Craig Criddle on If/And Conditional Sentences

[William Schryver]

Contrary to what some people claim, LDS believe Joseph Smith is not the God of the Universe. He translated the plates by the gift and power of God and if there are mistakes (such as leaving in Hebraisms that don't work in English) "they be the faults of a man".

I believe that the plates of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God. But I don't believe Joseph Smith ever translated anything, at least not in the sense we understand the term "translation." I believe all Joseph Smith ever did was to read words that he saw and to thereby restore lost ancient texts. But I don't believe he ever participated in the "translation" process of converting a text from a foreign language into modern English. Someone else did that and then delivered the previously-translated text to the seer, who then read it out loud while his scribes wrote down the words.

Was the "gift and power of God" manifest in all of this? Certainly. But I don't believe for a minute that God himself took any part whatsoever in the technical process of having the ancient text of the Book of Mormon translated and delivered to the young seer. That task would surely have been delegated to others.

[Mansquatch]

I was operating under the impression that most of you believed that JS received the English text of the BOM purely by revelation. If so, then doesn't the if/and mistranslation come directly from God? If not, where did those English emanating from that hat come from?

Joseph was given a gift from God. The gift was the ability to see the translation of ancient texts that he had no clue about how to actually translate himself. Giving someone a gift to perform certain actions does not mean that you did the actions for them, but rather only that you gave them the ability to do it.

I will acknowledge the Lord's hand in all things though and say that it is very likely that if/and statements were meant to be in there. The whole translation process provides great evidences for the divine destiny of the Book of Mormon. God could have very easily just handed Joseph a pre-translated version of the text and told him to publish it. If I were making up a fake book to start a religion, I would definitely not want witnesses to a translation process. I would go with the story of God giving me a book fully ready for publishing.

I believe that the plates of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God. But I don't believe Joseph Smith ever translated anything, at least not in the sense we understand the term "translation." I believe all Joseph Smith ever did was to read words that he saw and to thereby restore lost ancient texts. But I don't believe he ever participated in the "translation" process of converting a text from a foreign language into modern English. Someone else did that and then delivered the previously-translated text to the seer, who then read it out loud while his scribes wrote down the words.

Was the "gift and power of God" manifest in all of this? Certainly. But I don't believe for a minute that God himself took any part whatsoever in the technical process of having the ancient text of the Book of Mormon translated and delivered to the young seer. That task would surely have been delegated to others.

Semantics. Joseph used the word 'translate' pretty loosely in different situations to describe what could be called interpretation, revelation or just clarification. So I claim the right to do the same. Maybe a new English word is needed; giftslation, transgiftion, tranplation. Help me out here.

[dblagent007]

I believe that the plates of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God. But I don't believe Joseph Smith ever translated anything, at least not in the sense we understand the term "translation." I believe all Joseph Smith ever did was to read words that he saw and to thereby restore lost ancient texts. But I don't believe he ever participated in the "translation" process of converting a text from a foreign language into modern English. Someone else did that and then delivered the previously-translated text to the seer, who then read it out loud while his scribes wrote down the words.

Was the "gift and power of God" manifest in all of this? Certainly. But I don't believe for a minute that God himself took any part whatsoever in the technical process of having the ancient text of the Book of Mormon translated and delivered to the young seer. That task would surely have been delegated to others.

Are you saying that God's translation department was delegated the task of converting the reformed Egyptian into English and that they are the ones responsible for the if/and mistranslation? These guys must be incompetent since they made a mistake that almost all, if not all, lowly human translators do not make. They also copied the KJV Isaiah too so maybe there is a good case that these guys took a lot of shortcuts and/or had no idea what they were doing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I was operating under the impression that most of you believed that JS received the English text of the BOM purely by revelation. If so, then doesn't the if/and mistranslation come directly from God? If not, where did the English emanating from that hat come from?

Define "purely by revelation" and explain where you received such a definition.

[William Schryver]

It's not an issue of semantics at all. It's an issue of understanding the actual mechanisms involved in the production of the Book of Mormon, and realizing how that knowledge can inform our understanding of the text itself.

If there is one thing Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon manuscripts project has made perfectly clear--at least to me--it's that Joseph Smith was being delivered packets of words which he then recited as his scribes wrote them.

That is a very significant element of evidence to consider, in conjunction with the scant eyewitness testimony to the translation process. What it tells us is that Joseph Smith was not the one doing the "translating." Oh, sure, he might have flattered himself into thinking that was effectively what he had done, but the evidence is conclusive in the contrary. When it comes to the production of the English text of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was a seer and a reader. But he was clearly not a translator. And if he didn't translate the book, then obviously someone else did. And I am entirely disinclined to believe that the "God of the Universe" condescended to perform that particular task. In my judgment, He would have most certainly assigned the task to other(s). And if the assigned translator was disposed to regard an "if/and" construction as perfectly acceptable, given what may have been his "native" language and his imperfect understanding of modern English, then it should be no surprise to see something like that find its way into the original "translated" text.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Are you saying that God's translation department was delegated the task of converting the reformed Egyptian into English and that they are the ones responsible for the if/and mistranslation? These guys must be incompetent since they made a mistake that almost all, if not all, lowly human translators do not make. They also copied the KJV Isaiah too so maybe there is a good case that these guys took a lot of shortcuts and/or had no idea what they were doing.

Oddly, I, for one, am not convinced that the if/and instances in the BoM are remnants of translation, I allow the possibility that such grammatical examples are the result of a translator's rudimentary grasp of sentence construction. But at the same time I disagree with your understanding of the translation as 100% God directed/written.

[dblagent007]

Joseph was given a gift from God. The gift was the ability to see the translation of ancient texts that he had no clue about how to actually translate himself. Giving someone a gift to perform certain actions does not mean that you did the actions for them, but rather only that you gave them the ability to do it.

God gave JS a gift to translate ancient texts, but it is unreliable at best. Okay. Got it. By the way, how exactly do you envision this scenario working when JS had his head and in the hat and was dictating English words?

I will acknowledge the Lord's hand in all things though and say that it is very likely that if/and statements were meant to be in there. The whole translation process provides great evidences for the divine destiny of the Book of Mormon. God could have very easily just handed Joseph a pre-translated version of the text and told him to publish it. If I were making up a fake book to start a religion, I would definitely not want witnesses to a translation process. I would go with the story of God giving me a book fully ready for publishing.

Why wouldn't you want a witness to the translation process? If you just show up with a manuscript and say it was from God, people aren't going to believe you. Other people are much more likely to believe you if they see you, head buried in your hat, dictating text in a way that looks like it is coming from God. Don't you think?

[William Schryver]

Are you saying that God's translation department was delegated the task of converting the reformed Egyptian into English and that they are the ones responsible for the if/and mistranslation? These guys must be incompetent since they made a mistake that almost all, if not all, lowly human translators do not make. They also copied the KJV Isaiah too so maybe there is a good case that these guys took a lot of shortcuts and/or had no idea what they were doing.

Assuming that "God's translation department" did translate the plates of Mormon, then it would follow that someone familiar with the "Reformed Egyptian" of the plates would have been selected to perform or head up such an effort. If, in the language of the plates, an "if/and" construction was completely normal and understandable, it does not surprise me at all that it would have found its way into the English translation. After all, 19th century English would not have been the primary language of the translator, and the nuances of the language are, as we all well know, quite demanding.

You obviously make the incorrect assumption that those working in "God's translation department" are omniscient when it comes to the languages of the earth. I don't believe that assumption is warranted.

[dblagent007]

Oddly, I, for one, am not convinced that the if/and instances in the BoM are remnants of translation, I allow the possibility that such grammatical examples are the result of a translator's rudimentary grasp of sentence construction. But at the same time I disagree with your understanding of the translation as 100% God directed/written.

Do you have a theory how this less than 100% translation process would have worked?

[LifeOnaPlate]

If there is one thing Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon manuscripts project has made perfectly clear--at least to me--it's that Joseph Smith was being delivered packets of words which he then recited as his scribes wrote them.

That is a very significant element of evidence to consider, in conjunction with the scant eyewitness testimony to the translation process. What it tells us is that Joseph Smith was not the one doing the "translating."

I think this data can be interpreted different ways. I am currently not convinced of the divine teleprompter theory any more that the loose and composite theories. I think the packet-o-word data does not necessitate the interpretation you hold. Ricks's hypothesis is another way of reading the data.

[William Schryver]

dblagent007:

God gave JS a gift to translate ancient texts, but it is unreliable at best.

Quite to the contrary, I think both the gift he was given, as well as the finished product, are simply extraordinary.

But no one here is seriously expecting you to accept that assessment, nor to even attempt to understand the things we are saying. Your reputation for obdurate blindness is well deserved, and I don't anticipate you making a sudden "about face" in the midst of your uncontrolled slide into total apostasy.

[dblagent007]

dblagent007:

Quite to the contrary, I think both the gift he was given, as well as the finished product, are simply extraordinary.

What you quoted was simply my restatement of Mansquatch's explanation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Do you have a theory how this less than 100% translation process would have worked?

It's a really sticky conundrum. I don't know that a "100% translation process" would even be possible at all under any circumstance. All translations, in my view, are always less than 100%. That applies to human language in general. It becomes even more sticky when we start talking about revelation from God to human.

There is a ton of info that has to be considered in regards to the BoM translation specifically. There is Skousen's manuscript evidence (referred to by Will) in addition to different witness statements delivered by different people, at different times, to different sources, regarding different moments of the larger translation process. Also, translation and human language are remarkably complex subjects. The implications are huge. Is language culture-bound? What sort of flexibility would be allowed in a translation of a text from a different culture? How does translation impact a fixed canon or religious text? The implications are rather huge.

Consider the parallel activities of interpretation and translation for the Bible. With the Bible, "we cannot translate until we first understand the original meaning, so translation is, to that degree, dependent on interpretation." But there are deeper issues at stake, including how literal to make a translation, whether to include paraphrases or explanations outside of the translation, etc.

Biblical interpretation consists of three steps:

1. What does the text say?

2. What does it mean?

3. What does it mean to me?...

Bible translation consists of three parallel steps:

1. What does the source text say?

2. What does it mean?

3. How do we best express that meaning in the target language?

How did JS describe the process (and why did he describe it this way?) What led Joseph Smith to declare:

[LifeOnaPlate]

God gave JS a gift to translate ancient texts, but it is unreliable at best. Okay. Got it.

The nature of us humans and our language would require it. What good is a scripture that no mortal could ever understand?

By the way, how exactly do you envision this scenario working when JS had his head and in the hat and was dictating English words?

Ricks has an interesting hypothesis. I'll bet if you poke around the Maxwell Institute site you'll land on it soon.

Why wouldn't you want a witness to the translation process?

I, for one, would feel a bit silly putting my head in a hat.

If you just show up with a manuscript and say it was from God, people aren't going to believe you.

Why not? Muhammad didn't even have a manuscript, evidently, and people believed him.

Other people are much more likely to believe you if they see you, head buried in your hat, dictating text in a way that looks like it is coming from God. Don't you think?

Depends on the person, I guess. Joseph was reticent about the mechanics, evidently he didn't think to proclaim them loud and long to convince people.

[William Schryver]

LoaP:

Why not? Muhammad didn't even have a manuscript, evidently, and people believed him.

This is, in my judgment, a very apt observation when it comes to revealed scripture. Without intending to make a commentary on the "revealed" nature of the Quran, the fact remains that the measure of any inspired text is the degree to which it is received by those who consider it inspired. In other words: "... he that will hear my voice shall be my sheep ..."

[LifeOnaPlate]

BAAAAaaaaaah

[why me]

I am still trying to figure out just how Joseph and Sidney met to plan the book of mormon project. As I stated on the other board, they would have had to meet quite often to plan all this out. This would not have been an overnight deal but several meetings would need to have occured.

Plus, it seems like a lot of work to establish a new church. Both men could have been successful without the book of mormon in establishing a church. I just don't see how both men could have planned the book of mormon project in secret, from family and friends with the amount of time it would have taken.

[Mansquatch]

It's not an issue of semantics at all. It's an issue of understanding the actual mechanisms involved in the production of the Book of Mormon, and realizing how that knowledge can inform our understanding of the text itself.

If there is one thing Royal Skousen's Book of Mormon manuscripts project has made perfectly clear--at least to me--it's that Joseph Smith was being delivered packets of words which he then recited as his scribes wrote them.

That is a very significant element of evidence to consider, in conjunction with the scant eyewitness testimony to the translation process. What it tells us is that Joseph Smith was not the one doing the "translating." Oh, sure, he might have flattered himself into thinking that was effectively what he had done, but the evidence is conclusive in the contrary. When it comes to the production of the English text of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was a seer and a reader. But he was clearly not a translator. And if he didn't translate the book, then obviously someone else did. And I am entirely disinclined to believe that the "God of the Universe" condescended to perform that particular task. In my judgment, He would have most certainly assigned the task to other(s). And if the assigned translator was disposed to regard an "if/and" construction as perfectly acceptable, given what may have been his "native" language and his imperfect understanding of modern English, then it should be no surprise to see something like that find its way into the original "translated" text.

We are gonna have to change the title page of the Book of Mormon then. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/ttlpg

TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun. God

[William Schryver]

We are gonna have to change the title page of the Book of Mormon then. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/ttlpg

TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun. God

I perceive no such need.

The primary definition given for the word "translate" from Miriam Webster online:

1 a : to bear, remove, or change from one place, state, form, or appearance to another : transfer, transform

I think that this describes quite well what Joseph Smith did. The English text of the Book of Mormon was delivered to him via the seerstone, he read the words out loud, the words were written down by his scribes. There is nothing to suggest that the "God of the Universe" was directly involved in the process, although the process was commissioned by Him.

[Mansquatch]

God gave JS a gift to translate ancient texts, but it is unreliable at best. Okay. Got it. By the way, how exactly do you envision this scenario working when JS had his head and in the hat and was dictating English words?

How do you get unreliable? I think it worked beautifully, even to the point where the word "and" that was extant in the Hebrew written with Egyptian symbols was translated into English.

Why wouldn't you want a witness to the translation process? If you just show up with a manuscript and say it was from God, people aren't going to believe you. Other people are much more likely to believe you if they see you, head buried in your hat, dictating text in a way that looks like it is coming from God. Don't you think?

Too much extra work. Have to make sure other don't see my manuscripts. Have to find a way to light a hat enough for me to read without burning my face on a candle, that kind of stuff.

[Mansquatch]

I perceive no such need.

The primary definition given for the word "translate" from Miriam Webster online:

I think that this describes quite well what Joseph Smith did. The English text of the Book of Mormon was delivered to him via the seerstone, he read the words out loud, the words were written down by his scribes. There is nothing to suggest that the "God of the Universe" was directly involved in the process, although the process was commissioned by Him.

I thought you said it wasn't an issue of semantics and that Joseph did not translate the plates but rather that God did. (pardon me if I previously misunderstood you) I am gonna need clarification. Yes or no, did Joseph 'translate' the Book of Mormon?

[DanGB]

I have no eccentric view of "passion," and this isn't about "passion" anyway.

I seriously hope you reconsider. I would bet paychecks that those who do anything worthwhile do it with passion. Those who teach, write, or perform at the top do so with passion or they never make it to the top!

So, in fact, you do seem to be suggesting, not on basis of your own careful consideration of the evidence and analysis that it deploys -- for, as you've repeatedly said, you really aren't very familiar with it -- but on the basis of what, at second hand, you take to be mainstream academia's failure to pay much attention to Mormon scholarship, that Mormon scholarship isn't very good.

No. What I am suggesting in the specific area of BOM claims, be it the claim of reformed Egyptian or the people places and cultures that existed, the mere claim of an ancient history, a record of the history and great scholarship linking all this together would hardly be ignored by the very professionals and academians most likely to have a passion for this area of interest. It simply makes no sense.

On the basis of analogous reasoning, an athlete in a very small town can safely be judged to be mediocre even if you've never seen him perform, because none of the major universities have been recruiting him.

And really good football teams, if they don't get to play in a BCS bowl, aren't actually very good.

Probably not a well thought through analogy but I give you the benefit of not being very sports/athletic oriented.

Small town kids are discovered all the time. Those with passion for the sports seek them out. Just last week USC and a 13 yr old boy gave verbal commitments to each other. And both Utah and Boise State and BYU have received tremendous respect by their peers and never made it to the BCS game. My point is they are not afraid to seek out and submit themselves to the greatest level of peer scrutiny.

Do you believe the LDS scholarship on BOM historicity seeks out and willingly submits it's work to the greatest level od academic and professional review with the same passionate confidence? I ask because if it is as convincing as we hope it is, it seems to me it would be the best way to legitimatize the historicity claim f the BOM so we can shows others it's been accepted by peer secular academic venues.

--------------

Have you read Terryl Givens's By the Hand of Mormon (Oxford University Press)? Have you noticed that Maxwell Institute publications on the Book of Abraham are featured in catalogs from the University of Chicago Press? Have you attended the sessions that we run at the annual national meetings of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature? Have you ever read any of the thousands of pages of material that the Maxwell Institute has up on line? What makes you think that Latter-day Saint scholars are failing to put their work before the eyes of the broader scholarly world?

[volgadon]

Ok, why should you expect professors to read the stuff if you yourself can't be bothered?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Hey, Dan. Did you ever read my post #65 above, wherein I extensively quoted a couple of non-Mormon academics who, way back in 1997, concluded that Mormon apologetic scholarship was 'rigorous', 'sophisticated,' and often accepted by the wider academic community, frequently without anyone realising it? I know you're not really into reading and things like that, so I tried to highlight just a few of the more salient but rather short passages from their paper for you. What did you think?

[Bernard Gui]

1828 Webster's Dictionary:

TRANSLA'TE, v.t. [L. translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death. Heb. 16.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Sam. 3.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

Bernard