and performance techniques.

Reviews

[Erik Champenois · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Christopher Angulo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I loved the history or oratorical techniques. It was fascinating. I didn't love the large amounts of conjecture.He concludes that Joseph would have learned various oratorical techniques through his brother and other religious camps, but does not provide any evidence that Joseph was taught that. He supports his argument by the few accounts during Joseph's life that have these techniques. I haven't been trained in any technique and everyone I grew up with wrote out their talks word for word, and yet I have an extempore technique down to a T. This is something that could've been picked up naturally. He bases his arguments largely on JS 1832 history and relies on the bullet points at the beginning. He doesn't offer a rebuttal to the possibility that JS did not create that skeletal outline (see, Barney's History, Method and Memory), but that it was his scribe's creation. The BofM is full of these techniques, but examples from Joseph are few and far in between.

I'm all for new ideas on how Joseph created the BofM, but this seems to be one of the weakest. It is far more plausible, in my mind, that Joseph learned these oratorical techniques from the BofM (whether he translated it, or copied from somewhere else) rather than create the BofM and employ copious amounts of these techniques in its creation, and then, rarely ever use them again.

[Roo Phillips · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent piece of scholarship on the topic of how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon. Most research on this historical event centers on the mechanics of translation, of which there are multiple theories (e.g. the three theories popularized by Royal Skousen: loose control, tight control, and iron-clad control). Davis takes a completely different approach to understanding the production of the BoM. His research focused on the context and times that Smith lived in, and specifically the types and ways people expressed religious works. He found that Smith lived in a full on oratorical religious society with heavy training on extemporaneous sermons. Regardless of the method Smith used in Skousen's proposals, all of them would still be oratory in nature. Meaning, there is no speculation about the fact the Smith dictated the BoM.

Davis spends a good portion of the book explaining Smith's (often miscalculated) education and training as a semi-extemporaneous methodist preacher at a young age. Davis makes connections to the types of teaching at grade school and in religious school that Smith would've received regarding how to prepare outlines and deliver orations from them. This research is fascinating and connects a lot of dots on how Smith likely would've been well suited to dictate the BoM. Davis even goes into the structural components in the BoM text that mirror the types of training that was common to Smith's time. One example is the idea of "laying down heads" for an outline, which happens to be actual words used to describe preparation for a sermon given in the BoM. In fact, 40% of the BoM is made up of sermons.

Davis also spends a bit of time on how Smith could have (and likely did) use the 4-5 years from announcing the idea of the BoM, to actually starting to dictate it. There was ample time for Smith to develop themes, stories, characters, and so forth, in preparation for dictation.

Davis also goes deep into the few but often quoted accounts about how Smith never had anything to reference when dictating the BoM. For example, Terryl Givens in By The Hand of Mormon quotes an interview with Whitmer published in 1884, stating that Smith had "no book or manuscript, before him from which he could have read as is asserted by some that he did, he (Whitmer) having every opportunity to know." But Davis adds important context that was truncated by Givens. The quote actually continues as follows "....to know whether Smith had Solomon Spaulding's or any other persons' romance to read from." The "translation" process was facing much scrutiny in this time periods, specifically due to the Spaulding manuscript/romance that was alleged to be Smith's source. The full quote actually suggests that the manuscripts and books on hand to help Smith were specifically in reference to Spaulding's, and not his personal notes or the Bible.

Davis does not try to do anything other than add important context to the ongoing debate of the production of the BoM. This book gets 5 stars because it does this job respectfully, and in introduces very novel and extremely relevant context to help explain how Smith might have produced the BoM. Davis concludes that however the BoM was made, there is no doubt that Smith felt and believed outwardly that he was influenced by the spirit of god.

[Ryan Ward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Davis provides an analysis and comparison of the rhetorical and oratory techniques employed in sermons in Joseph Smith's day with his own style, and makes the compelling argument that in his own writing, and in the Book of Mormon, these features are clearly present. This suggests, that, far from the popular narrative of Smith as an uneducated person who could not have possibly produced the Book of Mormon in any way but a divine miraculous verbatim translation, Smith was actually an astute learner of popular sermon culture and methods. He participated as a lay preacher in the Methodist sect, which would have given him time and opportunity to learn and employ these methods and techniques, honing them into the oratorical performance of the Book of Mormon.

Davis is not arguing here for or against Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, or the divine inspiration or nature of the Book of Mormon. He takes an agnostic view of such things. His purpose is to analyze the techniques employed in the written Book of Mormon and place them in the context of 19th century America, particularly within the social and cultural context of the area in which Smith was living. His analysis shows that Smith's own rhetorical and written style is rife with these specific methods, as is the Book of Mormon. This, he argues, suggests that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon by a combination of divine inspiration and the use of his own rhetorical and narrative prowess which had been honed over years of study and practical use. The use of current rhetorical and oratory sermon techniques, as well as revivalist language, would have increased the immediate accessibility and impact of the book, and its ability to speak to its contemporary audience.

[Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first couple chapters were a little difficult to get through, but getting through them totally paid off! They do an amazing job of laying down the foundation for the meat of the book on the last few chapters. This approach is fascinating! This is an incredibly well supported theory of how the Book of Mormon came forward as an oral performance, and could be of interest to any one, inside or out of the religion.

[Steve Otteson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am an avid fan of Mormon history and I have read many books and articles discussing how the Book of Mormon was constructed. In this book, William Davis presents a new explanation that I had never heard before. He explains something I already understood, that the Book of Mormon was an oral presentation. But he goes on to explain how preachers and orators of the time used a common method of "laying down heads," or in our words today you might call it writing a simple outline. They would then flesh out the details as they went while using the outline as a pneumonic device to stick to the sermon or lecture. I was skeptical how well he would be able to make the case once I caught on to what he was proposing, but to me he more than makes the case for his theory. He uses examples from the Book of Mormon and sermons that Joseph Smith gave to show this method in action. I appreciate how Davis made clear his proposal is not meant to tear down anyone's faith--in fact, he explains how his theory can be compatible with those who believe the Book of Mormon contains historical and inspired truths. I believe this book will open up many new avenues for research around the Book of Mormon, and I am grateful for Davis' contribution to this field of study.

[Carolyn Eastman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an astonishingly good work of religious, intellectual, and cultural history. It’s certainly a scholarly text, one that should be read by anyone concerned with the religious history of early America or the culture of oratory in the long nineteenth century.

[Patricia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Davis thoughtfully considers the coming forth of The Book of Mormon within the context of nineteenth-century preaching practices. Preachers typically would lay down heads (mental or written notes of various types) as a framework and guide, leaving themselves open to develop the ideas further as inspiration led them. Davis makes a cogent argument that Joseph Smith had knowledge of this practice pervasive in nineteenth-century education and in the circles Smith frequented. This study offers a convincing and concrete way of understanding Smith's own description of translation as a process requiring both personal study and divine inspiration. This work was fascinating as an approach to this particular work and as evidence of the prevalence and importance of oral culture in the nineteenth century.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think at times the author really waffled in their belief about who really wrote the Book of Mormon. I think it would have been wise to rearrange much of the analysis, putting the explanation of Joseph Smith’s self-proclaimed authorship. The ending was extremely strong and thought-provoking, but the beginning was generally repetitive and invited little analysis.

Further, I think much of the analysis of the middle is too strongly worded. It claims that things are *obviously* mnemonic devices. It is too much of a reach to say that because something was mentioned in the beginning that the author knew about it before. I find previewing of points very normal and imagine this storytelling strategy crosses cultures. However, I am also an inheritor of this speech culture. The play-by-play of the BoM was really lacking.

I would have liked to see David grapple with the Mormon-as-compiler theory. There are points where it seems obvious that the “author” knows what he will write next. If the author was, perhaps, an ancient historian creating an anthology from primary source texts, does that mean that the orator also knew what would come next?

I liked the handling of Emma Hale and David Whitmer’s testimonies in the context of the Spaulding theory. I would have liked the author to deal with their continued belief that the BoM was true. What does it mean for a book to be “most correct”? Does Emma’s continued belief demonstrate the culture’s acceptance of these translation strategies?

I think there are significant implications of thinking of the BoM as an oral performance rather as a text. First, what does this mean for its study today? Should it be read aloud? In some ways, my father reading it to us at the breakfast is more authentic to its original presentation than independent study is. Second, how do we see the heritage of 19th century sermon culture in the LDS church today? Missionaries learning the lessons can learn much from this explicit instruction in the laying down of heads. Joseph Smith studied speech—how can we teach what he knew to improve church services and fast & testimony meetings?


I think the church stands to gain from acknowledging the education of JSJ. Just because he doesn’t fit the Moses-Stutter mold doesn’t mean it was less of a miracle, right? The LDS Church is the only church with a highly oral text as its keystone. It’s also a church with a high level of proselyting & lay clergy. By embracing speech and performance as a core tenant of the Mormon movement, church leaders can strengthen the faith of their membership by improved teaching and strengthened identity.


I think the greatest takeaway regards JSJ’s beliefs about the translation. What does it mean to translate? What does it mean to know history? If God made our minds, how can we know which thoughts come from God?

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is essential reading for anyone interested in the riddle of the Book of Mormon’s origins. The argument is so persuasive and the evidence so compelling, the only reason I can see that Davis’s “theory of translation” hasn’t caught on in broader circles is that the book is so dense and (I hate to say this) at times pretty dry.

The short version of the argument is that Smith spent years planning out the skeleton of the Book of Mormon and then dictated the text in an extended, semi-extemporaneous oral performance. Davis exhaustively demonstrates how the text and structure of the Book of Mormon evidence the 19th century composition and performance techniques required to pull off this feat.

As disenchanting as that theory may sound, Davis is pretty generous to Smith, avoiding any accusation of fraud but assuming that Smith believed this “translation” process was the workings of the Holy Spirit and reflection. Whether one thinks Smith was a prophet or a con, I’ve never read a more thorough explanation of how the Book of Mormon came to be. And hopefully we can forever put to bed the arguments that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from Solomon Spaulding or The First Book of Napoleon or View of the Hebrews or whatever.

[Emilyn Umbrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

After taking a philosophy class, I have found a new interest in the study of all things history. There is something so deeply satisfying in expanding and widening my view of something I always held separate in some way, and then looking for connections that interweave the small stories into the one BIG STORY of humanity at work.

This book is a thoughtful, respectful, and thoroughly researched look at the way in which oratorical traditions, practices, and techniques of that time period would have some influence in the dictation of the Book of Mormon. I enjoyed this perspective immensely, and I applaud the author for his dedication to a balanced education on the subject while leaving out a disproportional weight in the devotional aspect of religion that can creep into similar historical works. Thank you.

[Six 1 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Im not a man of many words or particularly very good at putting thoughts to paper. I read the sample of this book hoping to get pulled in. Ive come to the end of my sample and cant pull the trigger on this one. He equates the BOM to an oral telling. Its true joseph dictated the BOM with his seer stone and his head in a hat. But eye witnesses say he had nothing on him not a shred of paper. Heads make no sense joseph wasnt sitting around memorizing key bullet points and hitting on topics. I mean good god the BOM is complex hundreds of names, places, cities , geaneologies, Its ludicrous to say a man that had not any impressive oration skills could give the most impressive oration in american history. So im not buying the book or the theory its weak and quite frankly unbelievable...wait.

[Logan · Rating 3 out of 5]

If I read the phrase "laying down heads" one more time I think I'm gonna have an accident.

Despite the repetition there are still some interesting ideas raised here. Does a story have to be copied word-for-word in order to be faithful to the original? If someone retells a story in their own words - in this case, Joseph relating the stories of the BoM, presumably with an intuitive understanding of the story's content and context - does it still count as "translation"?

"In order to appreciate the techniques and structural relationships under discussion, however, readers are encouraged to read the entire work and to become familiar with the myriad characters and narrative episodes."

[Rayden Rose · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is really grasping at straws :/ though the writing is certainly not boring, it amounts to a guy with a PHD in theater, striving really really hard to provide some kind of explanation for how Joseph Smith could have made up the Book of Mormon: without any evidence to support the theory, that Joseph did it by using unparalleled orator skills, which he received no training on, and that nobody else who did have such training ever produced anything close to the scope of the Book of Mormon, let alone with any kind of comparable inspiring, faith-promoting, or persuasive result.
People desperate to explain away the miraculous will likely find it soothing and self-justifying, but again, in my humble opinion, this is a huge reach that falls very short.

[Julie Calder · Rating 5 out of 5]

Compelling natural explanation for the development of the Book of Mormon.

A must read to understand Joseph Smith's development of the Book of Mormon. Davis shows the contemporary sermon culture that influenced Smith and how its elements are seen in the Book of Mormon such as outlines, laying down heads, mnemonics, and foreshadowing. This is evidence Smith carefully planned the structure of the Book of Mormon. Davis also shows evidence for this advanced planning. He leaves open the question of divine assistance but Visions in a Seer Stone provides an extremely compelling natural explanation for the development of the Book of Mormon.

[Francis Bezooyen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite an overly long and tedious coverage of the ways in which "heads" were used by preachers of Joseph's day, this book seems bound to go down as one of the most important contributions to understanding the origins of the Book of Mormon. The material in the second half of the book is worth the work required to get through the first.

[Jacob Dayton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exhaustively researched and extremely thorough, this book represents a major contribution to the field of Book of Mormon studies. Whether you believe in divine origins or not, this book looks into the cultural influences that Joseph Smith was under and proposes a plausible origin for the book in that culture.

[Bryan Mansfield · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent analysis. Davis does a great job of providing the facts and giving a clear analysis without getting into the devotional aspect of it all. His book can be enjoyed by believers and non-believers alike.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent study of both 19th-century Christian oratory techniques, and a good attempt at a naturalistic explanation of how Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon. A must-read for Mormon history obsessives like myself.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book, with some minor errors that could have helped make his case.

[Max Booher · Rating 2 out of 5]

Smith was no Homer.

[Gregory · Rating 5 out of 5]

critic or not of mormon history it is worth attempting to understand how the BoM came to the page. this book goes farther in explaining that than i have seen