Thanks for putting all this data together! Looking forward also to part 2 to see how the various scholars have interpreted these sometimes conflicting bits of data. I'm happy with it being done 'by the gift and power of God', whatever the actual physical method entailed, but it is interesting to 'speculate' on the mechanics of how Joseph Smith did it.

There’s a few problems with just a simple tally. For starters, it doesn’t take into account the reliability of the sources. David Whitmer can’t seem to keep his story straight when it comes to what Joseph used and when. The only instance we have of Martin Harris saying Joseph used anything other than the interpreters can’t be verified since it was printed several years after he died. Emma’s Last Testimony raised suspicion even when it was printed and when the opportunity to refer to it came in a letter to the editor of the Saints Herald three years later, they didn’t and instead pointed to Joseph and Oliver as the definitive sources for the translation. And then there’s what the Lord had to say on the matter in several instances of the D&C. I think it’s safe to say that Joseph exclusively used the interpreters with the plates.

I like the thoughtful research Jonathan Neville and Hannah Stoddard have done. I've come to the conclusion that the plates were used just as Joseph and Oliver have said and it was done by the gift and power of God using the Urim and Thummim or Nephite interpreters as they're also called. The stone in a hat was not used only as a demo in front of a few. If the plates we're not used, why would the Lord have all these people go to the trouble of manufacturing plates and tediously inscribing on them if they were simply to be ignored? One day we will be able to see the plates for ourselves in the Lord's museum.

Part 2 of 2 What of “Emma’s Last Testimony" we hear quoted from so often? Here are some facts regarding it: Emma’s last testimony was a supposed interview recorded by Joseph Smith III, President of the RLDS Church and published in “Saint's Herald,” Vol. 26, No 19 p. 289. (1 October 1879) Emma had died six months earlier on April 30, 1879, age 74. In a letter to William Smith, JSIII stated that his mother “was fast failing” when he arrived. (One must question her mental state at this time. No account of mental state given, however.) The interview included a question about JS’s involvement in polygamy, which Emma denied. Historians do not accept her account of polygamy because of too much evidence to the contrary. However, they accept her account of the STITH, which contradicts D&C 9, 10 and 14 of our canonized scripture and other firsthand accounts. In her last testimony, Emma claims she wrote hour after hour while his (JSIII’s) father (JS) sat with his face buried in a hat as he dictated from the stone with nothing between them. The motive for stating that there was nothing between them was to counter the widely accepted “Mormonism Unvailed” claim that JS sat behind a curtain and dictated the BOM from the Solomon Spaulding manuscript. At the time of Emma’s death JS III was fighting against the Spaulding manuscript claims as well as claims that his father had started polygamy. Polygamy was the dividing issue between the Brighamites (The saints who moved west) and the Josephites (Those who remained and denounced polygamy). Josephites established the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Nine years early in 1870, Emma, corresponding with her friend, Emma Pilgrim, wrote in her own hand, the following regarding BOM translation: “Now, the first part my husband translated, was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummin, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost. After that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color. I cannot tell whether that account in the Times and Seasons is correct or not because someone stole all my books and I have none to refer to at present, if I can find one that has that account I will tell you what is true and what is not.” NOTE: If Emma had sat hour after hour writing while Joseph sat with his face buried in a hat as he dictated, why didn’t she tell this to her friend in 1870. She stated in response to her friend’s inquiry that she couldn’t recall how the BOM was translated after the first 116 pages without her articles and books. But she had no problem remembering “while fast failing” on her deathbed nine years later? In this 1870 letter, Emma mentions the stone but can’t remember any details about how it was used without referring to her Times and Seasons articles and books that she says were stolen. This shows that she was not a firsthand witness to the STITH theory. Her account, therefore, is hearsay. Emma describes the stone but does not outright state she had seen it. That she saw it can only be assumed. When refuting David Whitmer's claim regarding JS being a fallen Prophet, JS III, in the "Saints Herald, volume 33, o. 45, November 13, 1886, refutes the STITH by referring to Oliver Cowdery's Letter I of 8 (1834) and his father's John Wentworth Letter published in 1842. These state Joseph Smith's claims of BOM translation of the plates by means of the U&T. " JS III stated the following from this "Saints Herald '' Article " [It] must be allowed that these men best knew by what means the Book of Mormon was translated and the "chief instrument" was the interpreters.” JS III accepted his father had a seer stone but he completely invalidated Emma’s Last Testimony by accepting the U&T translation and not citing her last testimony in the Saints Herald article. It must also be noted that the OC Letter I which JS had copied into his personal history which gives it more credibility, was written to refute the false translation claims, (STITH and Spalding Manuscript) made in "Mormonism Unvailed. Here is an ASSUMPTION not to be accepted as fact: In many Section headings of the D&C it notes that the revelations were given to JS through the U& T. Since Joseph was not allowed to show anyone the U&T, maybe he put the stones and his face in the hat as he dictated the revelations. Perhaps witnesses to these revelations assumed that that is how he translated the BOM:) Decide for yourself. I side with Joseph.

Here’s how the B of M was written: Sidney Rigdon stole a Spalding manuscript (his second book) from the printer shop where he worked. Joseph tore off one page at a time and placed it in his hat. At translation time, Joseph put his face in his hat and read words from the page. - oh, he also put his seer stone in his hat - a rock he found when digging a well - notice, sometimes Joseph didn’t know how to pronounce the word, so he spelled it (why? Because he was reading from a page) The scribe wrote down the words. This explains how Joseph could write those many pages in such a short time. Also, many witnesses who knew Spaulding testified that the B of M was exactly the same as Spaulding’s second book.

The thumbnail title assumes that they are not the same thing.

Samuel Whitney Richards' account of Oliver Cowdery's description of the translation came from Oliver when we stayed with the Richards family in 1848 after Oliver's return to the Church.

Emma Smiths account was in 1870, documented by JS III (RLDS pres), printed after her death so there could be no corrections/cross examinations. She also denied polygamy as being practiced. So there are some problems....

Why does nobody mention Hiram Page's use of a stone to purportedly receive revelations and the possibility that some memories were cross-contaminated?

We give Moses credit for the first 5 books in the Bible. He wrote about things 3-4K years before his time. Has anyone ever scrutinized Moses? I mean he wrote about talking snakes, floods, huge boats, annihilationof the human race, unicorns, dragons, talking animals and so forth.

For me there just isn't enough solid evidence to reject what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation. Emma and David's recollections certainly should be taken into consideration, but they are both inconsistent and contradictory in many of their statements. And Emma only really was directly involved in the translation at the beginning where she claims the urim and thumim were used. David was never actually involved in the translation. And both of their statements were given years after the fact.

David Whitmer (1805 - 1888), one of the Three Witnesses: I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph 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. Journey of David Whtmer, Chapter 25. 1862

JOSEPH ONLY USED THE URIM AND THUMMIM HE COULD ONLY USE TWO SEER STONES AT ONCE AND THEY GAD TO BE FRAMED IN A BOW APOSTATES SAY HE ALSO USED ONE SEER STONE NOT FRAMED IN A BOW BUT THATS FALSE BECAUSE TWO IN A BOW IS GODLY BUT ONE WITHOUT A BOW IS WEIRD AND THE OCCULT ***To clarify, this comment is meant to be satire

Urim and Thummim means lights and perfection. That's what he used.... the common denominator between the first vision and the translation is light... light light light is found all over.... that's why he needed the hat.... the hat blocked out worldly light... the human eye can only in reality see .0035% of the light spectrum. The spiritual eye is the eye which our spirit can filter more light around us. Our fleshly eyes do not see 99.96% of what is around us. The gift that God gave Joseph was the gift to see more light..... this actually means that it is even possible that the plates could not be seen by anything but the spiritual eye. It takes preparation to see more of the reality around us because it can really be a mentally traumatic experience. Revelations mentions the angel with the everlasting gospel. This means that John seen the angel and the gospel both, with the same spiritual eye.... which means the plates could only be seen by an eye that is prepared to see more than the .0035%... which explains Joseph letting his mother and brothers only touch with the plates covered.... if they see the plates. It could've been blinding or emotionally too much to see with that heavenly spectrum. Moses validates this concept of seeing God and not being able to live to talk about it. The veil is there to block 99.96% of light. Lol if you made it through my theory.... I'm open to opposition.

Spoiler alert.....they are the same thing!

What ever you call it it was a prop in JS's fabrication. But, for anybody to question which prop he used is rediculous. Not one of the supposed ancient artifacts exist that JS claimed he received. So the chocolate colored seer stone that JS used for other endevors and that the church has in SLC is the only possible prop he could have used. I notice that you are disregarding the Essay the church has provided and you want to consult "scholars" and researchers who simple provide you with theories and their interpretaions of the records. Why do you not trust the Church Essay produced under the direction of the brethren? And once again, prop or no prop, JS could not and did not translate the BOM or the BOA. He had an opportunity to prove his ability with actual papyri and the translation of the words. He failed and it stands a witness against his available claim about the BOA. To then BELIEVE he could transalte an invisible record with a variety of ancient non existant props is even more to difficult when you must ignore a proven failure in the BOA.

The Papyrus for the book of Abraham and the kinderbook plates pretty much conclusively proved that Joseph Smith couldn't translate anything. But he was a good storyteller

I'm not sure that you are using the word "translate" correctly.