Questions About Js'S Translation Procedure Of The Bom.

[Alvino]

In the thread Sheum: A New Lead, Olavarria mentioned that "sheum" may be a transliteration from a name that designates a grain in the BoM. When asked why JS wrote a transliteration, Olavarria responded that what "sheum" denoted was a grain not in JS's vocabulary. Since he didn't know how to call it, JS just gave it the original name.

Supposedly JS saw the translated words when he had his face in the hat so, where those words or terms limited to JS's vocabulary? That would be strange since "sheum" was not a word in his vocabulary to begin with, neither were proper names unique to the BoM.

If the words he received as the translations were not limited to his own vocabulary, why not be given through revelation the name in English of that grain in the first place? Perhaps no such name existed?

I also don't understand how he knew "sheum" was the transliteration in the first place given that it doesn't appear that he was looking at the original symbols while translating, but even if he did he must have heard the word pronounced to transliterate it.

For example, as I posted in the aforementioned thread, "Or you could say JS did know, at least while inspired, what certain symbols meant in the original language written in the plates. If you chose to say that please realize this does not explain why JS wrote "sheum" there in the first place. If %$%#$% is what's written and it was pronounced "agua" (though you don't know this unless you heard the term) in another ancient language and it means "water" in our own (and you know that %$%#$% means "water"), that doesn't explain why you would write "agua" in a translation. Was JS hearing the words in his head also?"

Edited February 14, 2013 by Alvino

[nealr]

This question can't really be addressed until some sort of theory on how the translation process worked is hammered out. Once that is done, you can begin to think about how something like "sheum" got into the translation. So if you are serious about understanding the translation process, I would recommend you read Brant A. Gardner's The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (2011). It discusses what we know about how translation works and tries to figure out how Joseph employed a seer stone to that end.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gift-Power-Translating-Mormon/dp/1589581318/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360878289&sr=8-1&keywords=Gift+and+power%3A+translating+of+the+book+of+mormon

For my brief review of the book, see:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gift-Power-Translating-Mormon/product-reviews/1589581318/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R3F4GDWPCM07R0

These articles may also help you workout some thoughts on the translation process:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=167

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=2&id=41

[Alvino]

This question can't really be addressed until some sort of theory on how the translation process worked is hammered out. Once that is done, you can begin to think about how something like "sheum" got into the translation. So if you are serious about understanding the translation process, I would recommend you read Brant A. Gardner's The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (2011). It discusses what we know about how translation works and tries to figure out how Joseph employed a seer stone to that end.

http://www.amazon.co... book of mormon

For my brief review of the book, see:

http://www.amazon.co...#R3F4GDWPCM07R0

These articles may also help you workout some thoughts on the translation process:

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=1&id=167

http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=2&id=41

I'll read the two articles. (just read your review)

But, how about you try to respond to my concern here? Posting books isn't much of a response here.

[William Schryver]

I'm pretty sure Royal would say that Joseph simply saw the transliteration already spelled out, just like he saw proper names with which he was not familiar.

[Alvino]

http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=2&id=41

Just read that article and I fail to see how that answers the problems I raised. If JS didn't see the words then it's pretty hard to see how he would write a transliteration or proper names unique to the BoM. Knowing what the symbols mean and what the translation is (or a close enough one) into your own language does not give you any grounds to come up with a transliteration. As I said, if @#$#@ are the original symbols and it means "water" in our own language, how would you come up with the pronunciation @#$#@ to get a transliteration ( for example, @#$#@ could be transliterated as "agua" or "lisea" but you wouldn't get that from merely knowing the symbols, meaning, or translation)?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

I'm pretty sure Royal would say that Joseph simply saw the transliteration already spelled out, just like he saw proper names with which he was not familiar.

OK, but then why not be given the name of "sheum" in English in the first place since he was going to be given a word he never had stumbled upon before anyways (assuming he didn't know what sheum was; if he did know that would have been even stranger)?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Alvino

[nealr]

I'll read the two articles. (just read your review)

But, how about you try to respond to my concern here? Posting books isn't much of a response here.

The problem is, as I tried to point out, it that working through this kind of concern requires a background and understanding that can't be gained by pontificating with others, who have varying degrees of familiarity with the issues at hand. If you are serious about working through an issue, you should be willing to do the homework necessary to gain that background.

Just read that article and I fail to see how that answers the problems I raised. If JS didn't see the words then it's pretty hard to see how he would write a transliteration or proper names unique to the BoM. Knowing what the symbols mean and what the translation is (or a close enough one) into your own language does not give you any grounds to come up with a transliteration. As I said, if @#$#@ are the original symbols and it means "water" in our own language, how would you come up with the pronunciation @#$#@ to get a transliteration ( for example, @#$#@ could be transliterated as "agua" or "lisea")?

I never said that is would address you concern specifically. I said it would give you some background on the translation process. As you gather in the information from various sources and begin to understand the process, then you can begin to think about what their implications are on the question(s) you have. But that is not going to come right after reading one article.

The internet age has produced people seem think you should be able to simply ask a question and get a pat answer. But that doesn't really work for most issues. It takes effort to seek answers. I could tell what I think on the question, if I really wanted to. But it wouldn't do much good, because you don't have all the information I have taken into account to formulate that view. Until you do your homework, there will never really be a satisfactory for you.

Furthermore, you need to read a little more carefully. The article you say you read does not conclude that Joseph Smith didn't see the words on the seer stone.

[Alvino]

The problem is, as I tried to point out, it that working through this kind of concern requires a background and understanding that can't be gained by pontificating with others, who have varying degrees of familiarity with the issues at hand. If you are serious about working through an issue, you should be willing to do the homework necessary to gain that background.

Just post your answer and we'll see.

I never said that is would address you concern specifically. I said it would give you some background on the translation process. As you gather in the information from various sources and begin to understand the process, then you can begin to think about what their implications are on the question(s) you have. But that is not going to come right after reading one article.

OK, would you address my concern specifically now?

The internet age has produced people seem think you should be able to simply ask a question and get a pat answer. But that doesn't really work for most issues. It takes effort to seek answers. I could tell what I think on the question, if I really wanted to.

I really want you to.

But it wouldn't do much good, because you don't have all the information I have taken into account to formulate that view. Until you do your homework, there will never really be a satisfactory for you.

Kind of interesting that you know what information I have.

Furthermore, you need to read a little more carefully. The article you say you read does not conclude that Joseph Smith didn't see the words on the seer stone.

Sorry for that. I meant "words" as given to him directly, as opposed to being given understanding and having that shown in the seer stone (as the article does propose). As I told you already, this doesn't explain the transliteration and may not even explain proper names.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Alvino

[Buzzard]

This is my explanation-I am not a scholar, don't play one on TV. I have read some of the material on JS and his translation process, but don't claim to be an expert in the field. But what God told Oliver about studying it out in his mind would apply to JS as well, IMHO. And the pace at which the BOM was translated would eliminate the sentence by sentence dictation from within the hat.

My personal take is that JS learned to read Reformed Egyptian, slowly and with the aid of the Urim and Thummim at first, but eventually and as long as he had the spirit with him, as naturally as I could read "Le Compte de Monte Cristo" or "Les Miserables" today.

But when he gets to proper nouns like names, he would have required direct help, and it makes sense that he would use a seer stone, placed in a hat. And what makes a more interesting tale-A spiritual light shining in the darkness, or JS reading passages hour after hour from behind a curtain? So Whitmer et al. chose the story with the hat in it.

It many not be the way you see it, but it works for me.

[cinepro]

Supposedly JS saw the translated words when he had his face in the hat so, where those words or terms limited to JS's vocabulary? That would be strange since "sheum" was not a word in his vocabulary to begin with, neither were proper names unique to the BoM.

If the words he received as the translations were not limited to his own vocabulary, why not be given through revelation the name in English of that grain in the first place? Perhaps no such name existed?

You need to understand that the translation process of the Book of Mormon was "tight", meaning that Joseph Smith was given exact words and phrases to such a degree that he could spell proper nouns and words that had no English equivalent (Curelom), as well as preserving complex "hebraisms" that he didn't even know existed like chiasmus.

Except for the times when the translation was done using a "loose" method, wherein Joseph was given impressions and other encouragement while dictating the text using his own vocabulary and cultural references, allowing him to interject his own influence.

Feel free to use whichever theory is needed to explain any given portion of the Book of Mormon.

Edited February 15, 2013 by cinepro

[William Schryver]

OK, but then why not be given the name of "sheum" in English in the first place since he was going to be given a word he never had stumbled upon before anyways (assuming he didn't know what sheum was; if he did know that would have been even stranger)?

So that it would constitute a nice little bit of text-critical evidence of the antiquity/authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

[Cobalt-70]

You need to understand that the translation process of the Book of Mormon was "tight", meaning that Joseph Smith was given exact words and phrases to such a degree that he could spell proper nouns and words that had no English equivalent (Curelom), as well as preserving complex "hebraisms" that he didn't even know existed like chiasmus.

Except for the times when the translation was done using a "loose" method, wherein Joseph was given impressions and other encouragement while dictating the text using his own vocabulary and cultural references, allowing him to interject his own influence.

Feel free to use whichever theory is needed to explain any given portion of the Book of Mormon.

You've outlined very well the problem with apologetic thought on this issue. The apologists use the "loose" theory when it is convenient, such as to explain the presence in the Book of Mormon of 19th century idiom and the KJV. Then they use the "tight" theory when it is convenient, such as for words like "sheum," "curelom," and "cumom," and various alleged Hebraisms and Mesoamericanisms.

Historically, based on descriptions of the translation process that Smith related to his close associates such as David Whitmer and Joseph Knight, it was a very "tight" process of translation. Smith looked into the magic stone in the hat, and saw actual Roman font letters written in beams of light, which Smith merely read verbatim to his scribe. That means that if the Book of Mormon is a translation of an actual ancient document, then someone else (presumably God) was doing the actual translation from Reformed Egyptian into English. So we can blame God for merely transliterating "sheum" when he could have instead used an English word for whatever that domesticated grain was, or whatever domesticated pack animal a "curelom" or "cumom" was.

As I've said many times before on this forum, I don't think the Book of Mormon is a translation of a real ancient document. I don't have any reason to doubt Smith's description that he saw actual letters and that he was just reading them. But perhaps his subconscious mind was hard at work behind the scenes (and i'm not discounting the possibly of God's inspiration at work too) elaborating the inspired stories and doctrinal discourses that constitute the Book of Mormon. Surely, bits and pieces of this story were formulated and pondered ahead of time. His mother noted that as early as the mid-1820s, Smith spent evenings describing the Nephites to his family to minute detail. The Nephite stories and doctrinal discussions had several years to ferment and gel within his mind, perhaps catalyzed by the spark of God's inspiration, so that when he finally sat down with the magic stone in the hat, the precise words were ready to spring forth in the form of a crystallomantic vision. Joseph Smith evidently was one of the relatively rare individuals who could induce such visions within himself by going into a trance-like state, without the use of hallucinogenic drugs.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[bu11fr0g]

Understanding the translation process is not straightforward. In my mind, a single model does not explain all the pieces.

The explanation needs to account for

1- words that aren't in English

2- quotations that are in the KJV of the Bible in the New Testament

3- quotations from the KJV Old Testament where there are inconsistencies (i.e. mistranslations present in KJV kept in BOM, two Isaiahs)

4- words that seem out of place (horses and chariots)

5- how interpretation worked in compiled texts, uncompiled texts and interpreted texts (Ether)

6- condensation of text to fit in the record, reformed Egyptian

7- use of French and Greek Words and Latin names

8- English that is older than Joseph Smith's contemporary spoken language

9- If the Nephite author made an error in his interpretation how this would be translated, i.e. how errors of men would be translated.

[volgadon]

use of French

Adieu is an English word that has fallen into disuse in recent years.

[Alvino]

You need to understand that the translation process of the Book of Mormon was "tight", meaning that Joseph Smith was given exact words and phrases to such a degree that he could spell proper nouns and words that had no English equivalent (Curelom), as well as preserving complex "hebraisms" that he didn't even know existed like chiasmus.

Except for the times when the translation was done using a "loose" method, wherein Joseph was given impressions and other encouragement while dictating the text using his own vocabulary and cultural references, allowing him to interject his own influence.

Feel free to use whichever theory is needed to explain any given portion of the Book of Mormon.

Did you see my criticisms at all, cinepro? I explain my concerns with one method and with the other and all you basically say is "use both". To "use both" is to inherit both problems.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Alvino

[Glenn101]

Adieu is an English word that has fallen into disuse in recent years.

Yes, but we have the Normans to thank for it.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Glenn101

[Alvino]

This is my explanation-I am not a scholar, don't play one on TV. I have read some of the material on JS and his translation process, but don't claim to be an expert in the field. But what God told Oliver about studying it out in his mind would apply to JS as well, IMHO. And the pace at which the BOM was translated would eliminate the sentence by sentence dictation from within the hat.

My personal take is that JS learned to read Reformed Egyptian, slowly and with the aid of the Urim and Thummim at first, but eventually and as long as he had the spirit with him, as naturally as I could read "Le Compte de Monte Cristo" or "Les Miserables" today.

But when he gets to proper nouns like names, he would have required direct help, and it makes sense that he would use a seer stone, placed in a hat. And what makes a more interesting tale-A spiritual light shining in the darkness, or JS reading passages hour after hour from behind a curtain? So Whitmer et al. chose the story with the hat in it.

It many not be the way you see it, but it works for me.

This doesn't explain the transliteration. JS could have known what the symbols meant in English perfectly well but this doesn't explain the transliteration. Look at the OP.

[Glenn101]

You need to understand that the translation process of the Book of Mormon was "tight", meaning that Joseph Smith was given exact words and phrases to such a degree that he could spell proper nouns and words that had no English equivalent (Curelom), as well as preserving complex "hebraisms" that he didn't even know existed like chiasmus.

Except for the times when the translation was done using a "loose" method, wherein Joseph was given impressions and other encouragement while dictating the text using his own vocabulary and cultural references, allowing him to interject his own influence.

Feel free to use whichever theory is needed to explain any given portion of the Book of Mormon.

Did you see my criticisms at all, cinepro? I explain my concerns with one method and with the other and all you basically say is "use both".

cinepro was pulling your leg just a bit. You really need to do your homework on this subject. There has been a lot of research done on the possible methods of translation and the reasons some words have or had no known meanings in the era that Joseph produced the "translation". I put translation within quotes because the means used to produce he Book of Mormon did not follow any normal translation process, i.e. with a translator expert in the languages from which and to which the translation took place.

There probably is no one person on this board with the necessary qualifications to expertly answer all of the questions you ahve raised. Detailed essays and even books have been written about these matters. And the process is still ongoing. But there are no short and definitive answers that cinepro or anyone else can give you, unless the toungue is planted firmly in the cheek, or the answer is "I don't know".

Glenn

[Alvino]

So that it would constitute a nice little bit of text-critical evidence of the antiquity/authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

How playful given that he could have provided 100 pages of transliterations and be more convincing.

[why me]

What I find interesting is that for a farm boy with little education we are certainly discussing something deeper that a potato in the dirt. And this in its own way is quite extraordinary. How could a farm boy accomplish such a task? And to take into consideration Joseph's writing ability.

Edited February 15, 2013 by why me

[Alvino]

cinepro was pulling your leg just a bit.

Now I feel silly.

You really need to do your homework on this subject. There has been a lot of research done on the possible methods of translation and the reasons some words have or had no known meanings in the era that Joseph produced the "translation". I put translation within quotes because the means used to produce he Book of Mormon did not follow any normal translation process, i.e. with a translator expert in the languages from which and to which the translation took place.

There probably is no one person on this board with the necessary qualifications to expertly answer all of the questions you ahve raised. Detailed essays and even books have been written about these matters. And the process is still ongoing. But there are no short and definitive answers that cinepro or anyone else can give you, unless the toungue is planted firmly in the cheek, or the answer is "I don't know".

Glenn

That was weird. "I don't know and probably no one here knows, but you should really do your homework." At least that's straightforward.

[Alvino]

What I find interesting is that for a farm boy with little education we are certainly discussing something deeper that a potato in the dirt. And this in its own way is quite extraordinary. How could a farm boy accomplish such a task? And to take into consideration Joseph's writing ability.

He didn't. Apologists and the faithful did.

[nealr]

Kind of interesting that you know what information I have.

I certainly don't presume to know what information you have, but you have had ample opportunity to demonstrate your familiarity with the translation process, but haven't.

When someone posses a question like this, I see three potential options: (1) sincere questioner who is genuinely interested in understanding some issue; (2) some arm chair scholar who likes to discuss or pontificate on various items of interests to them; (3) someone trying to ask a "gotcha question" to trip up or catch the "apologists" or whatever.

I prefer to assume people are number 1, and try to respond accordingly. People that fall into that category need to be willing put in the intellectual effort to understand issues, and so I try to point them to resources that will help them work out their own solutions (such things are always more productive then just giving people answers). Once they have gotten familiar with the relevant information and best scholarship on the matter, I am more then willing to discuss the issue with them and further and share my thoughts with them in order to help them crystallize their own. Of course, if they have already read and thought about the resources I point them to, well then, they can always just say so.

People who fall into number 2 are also better suited to be familiar with best scholarship on the issues they wish to discuss, although I've found that they rarely are. But there discussions can prove to be much more fulfilling and productive if they take the time to try and study what they discuss, and as such usually don't get so defensive when given recommendations for reading on a given topic. Rather, they tend to appreciate it.

People who fall under number 3, on the other hand, don't really care to know or understand the issues or the scholarship. (Though even they would be much better served if they would take the time to get familiar with best scholarship and what not, because then they could actually ask much more pointed questions.) They just want an answer which they can then proceed to try and poke holes into. I'm not particularly interested in discussing things with such people, especially if they are not willing to do their homework.

That said, I'm not going to pretend to know which category you fall into. I'll just say what I have already said, and leave it at that: If you are serious about this topic, you should read - at a bare minimum - The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon, by Brant Gardner. It would go along way in helping you work out an answer to your inquiry. If you not are interested in doing that, well, I'm not interested in this discussion.

Have a nice day.

[Benjamin McGuire]

So, Alvino -

from my perspective the issue starts on some level before we can talk about tight or loose translations. What does the translation process entail? Do we get a translation of Mormon's text that follows what Mormon writes (or does his intention matter)? That is, if Mormon makes a mistake in writing, does the translation process somehow correct the mistake, and if it does, what is the standard to which it corrects it? Or, does the translation simply translate what Mormon writes, mistakes and all?

What happens if Mormon, in redacting the various sources he uses, comes across a word he doesn't know, and instead of replacing it with something that he is familiar with, he simply inserts that unknown word into his text (transliterates it himself to keep our terminology in this thread consistent). How does our pattern of translation respond to this? Do we anticipate a translation that can overcome the problem (and if we do, does this mean that neither what Mormon wrote, nor his intentions in writing really contribute to the translation that we have)?

Ben M.

[Alvino]

@nealr:

That's it? You come here to post articles that aren't helpful and a book that might (though you don't say how, specifically), tell me what kind of intentions I might have by asking, and tell me you will answer me if I really want to but you won't.

How helpful.