The Gift And Power Of God Translation

[William Schryver]

With all due respect, does the length of time I've had a public profile on a particular message board have anything to do with my argument?

Not at all. But it does mean that you are not in a position to understand the fact that, for many years now, on this board and its predecessors, Brant has articulated--at length, and repeatedly--a substantial portion of his arguments. I have carefully considered his arguments for all those years.

I don't think there are many people with long experience on this board (and those that preceded it) who would suggest that I lack an understanding of Brant's arguments, even if they don't concur with my disagreement with those arguments.

But again, as I said to nackhadlow, you are certainly free to believe what you want to believe. I'm not going to attempt to convince you that I do understand Brant's posture on these questions, nor go into much detail as to why I find that posture incompatible with the text-critical evidence that Royal Skousen has articulated over the course of his 20-year critical text project. I would invite you to read Skousen's work and then decide for yourself if the evidence Royal presents can be rendered compatible with Brant's theories concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon.

[Hughes]

"By the gift and power of God."

How can a process that is an abomination to the Lord be considered to be by the power for that same Lord?

Obviously by the dark powers, which would explain why the book is absolutely drenched in testimony of the divinity of the Savior Jesus Christ, and in admonishment to keep his commandments.

Content doesn't change the challenge of the unrighteous actions which brought forth the BoM.

[William Schryver]

Smith also used the stone for his early revelations now found in the D&C, but in the 1830s, he eventually started giving revelations without the stone.

Not that it necessarily contradicts your statement above, but there is evidence that Joseph Smith used the seer stone in his translation of the Book of Abraham, as well.

The stone was merely a mystical medium.

This is an interpretation, not a fact.

If Smith had been a dowser rather than a seer, he would have undoubtedly used a witch hazel rod to translate the Book of Mormon, as Oliver Cowdery once tried unsuccessfully to do.

I'm not sure what this really means, but I would reply by saying that if Joseph had been a woman and not a man he may very well have worn a dress as he translated the Book of Mormon.

Smith was capable of producing "translations" of artifacts that he had never seen and never claimed to possess, such as the "parchment of John."

Yes, he was. I will yet argue that this is also how he produced the translation of the Book of Abraham.

[Brant Gardner]

How does this process account for "hebraisms", and word prints and other text-specific "evidences"?

Part of the process was to examine evidence prior to coming up with the hypothesis. Hebraisms were an important piece of evidence because they are often used. My conclusion is that I cannot support them from the evidence in the text. They are certainly there, but I can't place them in the translation due to the underlying text rather than the imitation of the KJV, which preserves most of the Hebraisms used as evidence.

There are some other arguments for word for word translations, but I can't support them in the text. There are other explanations for the few examples that we find, and the majority of the text argues against special pleading for them.

Also, how does this account for proper nouns?

There is pretty good evidence for the retention of some names that come from the Old World context and exceed random chance. I think these, in particular, were translated literalistically (though filtered through non-linguistic phoneticism).

Joseph might have had an image or impression of a person or event, but how else can a name be communicated (or words like "cumom" or "curelom") without letter-specific delivery in English words?

The hypothesis is that he really did see words and read them off. There is too much evidence to suggest otherwise. However, I believe that it was Joseph's mind that created the words from the understanding he had, and his visual system that constructed them into paper (with some help from the Lord to fire the right neurons).

Also, wouldn't the idea that Joseph was changing and developing as a translator mean that the text would change (and improve) as Joseph progressed through the translation?

I don't see any evidence for a change in process during the translation. There are indications of some variations in preferred words, but not in any other way that I can see. Of course, being limited to what can be dredged from the evidence of the English translation only leaves us without the kind of data we would really like to have.

[Brant Gardner]

How can a process that is an abomination to the Lord be considered to be by the power for that same Lord?

I cite the same verse in the book while discussing the erroneous ideas about what these things mean. Rather than have you believe me, however, I would have you look at Shawna Dolansky, Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Biblical Perspectives on the Relationship between Magic and Religion. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Her book should answer your question. Hint--your fundamental assumptions don't fit the evidence.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Brant Gardner

[William Schryver]

I am proposing that the text was given to Joseph in the pre-language understanding (Stephen Pinker terms it "mentalese") which stores meaning prior to our encoding that meaning into words. So, what I am suggesting is something parallel to Skousen's putative translator, but rather than producing English, the meaning itself, sentence by sentence, was given to Joseph. That understanding is what Joseph translated. It really is similar to what a good translator does. They do not translate the words and the order of the words, but rather then intent of the words.

Notwithstanding the opinions of some on this thread, I understand that this is your argument. I agree that it appears to reconcile the text-critical evidence with the bulk of your arguments concerning the method and manner of the translation of the Book of Mormon. However, I don't believe your theory succeeds in reconciling all of the witness evidence and all of the text-critical evidence. In my judgment, the preponderance of the evidence paints a picture of Joseph Smith as little more than a text reader, and that he was, during the process of translation, more or less uninvolved in the process of producing that text. I believe that this is typical of all of his restorations of ancient scripture (Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, D&C 7, Book of Abraham)--which I believe were all received via the seerstone.

[Jaybear]

Sure eyewitnesses said he saw words, read them off, and all that, but are the witnesses just stating their assumption? or did JS tell them that's how it worked? We dont' seem to know at all. Maybe Joseph saw words, maybe he didn't. We simply don't know if the stone glowed or not.

Did any of these witnesses preface their description of the purported translation process with "Joseph wouldn't say what appeared in his hat, but I surmise that ....."?

If not, given the consistency of the accounts, the details conveyed, their proximatey to Smith, and the perceived sanctity of the process, I think its more reasonable to assume is that (1) they were relaying what Smith told them he saw; or (2) they we repeating a description of the process provided by someone close to Smith that they trusted to be accurate.

[Cobalt-70]

I'm sure you're quite getting the spirit of this thread. But, we'll go with your comments anyway. Nearly everything you wrote above as knowing about how the translation took place, rings far more indeterminate to me. For instance, we can rest assured that JS, for most of the translation, used a hat and stone. How that worked may seem obvious to you but not to me. Sure eyewitnesses said he saw words, read them off, and all that, but are the witnesses just stating their assumption? or did JS tell them that's how it worked? We dont' seem to know at all. Maybe Joseph saw words, maybe he didn't. We simply don't know if the stone glowed or not.

People like Joseph Knight and David Whitmer, who described what Joseph Smith "saw" in the reflections of the stone, did not themselves see what Smith saw. But their descriptions of the process are so detailed that Smith must have described the process to them. Their descriptions are of a very literal, word-for-word translation, which my sense is that most modern Mormon apologists have backed away from. But I still think it is possible that Smith actually "saw" words, even if it was his mind that was formulating the actual wording. Smith probably had an idetic memory, and could compose text in his mind almost the way we compose text on a word processor.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[cinepro]

Hebraisms were an important piece of evidence because they are often used. My conclusion is that I cannot support them from the evidence in the text. They are certainly there, but I can't place them in the translation due to the underlying text rather than the imitation of the KJV, which preserves most of the Hebraisms used as evidence.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then....

Hol. E. Cow.

Edited October 14, 2011 by cinepro

[rongo]

We know a great deal about how Smith translated the Book of Mormon, based on numerous witnesses, both Mormon and non-Mormon, who saw him do it. He translated by placing a chocolate-brown colored seer stone in the bottom of a white stove-pipe hat and placing his face within the hat to exclude the external light.

You are conflating details from a montage of anti-Mormon sources of poor quality to arrive at the above confident statement. Particularly with the "white stove-pipe hat:"

. . . and that hat!

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers. With the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!"

Chairman: Why hid in the woods?

Hale: Because, as I explained yesterday, I would not allow the plates in my house. So they took them and hid them in the woods.

Chairman: But you were describing the translation as it took place at Smith's house, not at your house. Did they still have to keep the plates in the woods? This I am afraid is another example of the vagueness of your testimony and the eagerness with which you seize upon every opportunity to make Smith look ridiculous. Such things can backfire. But let's get back to the beginning. Smith always used a hat?

Beardsley: He did. When our history opens we see Joe, the "barefoot boy" looking at "a precious 'lucky stone' . . . placed . . . in the crown of his battered old felt hat."

Daniel Hendrix: That hat! "I can see him now . . . with his uncombed hair sticking through the holes in his old battered hat." fn

Chairman: Why did he put the stone in his hat?

Tucker: Because in his peeping for treasures his "discoveries finally became too dazzling for his eyes in daylight, and he had to shade his vision by looking at the stone in his hat."

Chairman: Indeed. I thought everybody knew that eyes are better accustomed to strong light in the daylight than at any other time, and that the one way to make an object brighter is to look at it in the dark. If you have ever driven a car, Mr. Tucker, you would know that oncoming headlights that are painfully bright at night are hardly noticed in the daytime. You have got it just backwards. How did the stone and hat operate?

Kennedy: "With a bandage over his eyes he would fall upon his knees and bury his face in the depths of an old white hat, where the stone was . . . hidden."

Chairman: How could he hope to see anything with a bandage over his eyes?

Kennedy: Don't you see? It was necessary to shut out every bit of light.

Chairman: But Mr. Hendrix, an eyewitness, tells us Joe's hat was full of holes.

Howe: It may have been another hat.

Chairman: No. Joe, it seems, was famous for a particular hat. An old hat.

Bennett: That's right. He was called the "Holy Old White Hat Prophet."

Chairman: And when did Smith start using the white hat?

****inson: From the very beginning. From the time when Mrs. Smith presented her son with the family peepstone—"from that time on Joseph Smith fooled the credulous residents of the sparsely settled vicinity with the 'peeker' in his white stove-pipe hat."

Blackman: That is right. "He would sit for hours looking into his hat at the round colored stone."

Chairman: Do I understand that it was a stovepipe hat?

Mahaffey: That is correct. "In these ways, decked in his white stove-pipe hat, he fooled the credulous and superstitious and eked out a precarious subsistence."

Chairman: But we have been told most emphatically that it was a "battered old felt hat." Stove-pipe hats are not made of felt. The picture of a notoriously ragged and dirty teenager going about the country "decked out" in a white stove-pipe hat is a comical one, I will admit, but how could he keep it white all those years?

Howe: All those years?

Chairman: Yes, the old stove-pipe hat that Smith wore and used at the beginning of his peeping career was still in use at the time of translating the Book of Mormon, I believe.

Montgomery: True enough. While translating "Joseph kept his face in 'the old white hat.' "

Chairman: You see, it was old at that time—he had not got him a new white hat. And later in Nauvoo, as General Bennett has told us, Smith was the "Old White Hat" Prophet. Now, Smith began treasure-peeping, some have told us, as early as when he was eleven or twelve years old, an amusing figure in the old white stove-pipe hat. In the year before his death we find him going about in the same old "white stove-pipe hat." Apparently his head never grew and the hat never lost its whiteness—which always caused comment—and being already ancient when he got it, never went out of style: it is invariably described as "old." The white hat is an interesting "control" for the reliability of a lot of stories about Joseph Smith. There is another such key, I believe, in the frequent and significant references to boxes in the stories of the Book of Mormon. To expedite matters let us hear from our witnesses in chronological order. Mr. Ingersoll, most writers give you priority in this matter. What is your story?

Hugh Nibley, "Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, 229-231 (footnotes removed for pasting)

Actually, confidently asserting that the seer stone was "chocolate colored" is also precarious:

J. Smith, peepstones for all occasions

Lapham: According to Joseph Smith, Sr., "his son Joseph, . . . when he was about fourteen years of age, happened to be where a man was looking into a dark stone and telling people therefrom where to dig for money and other things. Joseph requested the privilege of looking into the stone, which he did by putting his face into the hat where the stone was. It proved to be not the right stone for him; but he could see some things, and among them he saw the stone, and where it was, in which he could see whatever he wished to see. . . . The place where he saw the stone was not far from their house, and under pretense of digging a well, they found water and the stone at a depth of twenty or twenty-two feet. After this, Joseph spent about two years looking into this stone, telling fortunes, where to find lost things and where to dig for money and other treasures."

Chairman: But a number of other witnesses have already told us that Smith was in the peeping business years before that. Aren't you a bit late?

Chase: Lapham doesn't put the date too late, he puts it much too early! It wasn't until 1822 that they dug the well, and there was no "pretense" about it! I was digging it myself—in fact there was no one in the well but myself when the stone was found. "After digging about 20 feet below the surface . . . we discovered a singularly appearing stone which excited my curiosity."

Chairman: There is no doubt but that this is the same well—the "20 feet" line proves that—but you say it was you who dug the well, not the Smiths, that you discovered the stone, and that yours was the first curiosity attracted by it. What did you do with it?

Chase: Smith asked to see it, "put it into his hat and then his face into the top of the hat." He borrowed it from me and "began to publish abroad what wonders he could discover by looking in it. . . . He had it in his possession about two years."

Chairman: That disposes of Mr. Lapham's story. But there seem to be some objections. Mr. Tucker?

Tucker: "Joseph Jr." was at the well-digging "as an idle looker-on"; it was Joseph Sr., Alvin, and Hyrum Smith who were doing the digging; when they dug up the stone the "lounger manifested a special fancy for this geological curiosity; and he carried it home with him, though this act of plunder was against the strenuous protestations of Mr. Chase's children, who claimed to be its rightful owners."

Mrs. Eaton: That's almost right. "At the age of 15 while watching his father digging a well, Joe espied a stone of curious shape. . . . 'This little stone was the acorn of the Mormon oak."'

Chairman: Is that the way it happened, Mr. Chase?

Chase: No! What happened was that "the next morning he came to see me, and wished to obtain the stone, alleging that he could see in it; I told him I did not wish to part with it, on account of its being a curiosity, but would lend it." After that "he made so much disturbance, that I ordered the stone to be returned to me again. He had it in his possession about two years."

Chairman: Did you get it back at the end of that time?

American Whig Review: Certainly not! "Smith could never be prevailed upon to give it up." This very stone was "used in the translation of the Book of Mormon."

Tucker: That's right. After he took it from the children, "Joseph kept this stone, and ever afterward refused its restoration to the claimants."

Chairman: What kind of a stone was it?

George W. Cowles: I can answer that. It was "such a pebble as might any day be picked up on the shore of Lake Ontario—the common hornblende

Chairman: So any kind of stone would do for this peeping business?

Ingersoll: Just about. Once after a conversation with Joseph Smith, Sr., in the fields, in which he urged me to become a money-digger, "on my return I picked up a small stone and was carelessly tossing it from one hand to the other. Said he (looking very earnestly), what are you going to do with that stone? Throw it at the birds, I replied. No, said the old man, it is of great worth; and upon this I gave it to him."

Chairman: What did he do with it?

Ingersoll: He put it into his hat, and after "sundry manoeuvres . . . took down his hat, and being very much exhausted, said in a faint voice, 'If you knew what I had seen, you would believe.' His son Alvin then went through the same performance, which was equally disgusting."

Chairman: Did you ever try to get the stone back?

Ingersoll: Of course not. It was just an ordinary stone.

Chairman: And we have heard that Mr. Chase's stone was also just an ordinary stone. Why was he so eager to get his stone back? Could Smith really see things in the stone, Mr. Chase?

Chase: Don't be absurd. It was all a hoax.

Chairman: Then why were you so extremely eager to get possession of this perfectly ordinary stone, which you or Smith could have duplicated with ease any day? Why did Hyrum and Joseph have fits when you asked them for it? If we are to believe our witnesses, they have drawers full of stones—and every one phony. Why all the excitement about one stone?

Chase: "It excited my curiosity." I asked for it back the first time because "he made so much disturbance, that I ordered the stone to be returned to me again. He had it in his possession about two years."

Chairman: Couldn't he have caused just as much disturbance with any other stone, since he was only faking? If it was such a menace, why did you lend it to him again and again? If not, why was he so anxious to have it?

Tucker: Can't you see? It was Mr. Chase's children who clamored for the stone. Joe Smith, "an idle looker-on and lounger" at the well-digging, "manifested a special fancy for this geological curiosity; and he carried it home with him, though the act of plunder was against the strenuous protestations of Mr. Chase's children, who claimed to be its rightful owners."

Chairman: And where was Mr. Chase? Was he going to let a fifteen-year-old kid walk off with his property while his children howled in protest? Mr. Chase tells us that he found the stone while digging his well on his property, and that it excited his curiosity, and two years later, when he "ordered the stone to be returned," Smith gave it back to him. I think it rather obvious why Mr. Tucker told a totally different story fifty years after the event: it had to be the Chase children who got excited about the stone, because of the patent absurdity of having Chase, a grown man, get all worked up about a thing which he declared worthless, and which could be duplicated without any trouble.

****inson: I think if we study the matter we can give a more cautious and rational explanation of the whole thing. Let us put it this way: "While he [smith] was watching the digging of a well, or himself digging it, he found, or pretended to find, a . . . stone.”

Chairman: That is the safe, conservative school, followed by some of Smith's latest biographers. Let me tell you a story: "While I was walking to work last week or today, or lying in my bed, I saw or heard, or my friend saw, a horse or a dog running or lying down in the street, or in a field." Notice with what exemplary caution I avoid the pitfalls of positive statement. Doesn't it give my story an air of modest objectivity? But can you tell me what happened? Did Smith find the stone or didn't he?

****inson: I don't think he did. "It has been said that this little stone . . . had been in the possession of Mrs. Smith's family for generations, and that she merely presented it to Joseph when he was old enough to work miracles with it: and that he hid it in the earth to find again when it was convenient."

Chairman: You realize, of course, that what you say makes a hash of Mr. Chase's Revised Standard Version? Mr. Linn says that Smith first looked into a second-class peepstone in which he saw not any treasures, but another peepstone, which was the one he finally used. Did he use more than one stone?

J. Stowell: He must have, for when he was tried for fraud, he displayed in court a stone "about the size of a small hen's egg, in the shape of a high instepped shoe. It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it."

Arbaugh: That "must have been the Chase stone, since it resembled 'a child's foot in shape' and was opaque"; it "was clearly not the Belcher stone.”

Chairman: What is this Belcher stone?

Blackman: Oh, don't you know? That was "the stone he afterwards used."

Chairman: After what?

Buck: After he took to peeping; that is, after I knew him in 1818. "The stone which he afterwards used was then in the possession of Jack Belcher, of Gibson, who obtained it while at Salina, New York, engaged in drawing salt. Belcher bought it because it was said to be 'a seeing stone.' I have often seen it."

Chairman: In Smith's possession?

Buck: No. I told you I only knew Smith "some years before he took to 'peeping,' and before the diggings were commenced under his direction. . . . These were ideas he gained later."

Chairman: How do you know that Smith ever used that particular stone?

Buck: As I said, "I have often seen it. It was a green stone, with brown, irregular spots on it. It was a little larger than a goose's egg, and about the same thickness."

Chairman: Your description shows that Mr. Arbaugh is right. That cannot possibly be the stone that the other witnesses described. Also, there is no doubt that you saw the stone. But since that was years before Smith got interested in stones, I don't see how you connect it up with him since you last saw him use it.

Cowles: What do you mean, years before? Haven't we been told that his father practiced peeping already in Vermont, and that the Chase stone had been in the family for a long time?

Mahaffey: That is right: "It had been in the family for generations."

Chairman: Then how could Mr. Chase claim that he personally dug it up in 1822?

****inson: The contradiction vanishes if we realize that Smith planted the stone there.

Chairman: Why? Is a stone any more wonderful that is found by digging a well than if it has been in the family for years? Smith, we are told, was much too lazy to do any digging himself—he was only a lounging onlooker—yet the men had to dig down twenty feet before they came to it. A nice bit of stone-planting by Smith, so that Chase could lay legal claim to his precious stone! All this rationalizing and explaining is obviously meant to reconcile conflicting reports that discredit each other at every step.

Cowles: Oh, there were earlier stones, all right. "Long before the Gold Bible demonstration, the Smith family had with some sinister object in view, whispered another fraud in the ears of the credulous. They pretended that in digging for money, at Mormon Hill, they came across 'a chest, three feet by two in size, covered with a dark-colored stone.' In the center of the stone was a white spot about the size of a sixpence. Enlarging, the spot increased to the size of a 24-pound shot, and then exploded with a terrible noise. The chest vanished and all was utter darkness."

Chairman: If I were giving prizes, Mr. Cowles, you should certainly get something for that one. There were no witnesses to the phenomenon?

Cowles: Of course not; the Smiths only "pretended" that it happened.

Chairman: And why would they pretend such a thing?

Cowles: "With some sinister object in view."

Chairman: You can't even guess what the object might have been yet you know it was "sinister." And to achieve it, they claimed there was something there which really wasn't there, and then, boom! It really wasn't there—and so they tell their story and prove their case. Are you sure there were any stones at all?

O. Turner: Yes, there were the stone spectacles. Actually they were the only stones Smith ever used.

Chairman: How do you know that, sir?

Turner: I was very intimately acquainted with the Smith family at Palmyra, where I grew up with Joseph Smith, Jr. I know all about his money digging and treasure hunting, and have given a lengthy deposition on the subject, but I know nothing of any stone except "a pair of large spectacles" found with the gold plates. "The stones or glass set in frames were opaque to all but the prophet." These were the only peepstones he ever used.

Chairman: More contradictions. Some important witnesses have stated that the Chase stone was actually identical with what Smith called the Urim and Thummim, is that not correct?

American Whig Review: That is correct. Chase tried to get the stone back, "but Smith could never be prevailed upon to give it up. It was afterwards used in the translation of the Book of Mormon and styled the mysterious Urim and Thummim."

Howe: Imagine it! Two of the sixteen stones that belonged to the brother of Jared! We are asked to believe that "two of these stones were sealed up with the plates, according to a prediction before Abraham was born. How, and in what manner they became set in the 'two rims of a bow,' and fell into the hands of the Nephites, has not been explained, nor what has become of the remaining 14 molten stones, is likewise hidden in mystery.”

Thomas Gregg: One impeccable witness says they were "two small stones of a chocolate color, nearly egg-shaped and perfectly smooth, but not transparent . . . which were given him with the plates."

Chairman: Then they cannot have been the stones mentioned by Mr. Howe, which were perfectly transparent. It is marvelous, sir, how you, the most-quoted authority on these matters should blithely identify any stone that comes along with Smith's peepstone.

Howe: Does it make so much difference? The main idea is that Smith had an obsession for magic stones. Any stone would do, as Mr. Ingersoll's testimony shows. Mrs. Brodie has discovered clear evidence of Smith's stone mania in the Book of Mormon itself.

Chairman: Indeed, and what is the evidence?

Howe: Here it is (reads): "Joseph's preoccupation with magic stones crept into the narrative . . . " and here is the proof: God "had given the Nephites . . . two crystals with spindles inside which directed the sailing of their ships." There you have it—two crystals, Urim and Thummim!

Chairman: But what the Book of Mormon says is that the compass was given to Lehi, not Nephi, and that it consisted of a "round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles" (1 Nephi 16:10). For Mrs. Brodie a bronze sphere becomes without the slightest effort "two crystals with spindles inside." Now this is most instructive: in the middle of the twentieth century an expert pretending to high scholarly objectivity sits at her desk and unwittingly turns out a brand-new original peepstone story, as if there were not enough already. Having glanced at the text only long enough to sustain the trend of her own wishful thinking, she gives us two new crystals, bred of an airy word. After that performance, can anyone maintain that any of the peepstone stories are not or cannot be pure fabrication? Another point: Didn't you say, Mr. Howe, that the Book of Mormon was discovered by peeping in the first place?

Howe: I said that "the mineral-rod necromancy of Joseph Smith, Jun., searching after Robert Kidd's money . . . found the plates of Nephi."

Chairman: Then by peeping and dowsing the plates were discovered?

Arbaugh: It was search for buried treasure that gave Joseph Smith the idea of the "Golden Bible."

Emmons: You will recall, sir, that Smith led "a gang of idle and credulous young men, whom he employed in digging for hidden treasures. It is pretended that, in one of the excavations they made, the mysterious plates from which the Golden Bible was copied were found. Such briefly is the origin of the Mormon faith.”

Howe: By this gang "many pits were dug in the neighborhood, which were afterwards pointed out as the place from whence the plates were excavated.”

Walter R. Martin: Smith "was engaged for the most part of his youth in seeking Captain Kidd's treasure and in gazing through 'peep stones.' "

Hunt: Let a real old-timer get in a word, here! "In the course of time numerous excavations were made, but unfortunately, they never dug deep enough to find the object of their search. However, the good resulting from their labors overbalances their misfortunes, as Joe has since informed us that here the golden plates were found, containing the important facts upon which the salvation of the world depends."

Chairman: So it is very clear that Smith found the gold plates while he was digging for treasure. It is equally clear that he never dug without first using his peepstone.

Rev. John A. Clark: That is correct! "Long before the idea of a Golden Bible entered into their minds, in their excursions for money-digging . . . Jo used to be usually their guide, putting into his hat a peculiar stone he had through which he looked to decide where they should begin to dig."

Chairman: So we know that Smith always used a stone when digging. Some of the best and oldest witnesses insist that he only had one peepstone, and with that stone he discovered the buried plates, and with the plates were found buried—guess what? The wonderful stone! Where did he get the stone? He found it with the plates. How did he find the plates? By looking in the stone! You see, gentlemen, how silly this all is. Now let's talk a little about that hat. Did Smith always use a hat in peeping?

Ibid, 220-226

[William Schryver]

There is a fascinating discussion occurring on the infamous Mormon Discussions message board between “JGreen,” a faithful Latter-day Saint and one of my favorite LDS message board apologists, and “Sethbag,” a particularly articulate ex-Mormon.

I'm not going to recount the entire discussion, but suffice it to say that “Sethbag,” has recently addressed the notion (put forth by JGreen) that Joseph Smith, in translating the Book of Mormon, was more or less dynamically “working out” an English translation after being “given to understand” the meaning of the characters, or having their meaning revealed to his mind in some fashion.

Bear in mind, Brant and others would have us believe that the only plausible explanation is that Joseph Smith is having “meaning” revealed to his mind, but not explicit English language phrases, paragraphs, etc. Joseph, we are told, then renders this inarticulated “meaning” into the English sentences that were recorded by his scribes.

There are all kinds of problems with this thesis in terms of its capacity to reconcile itself to the eyewitness testimony of the translation process as well as the text-critical evidence on the surviving manuscripts. But I will permit “Sethbag” to address one aspect of the problems inherent in any explanatory proposition other than the one that says, in essence, that Joseph Smith was actually reading English words off some manner of “iStone” display screen.

First of all, JGreen has this to say about the famous “study it out in your mind” passage from D&C 9, and its relationship to the translation of the Book of Mormon:

I've always considered the D&C passage you bring up to refer to a time after the Spirit has enlighted Joseph as to the meaning of the words on the plates. To me the passage doesn't make sense if this hasn't occured. As you point out (as did Cinepro on the other board using Japanese as the example), it doesn't make much sense to study something in your mind if you don't even understand the language in which it is written. Likewise the passage doesn't make much sense to me if Joseph is simply reading words that scroll by in the iStone. On the other hand, I have several decades of professional experience in understanding basic meaning components in other languages and then struggling to articulate those meanings in English words. And to me, the D&C passage fits this context--Joseph is spiritually given to understand the meaning and then is asked to formulate his attempted translation in his mind and then seek a spiritual comfirmation about his attempt at articulating the meaning in English.

“Sethbag” then replies:

… here's the nub of it. I too speak a foreign language, German in my case. When I read in German, I think in German, and there are often times when I will understand something in German, but if you asked me to translate what I'd just read, I would really have to think hard how best to express it in English. I think this is the kind of thing you're talking about. It's a problem that's familiar to me.

But I understand German. And when you're reading something in another language and trying to decide how to translate it into English, you understand what it means in that other language.

Joseph Smith didn't understand Hebrew, nor Mayan, nor Egyptian, nor any other language, real or hypothetical, which you might care to throw in there. Joseph wasn't understanding "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents..." in ancient Hebrew and then fishing around for how to express this in English. What do you mean when you say Joseph was "spiritually given to understand"? When I understand something, I understand it in English, or I understand it in German. I don't know any other languages, so I can't understand anything that isn't expressed mentally in one of those two.

I think either you mean that Joseph's brain was temporarily altered to include a maturity in ancient Hebrew expressed in Reformed Egyptian that would allow him to understand things and then have to fish around for the right way to say it in English, or else your "spiritually given to understand" is just hand-waving.

I respectfully suggest it is the latter. By saying this, you think you are giving an explanation that suffices to knit the whole story together into some coherent whole. But it's a specious statement. Joseph Smith didn't know any languages other than English, so there was no language for him to "spiritually be given to understand" specifics like "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents" in and have to fish for the right way to express this in English.

There is much more to the discussion, and although I am loath to ever recommend that anyone visit the Great and Spacious Trailer Park©, I do recommend this particular conversation between JGreen and Sethbag. Here’s the link to the post where the discussion begins: JGreen and Sethbag Discussion

Now, I appreciate that Brant’s explanation is not entirely consistent with the idea that Joseph Smith was “translating on the fly.” But Brant would have us believe that Joseph Smith was receiving inarticulated “meaning” by means of revelation, and then expressing that meaning as best he could in English.

As I see it, the problem with this explanation is (at least) two-fold:

• It quite simply does not accord with the eyewitness testimony. A “translator” doing what Brant describes would necessarily have to pause and cast about in his mind for the right words; occasionally stop and reverse or correct himself. It simply would not be possible for someone attempting to dynamically render inarticulated “meaning” to do so after the fashion Joseph Smith was observed to do, which was to recite sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, hour upon hour upon hour with little interruption; little if any pausing or corrections. The observers of this process were justifiably amazed by what they saw, and they reported precisely that.
  `
  
• The text-critical evidence accords perfectly with the eyewitness testimony to which I refer above: sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, page after page with little interruption; little if any pausing or corrections. In other words, the manuscript evidence is consistent with someone reciting a text word for word.
  

Regardless of the implications in terms of the perceived anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, or any other perceived complications that appear to derive from the facts, I simply do not see how we can reject the overwhelming evidence, both historical and textual, that Joseph Smith was simply a reader of a text when it came to the translation of the Book of Mormon.

I might refer to other evidences of the fact that Joseph Smith was merely a reader of a text when it came to his translation of the Book of Mormon, but I think these will suffice for the time being.

Edited October 14, 2011 by William Schryver

[Brant Gardner]

It quite simply does not accord with the eyewitness testimony. A “translator” doing what Brant describes would necessarily have to pause and cast about in his mind for the right words; occasionally stop and reverse or correct himself.

Not at all. How do you produce any sentence in English? When you have an idea, how do you travel from idea to expression? There are certainly analogies to what Joseph is doing to translating from a foreign language, but that is not what I am proposing. All language encodes information, and does so in structures, literature, and pure prose. All of it exists in thought prior to expression in language. Even a regular translator can frequently translate on the fly for long stretches (if the subject matter is familiar).

It simply would not be possible for someone attempting to dynamically render inarticulated “meaning” to do so after the fashion Joseph Smith was observed to do, which was to recite sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, hour upon hour upon hour with little interruption; little if any pausing or corrections. The observers of this process were justifiably amazed by what they saw, and they reported precisely that.

Then you are still unclear on the nature of the argument. All of our language is inarticulated prior to articulation. Most of the time we don't separate the two because language has become so engrained as the nature of our thought. However, a lot happens without our internal speech--and much of that works its way into language. The field is cognitive theory, not Gardner theory.

In other words, the manuscript evidence is consistent with someone reciting a text word for word.

. . .and I hypothesize that Joseph read word for word. Please note that what you are describing isn't translation at all. That isn't a problem if you aren't trying to discern anything about how the translation occurred. However, if you want to know anything about the nature of or process of translation, you have to move past Joseph as a reader. The plates were not in English, ergo a translation occurred somewhere, and that translation has a relationship to the plate text that we would like to understand. Skousen's theory can't get us there.

The problem is where the words came from that he read. Someone generated the English. The bulk of the evidence points to Joseph (for text-critical reasons). My issue with Skousen's tight control as an analytical tool is that he has defined it so that it refers to transmission, not translation. From his definition, it is impossible to tell what kind of translation the text is, because he (by definition) deals only with the text as it is read and transmitted. The translation occurs prior to that --necessarily.

I simply do not see how we can reject the overwhelming evidence, both historical and textual, that Joseph Smith was simply a reader of a text when it came to the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Because the evidence is not overwhelming that he was simply a reader. There is solid evidence that he read, but there is also sufficient evidence to suggest that what he read was the result of his own interaction with the divine deposit of the meaning on the plates. Let me try an analogy. A reader who completely and fully understands the language and intent of the plates reads it. That meaning is encoded in that person's "metalese" and that set of data is transferred to Joseph -- who generates the English according to the way he understands that underlying mentalese. That occurs in his vocabulary and idiom. Through understandable brain functions, one completely normal (the generation of language) and the other supra-normal (eidetic memory) the result transforms Joseph's translation into visual words which he then reads out. Save for the way that the divine content is transmitted, everything else is explained with known functions in the brain.

Of course, all of this, and the backing evidence, is covered in the book. The analogy is new, though.

[William Schryver]

Brant,

I'm on the road at present and replying via iPhone. I have read your reply, and I will be giving thought to whether or not I want to pursue this discussion to the extent necessary to articulate all the reasons I consider your translation theory essentially incoherent.

Regardless of what I choose to do, I want to make it perfectly clear that I hold you in high esteem, and any criticism of your ideas is not intended in any way as criticisms of you as a man and as a Latter-Day Saint.

I've been talking with Royal this afternoon concerning this issue (he has just barely finished reading your book) and we concur fully in our disagreement with the theory you have posited concerning the translation of the BoM. That said, I very much agree with much of your other work.

Anyway, I will give this matter further thought and reply again later.

Edited October 14, 2011 by William Schryver

[Hughes]

I cite the same verse in the book while discussing the erroneous ideas about what these things mean. Rather than have you believe me, however, I would have you look at Shawna Dolansky, Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Biblical Perspectives on the Relationship between Magic and Religion. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Her book should answer your question. Hint--your fundamental assumptions don't fit the evidence.

I could only find one review of her book on line, yours in fact.

Could you be so kind as to briefly explain why the my "fundamental assumptions" don't fit the evidence? In essence, a plain reading of the text.

[zerinus]

This is a topic I've been thinking about lately.

Considering Deut. 18:9-12

¹⁰There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

¹¹Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

¹²For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

By what power did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?

How can a process that is an abomination to the Lord be considered to be by the power for that same Lord?

Content doesn't change the challenge of the unrighteous actions which brought forth the BoM.

He did the translation, according to his own testimony, by the Urim and Thummim. Unless you regard the Urim and Thummim to be an "abomination to the Lord," I don't see how you can regard the translation process an "abomination". The Urim and Thummim was an instrument of revelation mentioned in the Old Testament.

Edited October 15, 2011 by zerinus

[J Green]

Will,

As always, appreciate the points you raise, and I think you've raised a pretty good one here. Let me give a personal observation and then suggest a proposal for your consideration.

On the other board I referenced the process of giving priesthood blessings. I understand that the process may vary for many of us here. It even varies for me, and that is a topic for another discussion. But many times, I will start with some hesitation as I attempt to articulate in words the feelings I believe are prompted by the Spirit. But there are occasions where after that initial halting start, I reach my stride and the process speeds up considerably with me talking at a normal pace without any real pauses or hesitation. From a detached point of view I feel like I'm watching myself go through this process being prompted with the meaning and then going through the mechanics of choosing the words I say. But it goes by at a fairly fast clip. Now it doesn't always happen like this, but it has enough for me to experience it and know what it feels like. And, of course, I know it happens for others differently, and that I could very well be projecting in what I suggest in the following paragraphs.

I believe that most of the witness statements refer to a time when Joseph is already mature in the translation process. We really don't have a picture of the time when Joseph first traced the characters to use with the "spectacles." Did he start off in a halting manner? How confident was he at that time? Did he stop and start a few times then? Did he want assurance from the secular experts about his first attempts at translation? There is a hiatus there when he goes through some spiritual maturation and grows in his revelatory experiences. He becomes more confident in the way he receives inspiration and how he puts it into words. He comes back to the translation more confident about his own spiritual abilities and with Emma again as scribe even before we get to the other scribes.

In other words, I'm suggesting that there is quite a length of time where we don't have the best snap shot. I suggest that it's possible that by the time that we have the main scribes and the main witness statements, Joseph is confident in his abilities and that the mechanism for this entire process is going just as fast as what happens in some priesthood blessings--Inspired, uninterrupted dictation assisted and guided by the Spirit with the speaker still making choices about the words he uses.

Thoughts?

[Kenngo1969]

This is a topic I've been thinking about lately.

Considering Deut. 18:9-12

¹⁰There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

¹¹Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

¹²For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

By what power did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?

Christ's detractors were convinced he cast out devils by the Prince of Devils. That, of course, said more about His detractors than it did about Him. Likewise, if you're convinced Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon in a similar manner, that says more about you than it ever could about Joseph Smith.

[Brant Gardner]

I could only find one review of her book on line, yours in fact.

Could you be so kind as to briefly explain why the my "fundamental assumptions" don't fit the evidence? In essence, a plain reading of the text.

Her thesis is that "magic" is a social definition relegated to what others do. If you look at the Bible, there are a number of practices in that are condoned that would be recognized as "magic" (if you didn't automatically cover that up because it is in the Bible). In the case of the practices specifically condemned, it isn't the actual actions, but the fact that they were performed by non-Israelites that was the real problem.

In the ancient world, there is no way to define "magic" as anything other than a label for outgroup religion. Therefore, trying to use those verses in the Bible the way you are attempting to do is forcing a different modern interpretation of the situation onto a text produced for very different reasons. I would encourage you to actually read the book, if you are interested in the topic at all, and certainly before you attempt to use the same argument again.

[William Schryver]

Will,

As always, appreciate the points you raise, and I think you've raised a pretty good one here. Let me give a personal observation and then suggest a proposal for your consideration.

On the other board I referenced the process of giving priesthood blessings. I understand that the process may vary for many of us here. It even varies for me, and that is a topic for another discussion. But many times, I will start with some hesitation as I attempt to articulate in words the feelings I believe are prompted by the Spirit. But there are occasions where after that initial halting start, I reach my stride and the process speeds up considerably with me talking at a normal pace without any real pauses or hesitation. From a detached point of view I feel like I'm watching myself go through this process being prompted with the meaning and then going through the mechanics of choosing the words I say. But it goes by at a fairly fast clip. Now it doesn't always happen like this, but it has enough for me to experience it and know what it feels like. And, of course, I know it happens for others differently, and that I could very well be projecting in what I suggest in the following paragraphs.

I believe that most of the witness statements refer to a time when Joseph is already mature in the translation process. We really don't have a picture of the time when Joseph first traced the characters to use with the "spectacles." Did he start off in a halting manner? How confident was he at that time? Did he stop and start a few times then? Did he want assurance from the secular experts about his first attempts at translation? There is a hiatus there when he goes through some spiritual maturation and grows in his revelatory experiences. He becomes more confident in the way he receives inspiration and how he puts it into words. He comes back to the translation more confident about his own spiritual abilities and with Emma again as scribe even before we get to the other scribes.

In other words, I'm suggesting that there is quite a length of time where we don't have the best snap shot. I suggest that it's possible that by the time that we have the main scribes and the main witness statements, Joseph is confident in his abilities and that the mechanism for this entire process is going just as fast as what happens in some priesthood blessings--Inspired, uninterrupted dictation assisted and guided by the Spirit with the speaker still making choices about the words he uses.

Thoughts?

I am a major fan of yours. Sincerely. I think you consistently have excellent observations. And you are often quite funny, to boot. I have also always been a fan of Brant Gardner. I have always been impressed by how he comports himself in what can sometimes be rather heated online discussions. I have also learned a lot from him on how to approach the text of the Book of Mormon.

With all that said, I'm afraid that I must adhere to an opposing viewpoint when it comes to Brant's posited theory concerning the method of translation of the Book of Mormon. Even so, after much consideration, I have concluded that I will not pursue a detailed critique of his theory via message board. In the first place, I don't have the time necessary to do so. I am up early this morning with the express purpose of finishing an article related to my analysis of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers*. I have other related articles I must complete in the next few months, after which I will address the question of the translation of the Book of Mormon, most likely in collaboration with another author. My study of the JSEP has convinced me that the text of the Book of Abraham was produced similarly to the Book of Mormon (and also the Book of Moses and D&C 7): it was effectively transmitted through the Prophet Joseph Smith. I do not believe that Joseph Smith took much of an active role at all in terms of the formulation of those texts. I believe the evidence is more or less conclusive in that respect. Frankly, I think those who see things otherwise have been blinded by an overwhelming motivation to explain what they perceive as the "problems" presented by apparent anachronisms in the text, as well as other elements they believe to be inconsistent with a "divinely delivered" text. I, on the other hand, believe those considerations must be utterly ignored when examining the textual and historical evidence. The evidence must be permitted to speak for itself, untainted by any motivations to liberate the Book of Mormon from the perceived shackles of what are otherwise believed to be its textual anachronisms. I don't believe we can ever come to an accurate understanding of the seemingly anachronistic elements in the text if we do not accurately understand the nature of how that text was delivered through Joseph Smith, and I (and others) are convinced that when it comes to these restored ancient texts, the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that Joseph Smith was (with very few exceptions) merely the medium through which the text of the Book of Mormon was transmitted.

Brant's exposition of this latest translation theory is related to a larger family of theories to which Blake Ostler's seminal 1987 article The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of Ancient Source is a part. Anything I have to say about Brant's theory will effectively be a critique of this entire family of thought concerning the production of the text of the Book of Mormon. I do not believe this or any other message board to be an appropriate venue for such a critique, and will seek to formally publish it via a reviewed journal.

* = I am simply conforming here to the name by which the formerly-known-as "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" are being called by those associated with the Joseph Smith Papers Project.

Edited October 15, 2011 by William Schryver

[rongo]

Hughes:

In the Einheitsübersetzung, or "unity translation" (the version of the Bible the Church uses in German-speaking countries ---- a joint translation put out by the Catholic and Lutheran churches), "Urim and Thummim" is rendered Losorakel ("lot-oracle"). Scholarly footnotes explain that the Urim and Thummim was consulted in a manner similar to how diviners used lots. As others have answered in this thread, Old Testament proscriptions against divination do not apply to legitimately authorized use of the Urim and Thummim or other authorized means. God makes it more demanding for us than to simply provide us with a trouble-shooting flow chart ----- we are required to discern and recognize whether something really is or is not of God, rather than relying on black and white tests.

This becomes similar to the so-called "Bible test of a prophet" in Deuteronomy. The actual test is whether a prophet is of God, not whether what he says comes to pass. Part of the "Bible test of a prophet" acknowledges that false prophets can give true prophecies, and people can't know in real time whether purported prophecies will be fulfilled or not. We need to be able to discern without automatic "lifelines."

[Brant Gardner]

Brant's exposition of this latest translation theory is related to a larger family of theories to which Blake Ostler's seminal 1987 article The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of Ancient Source is a part.

I would disagree. My position is actually very close to that of B.H. Roberts. Still, I understand the problem of competing projects. I look forward to reading your work.

[J Green]

Will,

No worries, and thanks for your kind words. Look forward to reading your publications.

Cheers

[Hughes]

He did the translation, according to his own testimony, by the Urim and Thummim. Unless you regard the Urim and Thummim to be an "abomination to the Lord," I don't see how you can regard the translation process an "abomination". The Urim and Thummim was an instrument of revelation mentioned in the Old Testament.

And according to lds.org JS used seer stones to translate the BoM. It even articulates a point where one of his scribes switched the stones on him, where he made the statement about "dark as Egypt". You disagree, you don't think he used seer stones?

It's my understanding that JS and his father used seer stones before starting the LDS faith. This usage is clearly not from God, as the prohibition of divining spirits, dead humans etc.. Yet, the challenge is that he used the same practice to translate the BoM.

Christ's detractors were convinced he cast out devils by the Prince of Devils. That, of course, said more about His detractors than it did about Him. Likewise, if you're convinced Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon in a similar manner, that says more about you than it ever could about Joseph Smith.

I'm not sure what you think it says about me. I'm simply trying to understand. A plain reading of the Bible states that practices like using seer stones is divination, is an abomination to the Lord.

[Hughes]

Her thesis is that "magic" is a social definition relegated to what others do. If you look at the Bible, there are a number of practices in that are condoned that would be recognized as "magic" (if you didn't automatically cover that up because it is in the Bible). In the case of the practices specifically condemned, it isn't the actual actions, but the fact that they were performed by non-Israelites that was the real problem.

In the ancient world, there is no way to define "magic" as anything other than a label for outgroup religion. Therefore, trying to use those verses in the Bible the way you are attempting to do is forcing a different modern interpretation of the situation onto a text produced for very different reasons. I would encourage you to actually read the book, if you are interested in the topic at all, and certainly before you attempt to use the same argument again.

Yet, even in Deut. 18, the prohibition is directed to the Israelites. So, your statement that the practices themselves isn't specifically condemned isn't accurate at all.

I was looking for a summary of her arguments. If her thesis is that "magic" is a social definition relegated to what others do, then it appears she's missing the crux of the issue, that of trust. Those who practice such "magic" trust those things, not God.

[William Schryver]

A plain reading of the Bible states that practices like using seer stones is divination, is an abomination to the Lord.

You mean like Joseph and his divining cup? (See Genesis 44)

Edited October 15, 2011 by William Schryver