Using God to Short Circuit Evidence

[J Green]

Okay, a few initial thoughts on indicators that seem to point toward a more mechanical process.

Most witnesses agree that JS used both the U&T and the seer stone in the translation process. (And some of these statements seem to use the terms interchangeably.) Mostly this involved JS looking at the seer stone in the bottom of a hat. He later tells Orson Pratt that he only used these mechanical aids when he was inexperienced and that later he didn't need them (Latter-day Saints

[J Green]

Bumping for Honorentheos . . .

[Honorentheos]

Hi, J Green

I apologize for being absent. Work has been busy and my after-hours free time was more valuable than a message board could afford. (It's funny how a daughter's worth in the economics of time becomes heightened when that resource becomes more scarce...)

Anyway, while I think your assessment of the need for a mechanical process is certainly supported by the resources you listed, I also think you should include the need to have a mechanical process to see any reasonable explanation for the potential inclusion of non-traditional English phrases i.e. - the claimed Hebrewisms that some claim are in the text. I'm not an expert on these and for what it's worth sometimes think that those who are see them not only because they have the training to see them, but because their training causes them to see them. I can't attest to this specifically, but in reading a recent thread by David Bukovy on the subject left me with this impression.

Certainly the ability to spell specific words seems to indicate this is the intended reason for this and not likely a phonic attempt to spell what was in his mind. I'd include this for your consideration of your point -

Proper names

Obviously I don't agree with you based on the larger issue of pre-Columbian authorship vs 19th century. But internally one can make your case with the evidence provided.

If I get a chance, I'll drop back in tonight to describe why I would argue you have to accept both if one is to believe the BoM is true, which of course I do not.

[Honorentheos]

I thought I would come back to this first as it deserves discussion and is a point I actually believe in.

You're right that the period for the desk reference is not specified, but the description sounds more like the OC era than the MH one. During the former, she starts off as scribe then works in the room every day, and the plates are either on the table or in her red trunk during this time. During the MH era, we get mostly references to the plates hidden behind the curtain. Doesn't this feel more like the OC era to you? Bushman seems to feel the same way, as he places this quote in the context of the return to translation duties after the loss of the 116 pages.

You might have missed this just a few paragraphs earlier:

Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

One will likely choose to do as Bushman if one is inclined to believe as Bushman. But the evidence is not compelling, while what we do know of the individuals involved makes it more likely the method of concealment was based on the need.

I'd like to point out that Emma Smith was JS's first scribe prior to the MH period. The quote regarding the concealment of material specifically indicates she was acting as scribe at the time, not as an outside observer.

As to the rest, I'm not sure one should rule out the argument that he concealed whatever the "plates" may have been from Emma using a blanket or even in another room while Harris had to be kept from them completely. Emma's interview that we have been discussing indicated she personally felt no desire to inspect the plates. I'm not sure this is true and it makes me suspicious she may not want to take the other stand of admitting she did know and it was something "other". But regardless, Harris obviously was very curious and concerned about the nature of the plates themselves to a very large and real extent so the idea that this "feels" the same is speculation that I don't think is substantially true.

Like any account, you take a look at all the factors in context. Another concern, which you haven't mentioned, is its lateness. This is many decades removed from the event. But as I said earlier, I don't think the entire case stands or falls with any of Emma's statements. My point is that we should be looking at all of the witness statements in this manner instead of limiting the set based simply on scribal output. This is a start.

Regardless of the lateness, I think it speaks specifically to the fact that most if not all of the witness testimonies from this period are at odds with the idea that we can trust that other material such as the use of KJV were not present during the process. David Whitmer, for example, specifically states that he was present in the Whitmer house during translation while Oliver was the scribe in his "An Address to All Believers". He describes the process as being one of JS using the U&T without the plates even being present, in contradiction with your point about Emma so we may want to consider this. But more importantly, if one takes the majority of the report as is, there is a fair amount of material that is not favorable to JS. An online copy of this is here if anyone is interested - David Whitmer

Again, one has to pick and choose what one wishes to believe from this source.

And this seems to be the pattern.

[J Green]

Hi, Honorentheos.

No worries, I know what you mean about time with family. The two hours I spent with my daughters at their dance class today were better than any two I've ever spent on the board. Although it would be fun to see a few of the posters here in tutus . . .

I won't quibble too much with your comments about Emma except to make two observations:

1. I recognize that there are issues with her statement. For example, another issue not yet discussed is the contradiction between her observations and others about when the U&T was used as opposed to the stone. I'm not suggesting that hers is the only statement or that it is entirely pure.

2. Historically, most statements like this will contain some issues. Many witnesses to a common event disagree in their accounts, especially when written much later, and this case is no exception. But historians look at a lot of factors, including where these disparate statements do agree. While Emma's comments about polygamy may not mesh with other accounts, much of her statement about the BoM translation does. So that portion is used by both critics and believers in their histories of the process. It's simply part of the evidence that we can't safely ignore if we want to be careful.

But there is more evidence for a lack of reference material than this. There were others present in the room during the OC era who have testified that JS did not use any references: DW, MH, OC, and DW's father, to name a few (Lyndon W. Cook [ed.], David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness [Grandin Book Co., 1993], 76, 139-40). Further, Skousen's research of the manuscripts points to many on-the-spot corrections by scribes that look like misunderstandings based on dictation. So at least the scribes weren't using reference material. But based on all this, I lean toward rejecting the idea of any reference material. I understand that there are LDS scholars who believe in the book's divine origin but feel that JS must have simply used the KJV bible as a reference when he encountered text through revelation that was essentially the same. And from your perspective, you argue for the same reference scenario absent the divine inspiration. But the problem with either of these is that there is simply no evidence for the reference material. There are no witness statements for it and several against. So then you have to make the argument from the product itself, and I'm fine with that as long as we weigh all the evidence and don't simply assume this a priori.

Anyway, while I think your assessment of the need for a mechanical process is certainly supported by the resources you listed, I also think you should include the need to have a mechanical process to see any reasonable explanation for the potential inclusion of non-traditional English phrases i.e. - the claimed Hebrewisms that some claim are in the text.

I think this point relates more to the argument for tight v. loose translation, although they are obviously related. Skousen equates the two, but I'm not convinced yet. For example, in the tight translation scenario, the resulting target text is sometimes overly tight. As Sidney Sperry points out, JS often uses the construct state for phrases like "mount of Sinai" where the KJV never does (it only has "Mount Sinai"). And there are other phrases that seem awkward in English beyond the norm for even a literal translation based on KJV language. If we simply accept that the mechanical translation theory is exactly the same issue as a tight translation, we get the result that God is sometimes dictating awkward English on purpose. I guess I'm not ready yet to simply assume that.

I'm not an expert on these and for what it's worth sometimes think that those who are see them not only because they have the training to see them, but because their training causes them to see them. I can't attest to this specifically, but in reading a recent thread by David Bukovy on the subject left me with this impression.

There are definitely threads here that fall into this category, but I would disagree about David's, if it's the one I recollect. That was first-rate material. I may refer to it if we get down the road far enough here.

Obviously I don't agree with you based on the larger issue of pre-Columbian authorship vs 19th century.

Understood. And it's reasonable for you to continue to look at it from that angle, as long as we can consider all the evidence, including the claims of those involved.

If I get a chance, I'll drop back in tonight to describe why I would argue you have to accept both if one is to believe the BoM is true, which of course I do not.

I'm very interested to read your thoughts on this. I believe that you are right that the answer lies in a synthesis of the two elements, but I'm not sure that one has to believe this in order to believe that the BoM is true. You have some amazing minds like Skousen who believe strongly in the divinity of the BoM yet advocate a purely mechanical translation. For example:

These new findings argue that Joseph Smith was not the author of the English-language translation of the Book of Mormon. Not only was the text revealed to him word for word, but the words themselves sometimes had meanings that he and his scribes would not have known, which occasionally led to misinterpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a 19th-century text, nor is it Joseph Smith's. The English-language text was revealed through him, but it was not precisely in his language or ours. ("

The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon

")

On the other end of the spectrum you have statements like the following from Blake Ostler:

To make sense of the text, we must accept that Joseph Smith was free to choose the language in which to express the translation. ("U

pdating the Expansion Theory

")

But before we get too much further into a discussion of why both elements must be present, we should look at the merits of the argument that JS did have control over how the text should be articulated in the translation. I'll save that for the next post. With both views listed we can then discuss your argument that LDS have to believe both theories at the same time.

Regards

[J Green]

Indicators of Translator Control

In arguing that JS has more control in the translation process, we should start with some cogent observations by Stephen Ricks in his article "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon":

1) Neither David Whitmer nor Martin Harris had knowledge of the method of translation of the Book of Mormon from personal experience while Joseph himself seems to have given only the most general outline of the process. Thus, their notions concerning the translation probably derive as much from the inerrantist preconceptions concerning Holy Writ which were common at the time and in which they doubtless shared as from and primary experience which they may have had with the translation.

2) In D & C 9:7

[J Green]

Before I post my thoughts on harmonizing the two sets of indicators we've discussed, I want to emphasize a point I made earlier: whether the translation process was mechanical or controlled is a different issue than whether the resulting translation product was "tight" or "loose." I feel this should be self-evident, but quite a few out there seem to be conflating the two. There is no reason why a "loose" translation can't be the product of a mechanical process where God frames the revelation in the context of his prophet's language and culture. Conversely, there is no reason why a "tight" translation can't be the product of a controlled process. So I don't think we can necessarily look at the translation product as an exact indicator of the translation process. Although one question may be relevant. What does it tell us if we accept that the BoM exhibits both loose and tight translation characteristics? Can we assume, for example, that a text that exhibits both is more likely with JS being involved in the process than if he were simply receiving the text word for word mechanically?

[J Green]

Looks like I'm talking to myself now. But before I hang up the phone, I'd like to make good on my intent to harmonize the various witness statements about the BoM translation process.

In previous posts I outlined two traditional sets of indicators--one set that advocated a mechanical translation process, and another that argued for JS having more control over the transfer of meaning from source to target text. I personally feel that each of these sets has enough evidence to preclude dismissing the entire set. I also feel that these sets are not mutually exclusive. The process seemed to involve inspiration and agency as well as a connection to and understanding of the source text language.

Inspiration and Translator Control

D&C 9:7-8 seems to make it clear that a translation is not simply given to the "translator." This is a spiritual exercise at its core. It involves pondering, prayer, and the Holy Ghost. It is the way most of us (who believe) experience revelation. We ponder and ask and receive a witness. When we give a priesthood blessing; officiate in ordinances; gather as presidencies, leaderships, and bishoprics to ask for guidance; kneel with spouse and children in prayer, etc., we receive impressions that we are allowed to articulate with our own words. Several witnesses to the translation of the BoM mention this spiritual element that is emphasized in D&C 9, saying that the translation came through the power of the Holy Ghost. JS simply said it was the power of God. When he argued with Emma he couldn't receive the translation through revelation, and that sounds like a spiritual problem that precludes inspiration. In this sense, JS must have had the ability and agency to choose the language he used to a certain degree. He had been given a "power to translate" and a "gift" (see D&C 3) that is temporarily taken away. This doesn't sound like God has simply stopped dictating to him, it sounds like JS has an actual spiritual gift of the Spirit that can be removed. He has a "power." It's a gift that consists of the ability to receive revelation and then articulate it in his own words.

Language Mechanics

On the other hand, it is also clear that JS was accessing the original source text language in some way. He started off holding the stones of the U&T directly over copied characters as part of the translation. Later he could use the U&T and then the seer stone without looking at the characters yet still visualizing the original text and a translation in the stones in some fashion. D&C 3:12 tells us that JS had "sight and power to translate." There are enough witnesses that tell us that even though he doesn't have the plates in hand, JS is still accessing the source text and its language, seeing the text in the stones. If he can see and connect to the source text spiritually and (at first) visually yet still must follow the dictates of D&C 9:7-8 in terms of verifying through spiritual confirmation that his translation is correct, then we must assume that he engages with the source text in a way that allows him to understand it. It wouldn't make sense for JS to be required to ask for spiritual confirmation of words that are simply spoon-fed to him mechanically through the stone. We have to assume that he is spiritually enabled to understand the source text, thus knowing the meaning and having to make a decision about how to articulate it in English.

Inspired Translation by the Power of God

If we understand that JS was enabled to understand the source language as a spiritual gift (like the gift of tongues or interpretation of tongues), then the words in the D&C like "power" and "gift" of translation start to make sense. Through revelation JS understood the text and had to transfer its meaning. Thus he was a translator in the true sense of the word. He first leaned on looking at characters in the U&T, then (as his faith and revelatory powers increased) accessed the text remotely through the U&T and the seer stone. Eventually he could perform this process without any physical aid at all, underscoring the fact that the basis for this understanding was a spiritual gift. But the result of the gift was to comprehend the original text in order to perform an actual translation. This is why the original manuscript betrays signs of an overly literal human translator, such as the Semitic if-and constructions edited out by Grandin that are not reflective of KJV English. It is why we can see language that reflects the underlying source text language as well as elements or phrases that may seem contextually more at home in the milieu of the translator himself. It is why he felt comfortable editing the text later--he had received the revelation of meaning and had articulated it in his own words, so he could later go back and choose to rephrase it based on his original feelings.

Those are just a few thoughts that would help us get closer to understanding the relationship between the translation product and the KJV. However, to really get a good answer we'd have to look at a number of other elements, some of which are listed in the suggested outline above. But I'll spare that discussion for the places I feel more comfortable talking to myself--like the car or the shower.

Regards