Translating The Book Of Mormon

[Brant Gardner]

Since Don announced his topic for the conference, I thought I would do the same. The title is "The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon," not coincidentally the title of the book that we are expecting to have ready for the conference.

There is no way to cover everything in the book in a 45 minute presentation, and I am still trying to narrow exactly how to do it, but I figure that most people will be interested in two sections, seeing in a stone and translating with a stone.

Bring virtual tomatoes. I am going to offer an explanation of how seer stones worked and the mechanism that Joseph used to translate with one. Is that a sufficient teaser?

[Joseph Antley]

Oh I'll be there. Will there be questions afterward?

[inquiringmind]

Since Don announced his topic for the conference, I thought I would do the same. The title is "The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon," not coincidentally the title of the book that we are expecting to have ready for the conference.

Thank you.

I'm interested in the nature of inspiration (both of the original prophets, and of the translation of the BOM.)

A literal reading of some passages in the BOM would lead one to believe that this mortal life is the only day of probation, that the torment of hell has "no end" (2 Nephi 9::16), and that unless one repents, and is baptized before they die, they're lost.

Some modern scholars would translate words like olam, aionian, and aionious in a more ambiguous sense then everlasting, and eternal, but Joseph didn't do that.

Do Latter Day Saints believe that God chose every English word that Joseph used in translating the BOM?

Did He inspire every word and phrase the original Mormon prophets used when speaking or writting to their own generation?

These are some questions I still have.

[Brant Gardner]

Oh I'll be there. Will there be questions afterward?

Always.

[Brant Gardner]

Do Latter Day Saints believe that God chose every English word that Joseph used in translating the BOM?

There is no required belief about this, and opinions vary widely. Of course I will be presenting mine, with which there will be some/many who disagree.

Did He inspire every word and phrase the original Mormon prophets used when speaking or writting to their own generation?

I give you my opinion, with no particular authority behind it. I don't see evidence that prophets are significantly different from other people. Sometimes they are inspired, sometimes they are not. Sometimes they know well enough what God wants that they can handle a situation without direct inspiration. At times, inspiration changes their everyday thoughts into a reflection of the divine.

I had an English teacher at BYU that discussed a couple of revelations from Joseph Smith, nothing where there was a significant change in the nature of the language. He suggested that it was at that point that the inspiration was adding extra quality to the words that was not present earlier.

[MAsh]

I am going to offer an explanation of how seer stones worked...

I've seen how a sear stone worked once. In a scorching Arizona desert a man threw a slab of meat on a hot desert flat stone and cooked it well enough to eat.

...oops... wrong kind of "sear."

[cinepro]

Sounds like a great presentation, Brant. Could be a game changer.

[poulsenll]

Sounds like a great presentation, Brant. Could be a game changer.

Having some knoledge of Brant's thesis, I know it will produce change in how we think but will it be a game changer? It depends on how you view the manner in which God interacts with men and women to make the best use of their talents and abilities.

Larry P

[Brant Gardner]

Sounds like a great presentation, Brant. Could be a game changer.

I have no way of knowing if it will change the game or not. Frankly, I expect it to be somewhat polarizing in the same way my commentary was. Some people liked it, some hated it--faithful saints all.

There is no way to prove this kind of theory. However, I do find that it is productive to answer a lot of questions about the translation. I figure that any theory that has greater explanatory power that others has a shot at being close.

[J Green]

This is great news. I've been waiting over a year to hear the full presentation. Brant, if the book is ready by the conference, will it be sold there as well? Is it published by Kofford books as well?

[Brian 2.0]

This book sounds great! Won't be out in Utah for the conference but look forward to getting the book!

[thews]

Since Don announced his topic for the conference, I thought I would do the same. The title is "The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon," not coincidentally the title of the book that we are expecting to have ready for the conference.

There is no way to cover everything in the book in a 45 minute presentation, and I am still trying to narrow exactly how to do it, but I figure that most people will be interested in two sections, seeing in a stone and translating with a stone.

Bring virtual tomatoes. I am going to offer an explanation of how seer stones worked and the mechanism that Joseph used to translate with one. Is that a sufficient teaser?

I always admired your honesty on this subject Brant and look forward to reading about it.

[Ariarates]

I don't see evidence that prophets are significantly different from other people. Sometimes they are inspired, sometimes they are not.

Wow, that's quite a statement. If true, then what's the point of having prophets? And by what standard do you judge when a prophet is inspired and when not (especially in matters pertaining to the church as a whole)? How does this statement relate to ETB's fourteen fundamentals, which were reiterated twice at conference recently? And do you think this is a viable answer to the relevant TR interview question?

So many questions...

[Ariarates]

There is no way to prove this kind of theory. However, I do find that it is productive to answer a lot of questions about the translation. I figure that any theory that has greater explanatory power that others has a shot at being close.

So you'll be presenting an unprovable theory?

[Brant Gardner]

Wow, that's quite a statement. If true, then what's the point of having prophets? And by what standard do you judge when a prophet is inspired and when not (especially in matters pertaining to the church as a whole)? How does this statement relate to ETB's fourteen fundamentals, which were reiterated twice at conference recently? And do you think this is a viable answer to the relevant TR interview question?

So many questions...

My response is hardly new. Joseph Smith offered similar explanations. When a prophet's wife asks "does this dress make me look fat" I suspect he trembles as much as the rest of us.

[Brant Gardner]

So you'll be presenting an unprovable theory?

Of course. Even in the hard sciences there are theories that fall short of proof (at least for a long time), but rely on fecundity. In the soft sciences, all the more. Historians can aspire to little more than theories that work. Proof is so rarely available.

[Ariarates]

My response is hardly new. Joseph Smith offered similar explanations. When a prophet's wife asks "does this dress make me look fat" I suspect he trembles as much as the rest of us.

Even a prophet should know the answer to that one is always "no" :-)

What about the questions I raised? I don't think I'll get my TR renewed when the bish asks me whether I sustain TSM and the 12 as prophets, seers & revelators and I answer: "Sure, though I don't see evidence that they are significantly different from other people. Sometimes they are inspired, sometimes they are not. Sometimes they know well enough what God wants that they can handle a situation without direct inspiration. At times, inspiration changes their everyday thoughts into a reflection of the divine".

[LeSellers]

When a prophet's wife asks "does this dress make me look fat" I suspect he trembles as much as the rest of us.

Even a prophet should know the answer to that one is always "no"

Sorry, you're dead wrong on this one. The correct answer is, "You're right dear [she already knows anyway]: that dress does not do you justice. I like the pink one much better."

Lehi

[Brant Gardner]

What about the questions I raised?

Surely you are not suggesting that my response must support any concept of inerrancy? It reminds me of the joke I heard:

Catholics proclaim the Pope to be inerrant, but nobody believes it.

Mormons proclaim that the Prophet is not inerrant, but nobody believes it.

[Ariarates]

Surely you are not suggesting that my response must support any concept of inerrancy?

Not at all. I asked a few questions relating to your statement in post no. 5. You didn't answer them in your reply (although you copied them into your post no. 15) so I thought I'd follow up.

[cdowis]

There is no required belief about this, and opinions vary widely. Of course I will be presenting mine, with which there will be some/many who disagree.

There are those who quote the statement that the seer stone gave a literal translation -- but...... what exactly did he see. Did they look over JS shoulder, did they push him away from the hat so that they could watch what was happening, was there a window in that hat?

While he was a witness to the translation of the BOM, until we can give an answer to that question, I think we need to assume that he was just speculating, giving his opinion.

Or do you go down that rabbit hole without addressing that fundamental question.

[Jaybear]

There are those who quote the statement that the seer stone gave a literal translation -- but...... what exactly did he see. Did they look over JS shoulder, did they push him away from the hat so that they could watch what was happening, was there a window in that hat?

While he was a witness to the translation of the BOM, until we can give an answer to that question, I think we need to assume that he was just speculating, giving his opinion.

Or do you go down that rabbit hole without addressing that fundamental question.

Since they were in the same room, the simplest assumption is that they asked Smith what he saw, and he told them.

The idea that they would offer wild speculation "words appearing on parchment", rather than ask, seems rather far fetched to me.

[cinepro]

Since they were in the same room, the simplest assumption is that they asked Smith what he saw, and he told them.

The idea that they would offer wild speculation "words appearing on parchment", rather than ask, seems rather far fetched to me.

I agree. Joseph spent days, weeks and months living with some of these people during the translation process, and they didn't have radio, TV or internet to occupy their time. So it's not unlikely that they talked quite a bit and that the translation came up in the conversation at least once or twice.

As with Clayton's comment about the ancient origin of the Kinderhook Plates, it seems odd to suspect that Joseph's friends were just making up stuff about what he was seeing and doing. Their comments (both in detail in surety) sound more like they are relaying something they were told by Joseph.

[Brant Gardner]

There are those who quote the statement that the seer stone gave a literal translation -- but...... what exactly did he see. Did they look over JS shoulder, did they push him away from the hat so that they could watch what was happening, was there a window in that hat?

While he was a witness to the translation of the BOM, until we can give an answer to that question, I think we need to assume that he was just speculating, giving his opinion.

Or do you go down that rabbit hole without addressing that fundamental question.

I address the question on the basis of evidence.

[Brant Gardner]

Their comments (both in detail in surety) sound more like they are relaying something they were told by Joseph.

I'm sure I won't cover that in the FAIR presentation, but it is covered in the first section of the book. I have attempted to cover all of the known bases.