"Out of a Hat": Rereading the Book of Mormon Translation Process

[cdowis]

If Joseph was receiving inspiration from God in dictating words on the seer stones to the scribes, then why would God inspire Joseph to write mistakes into the Book of Mormon?

In all the descriptions of the process I've been reading in this thread, I don't see any witnesses mentioning the Bible being used. Why do you say that he did? What proof is there that he used the Bible in the 'translation' process?

What specific mistakes are you talking about. Give us a detailed list, and provide proof that each item on your list is a "mistake".

Second, you need to provide your model of the translation process. See J Green post here. Are you assuming a tight translation where the Lord gives each individual word? If so, let's see your evidence. The translation process could have used the KJV, and the evidence is the BOM text itself. JS could have seen large portions of Isaiah, for example, and used the KJV as a short-cut to the translation itself, making corrections as necessary. Your "no mention of the Bible" is interesting, but insufficient to prove anything.

In order to respond, we need you to get specific.

[Garden Girl]

Although I have to wonder what Moroni thought when he learned the plates wouldn't even be used for much of the translation process...

Hello cinepro...

I think he would be delighted that the product of his work has been reprinted millions of times and distributed all over the world...

GG

[Areabird]

What specific mistakes are you talking about. Give us a detailed list, and provide proof that each item on your list is a "mistake".

Second, you need to provide your model of the translation process. See J Green post here. Are you assuming a tight translation where the Lord gives each individual word? If so, let's see your evidence. The translation process could have used the KJV, and the evidence is the BOM text itself. JS could have seen large portions of Isaiah, for example, and used the KJV as a short-cut to the translation itself, making corrections as necessary. Your "no mention of the Bible" is interesting, but insufficient to prove anything.

In order to respond, we need you to get specific.

I'm going by what I have read on this forum and in books like Rough Stone Rolling. For a direct source, I will use this:

"Was the Prophet provided with the exact wording of every sentence in the Book of Mormon? Was he simply given impressions which he then dictated within the context of his own understanding? Was it some combination of the two methods? Witnesses to the translation process each had their own view of the process. Joseph's wife Emma related her own experience:

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.[3]

Scholars have examined and debated the issue of a "tight" versus "loose" translation method for many years. Although it is an interesting intellectual exercise, the exact process by which words and sentences were formed has no bearing upon the fact that the book was dictated by the "gift and power of God." "

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation

Perhaps you can clarify for me. I don't really see room for a loose translation. All the witnesses say that Joseph told them he saw the words appear in the stone, and when it had been recorded correctly the words would disappeear and the next words would appear. So it was essentially dictation. Where does the loose translation come in? Joseph couldn't read what was on the plates so I don't understand the discussion about translating ancient texts. He wasn't reading an ancient text. He was reading words that appeared on the stone. Correct?

[DonBradley]

The accounts consistently say Joseph Smith saw the words of translation. Stephen Ricks, Brant Gardner, and D. Michael Quinn, perhaps among others, have argued that he "saw" them spiritually, rather than physically. And, though the evidence is mixed, I agree with them that the weight of it indicates that he claimed, as a seer, to see words on the stone that non-seers would not have--i.e., that he saw them with a spiritual or mental eye, rather than with physical eyes. If so, the case is similar to that of revelation by a "voice" in the mind, which is generally understood among Latter-day Saints to include "studying out" and interpretation by the one receiving it--i.e., the revelation is filtered through and influenced by the mind of the revelator.

In other words, internal "visual" revelation, like internal "aural" revelation, would be partly a product of the revelator, and not something simply handed down from heaven on either a silver platter or a phosphorescent stone.

Don

[Areabird]

The accounts consistently say Joseph Smith saw the words of translation. Stephen Ricks, Brant Gardner, and D. Michael Quinn, perhaps among others, have argued that he "saw" them spiritually, rather than physically. And, though the evidence is mixed, I agree with them that the weight of it indicates that he claimed, as a seer, to see words on the stone that non-seers would not have--i.e., that he saw them with a spiritual or mental eye, rather than with physical eyes. If so, the case is similar to that of revelation by a "voice" in the mind, which is generally understood among Latter-day Saints to include "studying out" and interpretation by the one receiving it--i.e., the revelation is filtered through and influenced by the mind of the revelator.

In other words, internal "visual" revelation, like internal "aural" revelation, would be partly a product of the revelator, and not something simply handed down from heaven on either a silver platter or a phosphorescent stone.

Don

Why would the revelation be a product of the revelator? It seems based on the descriptions of those who watched Joseph that the process was straight forward. A word (or sentence) appeared and he said it out loud and then the scribe wrote it down. Are you saying the words aren't appearing in Engligh and that he receives an impression of what it is in english? I guess you could come up with any number of ways it could have been done, but I have never seen a historical account describing it as the words appearing in a different language or even characters.

If this is all being done by impression, like the answer to a prayer, then why would he need the stone? Why cover it up in the hat so that it is dark? Placing your head in a hat to see the words that actually just appear in your mind's eye--that doesn't seem to make sense. If it was really by divine inspiration, wouldn't he have just sat at a table and written the words down himself?

[DonBradley]

Hey AB,

The "seeing" is supposed to have worked by Joseph focusing on the stone, but is apparently not supposed to have entailed physical sight. I gather this from several lines of evidence, but most particularly from the testimony at Joseph Smith's 1826 hearing on the charge of being a disorderly "glass looker." In this testimony Joseph is described as holding his white seerstone up to the sunlight, in the presence of others, in order to "see" things through it. If the images were supposed to physically appear on the stone, then he would not have used it in front of others he did not want to see the images or, on your hypothesis, whom he did not want to know thath there were no images on the stone. Thus the images appearing "on" the stone were not understood to be physical images seen by the eye, but spiritual images seen by his gift as a seer.

The brown stone, by which he translated the Book of Mormon, apparently worked differently in that it required darkness for Joseph to use it. But Joseph used it also as a seer--one with the gift to see things others can't, and it would be groundless to posit that he saw only spiritual images on the white stone but physical ones on the brown stone. The words of translation were "seen" (or understood to be seen) by the seer spiritually--and thus potentially filtered through and influenced by his own mind.

Joseph's process of translation parallels Oliver Cowdery's process of "studying out" the text in his mind and then having it confirmed by his gift of "the spirit of revelation," with the distinction that for Joseph the text was confirmed by his "gift of [spiritual, mental] seeing." Joseph's mind was active, not passive, during the process, and molded the resulting text.

Or that's one take, and one that is grounded in a good deal of evidence from the relevant accounts and texts. I present and discuss alternatives and the relevant issues and accounts in the two referenced Sunstone papers, which should both be out by the end of the year.

Cheers,

Don

[LeSellers]

All the witnesses say that Joseph told them he saw the words appear in the stone, and when it had been recorded correctly the words would disappeear and the next words would appear. So it was essentially dictation.

Hardly "all the witnesses". One notable exception is in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 9.

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. 8a But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, ...

Lehi

[MAsh]

I don't know how deep Joseph's hat was, but I can't imagine that it was deep enough that he could focus on "physical" words.

[cdowis]

Why would the revelation be a product of the revelator? It seems based on the descriptions of those who watched Joseph that the process was straight forward. A word (or sentence) appeared and he said it out loud and then the scribe wrote it down.

How did he know that?

Did he push JS away from the hat, and look into it? How exactly did he know how the translation happened? JS himself did not describe the process, nor did anyone relate such a conversation from JS.

This has been quoted many times, but no one has ever answered this basic question. Clearly this statement was speculation, based on assumption (tight translation theory). They did not actually see what was happening.

[coolrok7]

What is stated here goes against the explanations I posted previously as in Joseph only read supposedly what was in letters of light, he didn't choose which terms he would use:

How do we explain the mention of

[Areabird]

Hardly "all the witnesses". One notable exception is in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 9.

Lehi

If this is the case, then why couldn't any of our prophets pick up the stone and begin translating ancient texts? Aren't you essentially saying that the reason he couldn't use the stone is because he didn't pray about it first?

[Areabird]

I don't know how deep Joseph's hat was, but I can't imagine that it was deep enough that he could focus on "physical" words.

Well, in a way, that is part of the point I am trying to make. If he wasn't reading words in the stone, then why did he need the hat at all? If it was being done by seeing things in his minds eye, then why did he need a hat and darkness? Why not just close your eyes and tell the scribe what you see?

[Areabird]

What is stated here goes against the explanations I posted previously as in Joseph only read supposedly what was in letters of light, he didn't choose which terms he would use:

One of the previous quoted comments concerning the translation process as described here in a Feb 1881 stake conference (Joseph only read that which was there in "letters of light"):

Joseph's only choice was to read the words that were there either correctly or incorrectly.

MAsh,

how do you respond to the quote in Cookrok's post? Apparently someone was told that indeed there were words appearing to Joseph and that Joseph merely read the words out loud to the scribe. Wouldn't it make more sense to go with the version of the process that was circulating back then than to come up with a new process today?

[Areabird]

How did he know that?

Did he push JS away from the hat, and look into it? How exactly did he know how the translation happened? JS himself did not describe the process, nor did anyone relate such a conversation from JS.

This has been quoted many times, but no one has ever answered this basic question. Clearly this statement was speculation, based on assumption (tight translation theory). They did not actually see what was happening.

Well, we may not have a description of the process from Joseph from a journal entry, but there are enough descriptions from different individuals that I think it would be reasonable to conclude that this is indeed how it occurred. You do acknowledge that is a reasonable approach to concluded that is the process, don't you?

[LeSellers]

If this is the case, then why couldn't any of our prophets pick up the stone and begin translating ancient texts?

Assuming, as I do, that they have it.

However, His servants do what God commands them. He'd direct any such activity. I expect it will happen in the future, but I do not see its happening today.

Aren't you essentially saying that the reason he couldn't use the stone is because he didn't pray about it first?

No. Please re-read the message to which you responded and observe my bolding the in the scripture. It makes it clear what Oliver failed to do.

Lehi

[Areabird]

Assuming, as I do, that they have it.

However, His servants do what God commands them. He'd direct any such activity. I expect it will happen in the future, but I do not see its happening today.

No. Please re-read the message to which you responded and observe my bolding the in the scripture. It makes it clear what Oliver failed to do.

Lehi

I still think i phrased it correctly. My understanding of the prayer process is that when we have a question we need help with is that we ponder it, think about it, and then go to the Lord in prayer and ask if the decision we have made is correct. If he says yes, then we get that warm fuzzy feeling. If we are not correct, then we get no feeling at all. You bolded the words that Oliver did not seek to confirm it with the Lord. Seems to be a technicality in whether I understood your post or not.

[wenglund]

Hi Don,

I really like the symbolic connection you drew between the hat and stone translation process and the scriptural mention of "out of darkness...into the light."

It got me to thinking about the possible symbolism of the sealed protion of the Book of Mormon. According to Joseph as well as 2 Ne. 27: 7-8, 10-11, 15, 17, 21-22, a sizeable portion of the ancient record has yet to be translated because it was sealed from view. I wonder, though, in regards to the now published Book of Mormon if there may be much, in the way of layers of meaning--like perhaps the symbolism you mentioned, that may be "kept from us" and sealed from view "until the own due time of the Lord", and may only be "read by the power of Christ"--i.e. spiritually translated by each of us such that the layers of meaning are brought to our understanding, out of darkness into the light.

I have found that each time I have read the Book of Mormon I have discovered new and different insights that were previously dark or sealed to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bernard Gui]

I don't know how deep Joseph's hat was, but I can't imagine that it was deep enough that he could focus on "physical" words.

http://hollywoodprop.com/hosshat2.jpg

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

The use of stones to receive revelation is biblical.

Joseph Smith's use of the stones is consistent with the Bible.

The Levitical High Priest used the U and T this way:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

The "Urim V'Tummim" is the Name of G-d

The Urim V'Tummim was the famed, oracle-like aspect of the breastplate by which a Heavenly answer was received for important questions. According to most authoritative opinions, the expression urim v'tummim actually refers not to the breastplate itself, but to the mystical Divine name of G-d which was written on a piece of parchment and inserted into a flap of the garment. The presence of the name facilitated the reception of Divine guidance through the shining of specific letters on the stones.

From the Time of Moses

The urim v'tummim is unlike any other aspect of the priestly garments, for it was not created by those skilled artisans who fashioned the other items, aided by their understanding and inspiration; and it was not created from the donations or contributions of Israel, as were all the other appointments of the Temple. The entire matter is one of those mysteries which was handed down to Moses at Mount Sinai by G-d Himself, and its secret was transmitted orally down through the generations.

At the time of the original Tabernacle erected in the desert, Moses took the original urim v'tummim, written in sublime holiness, and placed it inside the breastplate of judgment, after Aaron donned the ephod. This is reflected by the verse (Lev. 8:7), "... and he put the ephod upon him, and he fastened him with the belt of the ephod... and he put the breastplate upon him, and into the breastplate he put the urim v'tummim."

Only Questions of Congregational Importance

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the

[Areabird]

The use of stones to receive revelation is biblical.

Joseph Smith's use of the stones is consistent with the Bible.

The Levitical High Priest used the U and T this way:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

Bernard

In none of these depictions is the priest in darkness, or need darkness to the see word on the breastplate.

"The "Urim V'Tummim" is the Name of G-d

... According to most authoritative opinions, the expression urim v'tummim actually refers not to the breastplate itself, but to the mystical Divine name of G-d which was written on a piece of parchment and inserted into a flap of the garment. The presence of the name facilitated the reception of Divine guidance through the shining of specific letters on the stones."

I don't recall Joseph having the name of God written on paper during the process.

"...Moses took the original urim v'tummim, written in sublime holiness, and placed it inside the breastplate of judgment, after Aaron donned the ephod. This is reflected by the verse (Lev. 8:7), "... and he put the ephod upon him, and he fastened him with the belt of the ephod... and he put the breastplate upon him, and into the breastplate he put the urim v'tummim.""

When did Joseph wear the breastplate? I don't recall anyone recording that they saw this.

"Only Questions of Congregational Importance

...The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?""

Apparently they used it for 'Yes' or 'No' questions.

"A Meditative Experience and a Prophetic Revelation

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer."

This sounds a lot how Joseph saw a word, and then spoke the word to the scribe. I don't see any indication that he interpreted anything, just as the priests in the depiction above didn't interpret anything.

"What is the meaning of the words "urim v'tummim?"

According to the commentary of the famed Rashi, these words are derived from their Hebrew roots for "lights" and "perfections," since through the urim v'tummim, the question is illuminated through the letters and its subject matter is then perfected by the High Priest. The Talmud (BT Yoma 73:B) also indicates that the message which was received was called tummim, "perfect," because it was immutable."

Not sure what the bolded section immediately above means, but I believe it is saying that the message is perfected by the Priest when he calls out what he sees. And once he calls it out, it is immutable (cannot be changed?). If he is merely repeating what he sees, then I don't see any room for interpretation. If there is no room for interpretation, then how do we allow for the mistakes in the BOM (anachronisms, KJV, horses, elephants) to be acceptable. Joseph shouldn't have been doing any interpreting or putting his own world view on it. He was just reading the words.

In any case, the descriptions that Bernard just provided do not seem consistent at all with how Joseph used the seer stone. They weren't used in the same way at all except that there was a spiritual leader asking a question and the answer was then provided to the peeps.

[wenglund]

In any case, the descriptions that Bernard just provided do not seem consistent at all with how Joseph used the seer stone. They weren't used in the same way at all except that there was a spiritual leader asking a question and the answer was then provided to the peeps.

I think you may be confusing the U&T with the seer stone. As intimated earlier in the thread the two may work differently in terms of the need for light or darkness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

Well, we may not have a description of the process from Joseph from a journal entry, but there are enough descriptions from different individuals that I think it would be reasonable to conclude that this is indeed how it occurred. You do acknowledge that is a reasonable approach to concluded that is the process, don't you?

Again, their description is simply speculation unless we know how they came about that knowledge. JS had his face covering the hat, there was a seer stone in the hat, and that is all that we know for sure. I think there are other alternatives to the disappearing words, and those theories involve our assumption on whether the BOM translation was loose or tight, whether some thought on the part of JS was necessary. But the fact is that we simply do not know, and there are many articles speculating on that issue.

[Bernard Gui]

In any case, the descriptions that Bernard just provided do not seem consistent at all with how Joseph used the seer stone. They weren't used in the same way at all except that there was a spiritual leader asking a question and the answer was then provided to the peeps.

You seem to have missed the point.

The use of stones to receive revelation is biblical.

Does the description of how the High Priest used stones give you heartburn?

Bernard

[Bsix]

I am beliver of Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, and all the teachings of the scriptures. As such, I believe in things that seem odd and offensive to non-believers. Frankly, accepting that Joseph Smith used various God-provided tools and spiritual methods to translate the Book of Mormon (Including the use of a hat to provide a dark space to use a seer stone) is one of the least difficult things related to Biblical and Book of Mormon history to believe.

Six

[Areabird]

I think you may be confusing the U&T with the seer stone. As intimated earlier in the thread the two may work differently in terms of the need for light or darkness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I think you are right.

Growing up I always thought the U&T were the seer stones, and then I thought it was the breastplate with spectacles that the stones went in. So is the actual answer that the U&T was a piece of paper with God's name written on it? That's what I understand from Bernard's post.....