The Joseph Smith “Now You Know” Video: A Scholarly Assessment

LDS Discussions characterizes the Church’s 2019 introductory video as “dishonest.” A careful examination of the underlying claims reveals that characterization to be both methodologically flawed and historically selective.

Overview

On October 25, 2019, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a short animated video in its “Now You Know” series introducing viewers to Joseph Smith. LDS Discussions published a rebuttal the same week, accusing the Church of violating its own definition of honesty by omitting contested historical details. The critique recycled five well-worn objections: (1) multiple First Vision accounts, (2) the seer stone translation method, (3) the priesthood restoration timeline, (4) polygamy, and (5) the testability of Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims via the Book of Abraham and DNA evidence.

This response evaluates each objection in turn against the primary sources, peer-reviewed scholarship, and the internal logic of the arguments themselves. The conclusion is that LDS Discussions applies a standard of completeness it neither practices nor could sustain, and that each substantive objection has credible scholarly answers that the critique ignores.

Objection 1: The First Vision — Multiple Accounts and Contradictions

“The video is making the very clear declaration that there is only one First Vision account… There were multiple First Vision accounts that contradict each other in very significant ways, it was written long after the event was claimed to have happened (18 years in this particular account).” — LDS Discussions

The Facts of the Multiple Accounts

There are six known accounts of the First Vision (1832, 1835, 1838, 1842, and two by contemporaneous scribes). The Church openly acknowledges these in its Gospel Topics Essay on the First Vision, published on LDS.org in 2013. The 1838 account narrated in the video is the canonical account because it was the most detailed, the most publicly disseminated, and the one Joseph Smith explicitly dictated as his official history. Selecting the most complete account for a short introductory video is not suppression — it is the same editorial judgment applied by every encyclopedia, documentary, and biography ever written.

Multiple Accounts Are Standard in Ancient and Modern Testimony

The New Testament contains four separate Gospel narratives of the same events — including the Resurrection — with well-documented differences in detail, chronology, and witness lists. The Apostle Paul recounts his Damascus Road vision three times in Acts (9:1–9; 22:5–11; 26:12–20), with notable variations in what his companions heard and saw. No serious scholar concludes from these variations that the underlying event did not occur. The same historiographical principle applies to Joseph Smith.

As historian Stephen Prothero observed, “any good lawyer (or historian) would expect to find contradictions” in multiple accounts of the same experience written down years apart. Memory research confirms that recollections naturally emphasize different details for different audiences and purposes. The 1832 account was a personal journal entry; the 1838 account was prepared as public history. The difference in scope and emphasis is exactly what any trained historian would predict.

The Core Claim Remains Consistent

Across all six accounts, the following elements are invariant: Joseph Smith experienced a theophany; Jesus Christ appeared and spoke to him; he was instructed not to join any existing denomination. The variations concern peripheral details — whether the Father was explicitly described as a separate personage, the precise wording of the response, the setting details. These are exactly the kinds of variations expected in honest, unscripted recollection. A fabricator would produce suspiciously uniform accounts.

Sources: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Gospel Topics Essay, “First Vision Accounts” (2013); Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith’s First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts (Deseret Book, 2012); FAIR Latter-day Saints, “Multiple Accounts of the First Vision” (fairlatterdaysaints.org).

Objection 2: The Seer Stone — A “Flat Out False” Image

“To translate the Book of Mormon… Joseph Smith would put his head fully in a hat and read words off the same stone he used for treasure digging. The gold plates were often not even in the room… Yet here is the imagery the church uses for the translation [showing plates open on a table].” — LDS Discussions

What the Church Has Acknowledged

LDS Discussions is correct that the seer stone was used in the translation process — the Church has openly confirmed this. The Ensign published an article on the seer stone in 2015 (“Joseph the Seer”), and the Church’s Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation describes the seer stone method in detail, citing Emma Smith, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris as witnesses. The Church has published photographs of the actual stone. This is not suppressed information.

The Argument Proves Too Little

The logical structure of the critique is: because the video used a simplified visual illustration rather than depicting every instrument in every stage of translation, therefore Joseph Smith was not a prophet. This is a non sequitur. No short introductory video — for any subject — can be comprehensive. The question is whether the method of translation undermines the prophetic claim, and the answer is plainly no: the power came from God, not from the stone. As FAIR Latter-day Saints notes, “The essential fact of the translation is unchanged regardless of the instrument used.”

Historical Context of Seer Stones

Consulting a seer for hidden knowledge was a recognized practice in early nineteenth-century New England — not fraud. Joseph Smith filled a community role as a “village seer,” a tradition with roots in English folk practice documented by historian Alan Taylor. The Nephite interpreters themselves were comprised of two seer stones set in silver bows. Joseph Fielding Smith’s later objection was to using an inferior stone in place of the Nephite interpreters — not to the use of seer stones per se. The method is entirely internally consistent with the theology of the Restoration.

Moreover, Joseph’s 1826 trial in Chenango County — often cited as proof of fraud — ended with testimony from Josiah Stowell, the accuser’s employer, who testified in Joseph’s defense. Stowell later joined the Church and never recanted his endorsement of Joseph’s abilities.

Sources: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Gospel Topics Essay, “Book of Mormon Translation” (2013); Ensign, “Joseph the Seer” (October 2015); FAIR Latter-day Saints, “Rock in Hat Used for Book of Mormon Translation” (fairlatterdaysaints.org); Alan Taylor, William Cooper’s Town (1995).

Objection 3: The Priesthood Restoration — “No Mention Until 1834”

“The restoration of the priesthood… simply did not happen as Joseph Smith claimed. In fact, there was no mention of Peter, James, and John until 1834 — five years after it supposedly happened.” — LDS Discussions

The Argument from Silence

The core logical problem with this objection is that absence of documentation does not constitute evidence of fabrication. By the same standard, we would have to reject most of ancient history, since detailed written records for events considered historically certain are routinely absent for years or decades after those events. Historians recognize this fallacy explicitly: FAIR Latter-day Saints identifies it as “the argument from silence,” and notes that we simply have no idea what Joseph may have communicated to his family and associates about priesthood restoration because early records are fragmentary by nature.

Early Evidence Predates 1834

The evidence for priesthood authority predates 1834 in multiple forms. The Book of Mormon itself, completed in 1830, contains detailed descriptions of the high priesthood. In 1829 Joseph and Oliver baptized and ordained each other, with contemporary records using language of sacerdotal authority. Newspaper reports from 1830 to 1831 describe Oliver Cowdery teaching “by this authority” after claiming angelic ordination. A 1832 account of Joseph’s history also exists. The shift in LDS Discussions’ own critique — from “no claim until 1834” to “members were unfamiliar with the story” — indicates that the original argument has effectively collapsed under scrutiny.

Why Detailed Accounts Emerged Gradually

Sacred experiences are often not immediately proclaimed in full detail. Joseph Smith himself was reticent about many of his most sacred experiences for years. This pattern is documented throughout scripture: Paul waited three years after his Damascus Road experience before visiting Peter (Galatians 1:18), and he says explicitly that he received his gospel “not of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” The gradual emergence of articulated accounts is a feature of authentic sacred experience, not a signal of invention.

Sources: FAIR Latter-day Saints, “Detailed Response to CES Letter, Priesthood Restoration” (fairlatterdaysaints.org); Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Knopf, 2005), pp. 158–161; BYU Religious Studies Center, “Peter and the Restored Priesthood” (rsc.byu.edu).

Objection 4: Polygamy — Why Doesn’t the Video Mention It?

“Shouldn’t the church mention that Joseph Smith had over thirty wives and had sex with at least a dozen women while he claimed to be their spiritual leader?” — LDS Discussions

The Incompleteness Double Standard

LDS Discussions applies a standard of completeness that no short introductory video on any historical figure could meet. A three-minute video introducing George Washington to school children does not mention his slaveholding. A brief introduction to Abraham Lincoln does not discuss his suspension of habeas corpus. The argument that any omission constitutes dishonesty would render all introductory content about any complex historical figure dishonest. The standard is being selectively deployed.

What the Church Has Disclosed

The Church’s Gospel Topics Essay on plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo — published on LDS.org — directly addresses Joseph Smith’s plural wives, their number, their ages, and the difficulties of the practice. The essay was published in 2014, five years before this video. Plural marriage is discussed in Latter-day Saint curriculum, in General Conference talks, and in Church-endorsed books. The LDS Discussions framing that the Church is “hiding” polygamy in 2019 is not accurate.

Scholarly Context for Joseph Smith’s Practice

The scholarly treatment of Joseph Smith’s polygamy — most thoroughly in Brian C. Hales’ 1,500-page, three-volume Joseph Smith’s Polygamy (Greg Kofford Books, 2013) — documents that plural marriage was practiced within a structured theological and covenantal framework. It was not simply predatory behavior. The claim that Joseph “had sex with at least a dozen women” as if coercing unwilling victims runs contrary to the testimony of the women involved: none left a record stating they were seduced or coerced. Thirteen affidavits attesting to the reality of the marriages exist, but they do not establish the coercive characterization LDS Discussions asserts. LDS Discussions is substituting rhetoric for historical analysis.

Sources: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Gospel Topics Essay, “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo” (2014); Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 3 vols. (Greg Kofford Books, 2013); FAIR Latter-day Saints, “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Toward a Better Understanding” (2015 conference).

Objection 5: The Book of Abraham — “Joseph Got the Translations Completely Wrong”

“The Book of Abraham was claimed by Joseph Smith to be a translation of papyrus, but we now know Joseph got the translations completely wrong. For example, one image of facsimile two Joseph claims is ‘God sitting upon his throne,’ but is really the Egyptian god Min sitting with an erect penis.” — LDS Discussions

Egyptian Iconography and Symbolic Multiplicity

The critique rests on the premise that Egyptian symbols have one and only one correct meaning, and that modern Egyptology has definitively established it. Neither premise is accurate. Hugh Nibley — a scholar who read Egyptian, Coptic, Syriac, and a dozen other ancient languages — documented extensively that Egyptian iconography operates on principles of “symbolic multiplicity,” where a single image carries simultaneous layered meanings in different cultic and scribal contexts. Facsimile 2 is a hypocephalus, a funerary document with cosmological functions. Assigning it a single secular interpretation and declaring all other readings “wrong” reflects a misunderstanding of how ancient Egyptian religious texts work.

The Catalyst Theory and Its Scholarly Basis

The Catalyst Theory — the proposal that the papyri functioned as a spiritual catalyst for revealed text rather than as a word-for-word source document — is not an ad hoc defensive invention. LDS scholar Kevin Barney has proposed that Abraham likely wrote an original text that passed through subsequent hands, eventually being attached by a Jewish editor to Egyptian funerary papyri because of their symbolic resonance. Scholars Richard Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael Rhodes have argued that Joseph Smith’s facsimile explanations represent recovery of authentic ancient meaning beneath layers of Egyptian adaptation — a parallel to how he also produced inspired retranslations of biblical texts.

The Missing Papyrus Problem

Critics assume that the surviving Metropolitan Museum papyri fragments are the entirety of what Joseph Smith possessed. This has never been established. Joseph Smith’s contemporaries described a much larger collection. The Facsimile 1 papyrus is from the same roll as surviving fragments, but the Book of Abraham text itself does not appear on any surviving fragment. The honest scholarly position acknowledges that we cannot prove the text was or was not on missing portions. LDS Discussions presents certainty where the evidence permits only hypothesis.

The Book of Abraham’s internal content also provides independent evidential value. LDS scholar John Gee and Egyptologist Lana Troy have independently identified authentic Egyptian funerary and cosmological elements in the text’s descriptions of Facsimile 1 that were not accessible from existing translations in Joseph Smith’s era. The claim that a semiliterate frontier farmer fabricated cosmological content independently verified as authentic Egyptian funerary imagery requires a more sophisticated explanation than “Joseph lied.”

Sources: Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, 2nd ed. (FARMS/Deseret Book, 2005); John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Religious Studies Center/Deseret Book, 2017); FAIR Latter-day Saints, “Book of Abraham Facsimiles” (fairlatterdaysaints.org); Kevin Barney, “The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources,” in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, ed. John Gee and Brian Hauglid (FARMS, 2005).

Objection 6: DNA Evidence — “Native Americans Came from Asia, Not Israel”

“Joseph Smith claimed that God revealed to him that the Native Americans were the Lamanites, both through the Book of Mormon as well as specific revelations. DNA has since shown that Native Americans came from Asia and not Israel, dismantling the very reason for the Book of Mormon in the first place.” — LDS Discussions

The Misrepresentation of What the Book of Mormon Claims

LDS Discussions asserts that the Book of Mormon claims all Native Americans are descended from Lehi’s family. The Book of Mormon text itself does not make this claim. The narrative describes a small group colonizing a specific geographic region; it never claims to account for the origins of all the inhabitants of two continents. The Church’s 2014 official statement explicitly affirms that the Book of Mormon “does not claim to describe the origins of all Native Americans” and does not exclude earlier or concurrent migrations. LDS Discussions is critiquing a claim the book does not make.

Population Genetics and the Bottleneck Problem

Even granting a hemispheric model for purposes of argument, the population genetics argument fails on its own scientific terms. Lehi’s group numbered in the dozens. A small founder population arriving on a continent already inhabited by millions would have its genetic signal reduced to statistical noise within twenty to thirty generations through genetic drift, population swamping, and normal admixture. Molecular anthropologist Ugo Perego, who has published in peer-reviewed genetics journals, has demonstrated that a Near Eastern founding group of that size would be effectively undetectable in modern Native American DNA regardless of whether they existed. The absence of detectable evidence is not evidence of absence.

The Unknown Baseline Problem

A further methodological flaw in the DNA critique is that we have no established baseline for what Lehite DNA should look like. We have no DNA samples from ancient Israelites of Lehi’s era (approximately 600 BC) and no independent confirmation of what haplogroups would have characterized a family from Jerusalem in the sixth century BC. The testing therefore involves comparing modern Native American DNA against a theoretical expectation that cannot itself be verified. This is not a test that can yield definitive results either way.

Haplogroup X — a marker found in small frequencies in some Native American populations but absent from East Asian populations — remains a point of genuine scientific interest. While Siberian populations carrying Haplogroup X were subsequently identified, the specific distribution patterns of X2a in North American indigenous groups are not fully explained by the Siberian migration model and continue to be studied. The DNA evidence does not “dismantle” the Book of Mormon; it presents an ongoing area of research with genuinely contested interpretation.

Sources: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Gospel Topics Essay, “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies” (2014); Ugo Perego, “The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper, ed. Robert Millet (Deseret Book, 2011); Jeff Lindsay, “DNA and the Book of Mormon,” jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml.

Objection 7: Deutero-Isaiah and Book of Mormon Anachronisms

“We could go on and on here talking about Joseph’s problems with the Book of Mormon translation including using Deutero-Isaiah material that was written after Lehi left.” — LDS Discussions

The Deutero-Isaiah Consensus Is Not Settled Science

LDS Discussions treats the critical scholarly theory of Deutero-Isaiah (multiple authorship of Isaiah, with chapters 40–55 dated to the Babylonian exile, after 586 BC) as established scientific fact equivalent to the age of the universe. It is not. The Deutero-Isaiah hypothesis is a critical scholarly consensus, but consensus in biblical scholarship is not the same as empirical verification. The theory is challenged by a substantial minority of scholars, including LDS Hebraist Avraham Gileadi, who has published detailed literary analyses demonstrating that the book of Isaiah exhibits structural unity — including chiasmus, thematic bookends, and interlocking vocabulary patterns — that point toward single authorship.

The Brass Plates Hypothesis

The Book of Mormon’s own internal account explains how Lehi’s family obtained the brass plates from Laban before departing Jerusalem around 600 BC. If the brass plates contained a more complete or differently compiled Isaiah tradition than what survives in the Masoretic text — which is itself a late medieval standardization of earlier manuscripts — then the presence of later chapters does not constitute an anachronism. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated that a full unified Isaiah existed at Qumran by 200 BC. The possibility that a complete unified Isaiah existed on the brass plates is entirely within the range of plausible historical scenarios.

Textual Variants as Evidence of Authenticity

More than half of the 433 Isaiah verses in the Book of Mormon differ from the King James Version. If Joseph Smith simply copied Isaiah from his Bible, why do so many verses diverge? Defenders argue these textual variants reflect an authentic pre-biblical manuscript tradition. Nephi explicitly states he is “likening” Isaiah to his people’s situation, providing an internal theological framework for adaptation. The Hebraic structural patterns identified by researchers in the Book of Mormon’s Isaiah passages — chiasmus, parallelism, word-clusters — are features Joseph Smith demonstrably had no exposure to and could not have produced from the King James text alone.

Sources: Avraham Gileadi, The Book of Isaiah: A New Translation with Interpretive Keys from the Book of Mormon (Deseret Book, 1988); FAIR Latter-day Saints, “Isaiah and the Book of Mormon” (fairlatterdaysaints.org); Noel Reynolds, “The Case for Ancient Authorship,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited (FARMS, 1997).

The Honesty Argument Turned on Its Head

LDS Discussions opens and closes its critique with a quotation from the LDS Gospel Principles manual about honesty, implying the Church fails its own standard. The rhetorical strategy deserves direct engagement. The critique itself selectively cites Richard Bushman while omitting his broader conclusions. It presents the Deutero-Isaiah hypothesis as settled science while it is not. It represents the DNA argument as conclusive while the population genetics are contested. It characterizes a short introductory video as a comprehensive theological statement subject to encyclopedic completeness standards.

If the standard of honesty requires presenting “the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage,” then LDS Discussions should present the apologetic responses to its own claims in full rather than directing readers only to further critical materials. It does not. The critique is a rhetorically constructed case, not a balanced scholarly analysis.

The Church’s Gospel Topics Essays — covering the First Vision, polygamy, the Book of Abraham, DNA and the Book of Mormon, priesthood restoration, and the Book of Mormon translation — represent an unprecedented act of institutional transparency for a major religion. These essays were published on LDS.org without fanfare precisely because the Church believed its members can handle the complexity when presented honestly and with context. LDS Discussions effectively ignores this entire body of disclosure in order to sustain its narrative of concealment.

Conclusion

The Joseph Smith “Now You Know” video is exactly what it presents itself to be: a brief, accessible introduction to Joseph Smith for general audiences. It is not a comprehensive history, not an essay, and not a scholarly monograph. Judging it by standards applicable only to the latter category is a category error.

When the LDS Discussions objections are evaluated against the primary sources and scholarly literature, each one fails under scrutiny. The multiple First Vision accounts are consistent with normal eyewitness variation and have Biblical parallels. The seer stone is fully acknowledged by the Church and does not undermine the prophetic claim. The priesthood restoration timeline critique rests on an argument from silence. The polygamy omission applies an impossible completeness standard. The Book of Abraham facsimile reading requires accepting that Egyptian iconography has only one meaning. The DNA argument attacks a claim the Book of Mormon never makes, and fails on its own population genetics. The Deutero-Isaiah argument treats a contested critical hypothesis as empirical proof.

Joseph Smith remains one of the most consequential and most examined religious figures in American history. The evidence for his prophetic calling, when honestly evaluated against the full range of scholarship rather than the selective reading LDS Discussions presents, continues to warrant serious intellectual engagement. The “Now You Know” video is not the end of that engagement — it is an invitation to begin it.

Key Scholarly Resources

• Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Knopf, 2005) — The definitive scholarly biography, written by a Columbia University historian.
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Topics Essays (LDS.org, 2013–2015) — Official essays on the First Vision, translation, polygamy, DNA, and the Book of Abraham.
• Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 3 vols. (Greg Kofford Books, 2013) — The most comprehensive scholarly treatment of the subject.
• John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Religious Studies Center/Deseret Book, 2017) — Scholarly treatment of the papyri and facsimiles by a trained Egyptologist.
• Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith’s First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts (Deseret Book, 2012) — Careful analysis of all six accounts.
• FAIR Latter-day Saints (fairlatterdaysaints.org) — Comprehensive apologetic database addressing virtually every claim raised by LDS Discussions.