Royal Skousen’S Lecture

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob,

Does Royal flesh out this idea more completely elsewhere? The one article I've read (linked by Cal) gives a mere three or four examples of this idea and only uses the OED as the research tool. You would think based on the nature of the sweeping conclusion he draws about when the BoM was actually translated that a) there would be more samples and b) there would be research data from the specific time and place in addition to the OED entries. I'm with the others who think that the bulk of the text reads like KJV English and not several hundred years prior to that. It would probably take more examples and more focused evidence from New England at the right time to change my opinion.

I'm a huge fan of Royal's work on the critical text, but I don't always agree with how he tries to make the data fit his larger theory about when and how the text was originally translated into English.

Cheers

I would like to see Royal provide a more thorough and systematic argument on that issue.  I have heard him speak to the issue in lectures in recent years, and he seems to be saying that it may be a sign from God.  He does not mean by that to claim that the entire Book of Mormon is rendered in a dead form of English.  Only that there are specific examples of very archaic usage which ceased in such usage long before the time of Joseph Smith.  The OED is particularly valuable in that endeavor because it provides actual dated sources, and quotes from them.  Royal has buttressed that with citations from other Bible translations, and even from the Book of Common Prayer.  One problem with that is the Bible of Colonial America was not the 1611 KJV, but rather the earlier Geneva Bible -- which Royal cites for at least one extinct usage..Royal is a world-class expert in linguistics and is familiar with studies of the vernacular of the region occupied by the Smith family, but I would like to see a detailed analysis made and published on that basis before I would accept the notion that Joseph was merely reading an archaic translation made a couple of centuries before he came on the scene.

[canard78]

I would like to see Royal provide a more thorough and systematic argument on that issue. I have heard him speak to the issue in lectures in recent years, and he seems to be saying that it may be a sign from God. He does not mean by that to claim that the entire Book of Mormon is rendered in a dead form of English. Only that there are specific examples of very archaic usage which ceased in such usage long before the time of Joseph Smith. The OED is particularly valuable in that endeavor because it provides actual dated sources, and quotes from them. Royal has buttressed that with citations from other Bible translations, and even from the Book of Common Prayer. One problem with that is the Bible of Colonial America was not the 1611 KJV, but rather the earlier Geneva Bible -- which Royal cites for at least one extinct usage..Royal is a world-class expert in linguistics and is familiar with studies of the vernacular of the region occupied by the Smith family, but I would like to see a detailed analysis made and published on that basis before I would accept the notion that Joseph was merely reading an archaic translation made a couple of centuries before he came on the scene.

I agree with J Green that the theory seems very limited. For a "world class expert in linguistic" to have a couple of his already short list of phrases possibly debunked after half an hour of googling by a hobbyist suggests he's not put as much time as he could have into this part of the theory. Apologies if that sounds disrespectful to Skousen. The bulk of his work is astounding. But I'm just not seeing much meat in this 15th/16th C theory.

The "dead phrase" example: "...and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies, that ye may become extinct" (Alma 44:7) already made sense to me as a modern reader.

As I've earlier shown, it makes even more sense when you read a range of 1800s dictionaries and see the types of meanings it might have had for Joseph doing a "loose" translation.

The theory would be more credible if we found dead words. There are plenty of words that had gone out of use by 1829 that Skousen's 15thC translator could have used. But all of the words (except names) used in the Book of Mormon can be found in an 1800s dictionary. Joseph dictated, by revelation, "in (his) weakness, after the manner of (his) language."

If we discovered, for example, that a curelom or cumom is actually a 15th English word for an animal that by 1800s was a dead word then we might be getting somewhere.

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree with J Green that the theory seems very limited. For a "world class expert in linguistic" to have a couple of his already short list of phrases possibly debunked after half an hour of googling by a hobbyist suggests he's not put as much time as he could have into this part of the theory. Apologies if that sounds disrespectful to Skousen. The bulk of his work is astounding. But I'm just not seeing much meat in this 15th/16th C theory.

The "dead phrase" example: "...and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies, that ye may become extinct" (Alma 44:7) already made sense to me as a modern reader.

As I've earlier shown, it makes even more sense when you read a range of 1800s dictionaries and see the types of meanings it might have had for Joseph doing a "loose" translation.

The theory would be more credible if we found dead words. There are plenty of words that had gone out of use by 1829 that Skousen's 15thC translator could have used. But all of the words (except names) used in the Book of Mormon can be found in an 1800s dictionary. Joseph dictated, by revelation, "in (his) weakness, after the manner of (his) language."

If we discovered, for example, that a curelom or cumom is actually a 15th English word for an animal that by 1800s was a dead word then we might be getting somewhere.

I pretty much agree with you, but you're beating a dead horse, canard.  

 

We should all suspend judgment pending a more detailed analysis.  I am interested in both sides of the argument, rather than in making a hasty decision based on a half-hour of Googling.  Once we have had a chance to study the full argument based on hard core sources, we ought to be able to come to a conclusion which everyone (including you and Royal) can agree on.

[canard78]

...we ought to be able to come to a conclusion which everyone (including you and Royal) can agree on.

A consensus? On a topic concerning the Book of Mormon's historicity? I hear hell's also freezing over

But I appreciate your perspectives. I realise you're not defending the hypothesis and I recognise it's too early to stop investigating that line of enquiry (even though it makes little sense and would seem amount to God apparently having a sense of humour and placing "Easter eggs" in the text beamed out of the rock in the hat/exact words in his head).

Until then, I remain in the "loose" camp (very loose).

I have a general question to the "tight" camp. When a priesthood holder gives a blessing, they give it by revelation/inspiration. Do you think the selected words are theirs, God's or a mix of both? In other words, if someone is about to do a blessing/setting and then gets suddenly called away, would the person that steps in to do say the exact same words that the first person would have (assuming both are equally worthy and in tune with the spirit).

Although I was taught so as a youth by my Bishop. I now believe that's not the case.

People who take the completely "tight" approach are essentially saying the same as my Bishop about blessings. That the text was revealed independent of Joseph and he was only a voice box for some other translator.

[guerreiro9]

A consensus? On a topic concerning the Book of Mormon's historicity? I hear hell's also freezing over

But I appreciate your perspectives. I realise you're not defending the hypothesis and I recognise it's too early to stop investigating that line of enquiry (even though it makes little sense and would seem amount to God apparently having a sense of humour and placing "Easter eggs" in the text beamed out of the rock in the hat/exact words in his head).

Until then, I remain in the "loose" camp (very loose).

I have a general question to the "tight" camp. When a priesthood holder gives a blessing, they give it by revelation/inspiration. Do you think the selected words are theirs, God's or a mix of both? In other words, if someone is about to do a blessing/setting and then gets suddenly called away, would the person that steps in to do say the exact same words that the first person would have (assuming both are equally worthy and in tune with the spirit).

Although I was taught so as a youth by my Bishop. I now believe that's not the case.

People who take the completely "tight" approach are essentially saying the same as my Bishop about blessings. That the text was revealed independent of Joseph and he was only a voice box for some other translator.

 

Hello Canard,

 

At this point in time I consider myself to be in the "tight" camp, although my opinion may evolve as we gain more light and knowledge.  In your comparison of the translation of the Book of Mormon to a priesthood blessing there is one aspect that you have overlooked.  God specifically provided a physical instrument to aid in the translation and Joseph had to use physical exertion to use it.  There was something unique and special occurring during the translation of the Book of Mormon that does not allow it to be easily compared to a traditional blessing.  Although both are performed through the power of God, we need not assume that because God chooses to reveal something using one method at one time, he cannot use another method at another time.

 

If we believe any of the descriptions of the translation (if not there is not much to discuss) they seem to describe Joseph physically seeing something, we don't know what, but something.  In order to see this something he had to physically block out the light (hence the hat) and exert physical effort which made him become tired (more tired with the Nephite interpreters than with his seer stone apparently due to their size).

 

My point is that there is no contradiction in viewing a priesthood blessing as a "loose" translation of God's will (which I do) while viewing the Book of Mormon translation as "tight" (which I also do).  I have been asked to participate in a number of priesthood blessings, but I have never physically seen something which directed my pronouncements, and I have never been given an instrument by God to aid me in revealing his will.  If I had been given such I think there is a greater likelihood that another would have uttered the identical words as I when pronouncing the blessing.

 

As for the overall debate about "tight" vs "loose", after reviewing the evidence presented by Royal Skousen and others I feel there is more observable evidence for a "tight" translation than there is for a "loose".  In fact I don't know of any observable evidence for a "loose" translation, although I think it is a perfectly valid theory and I think the work done by Brant Gardner and others is wonderful.

 

I think the "loose" translation makes more sense to a lot of people and removes some doubts or stumbling blocks they may have and so it becomes appealing.  I can't think of any doubts the "loose" translation solves for me and from solely looking at the evidence, in my opinion the translation was tightly controlled (for what my opinion is worth).

 

-guerreiro9

[Calm]

(even though it makes little sense and would seem amount to God apparently having a sense of humour and placing "Easter eggs" in the text beamed out of the rock in the hat/exact words in his head).

There are some in my acquaintance who look at it as suggesting the possibility that it wasn't necessarily God (though revealed through his authority and power) who revealed the text to Joseph, but rather someone he delegated the task to for whom the more archaic language was more familiar...perhaps even a committee of those who recorded the plates such as Nephi, Mormon and Moroni and then some authorities of the English language and scripture that might have been from varying time periods, including those most familiar with the language of the KJV (as the most common language of scripture for JS's environment) but perhaps one member of the committee was from an earlier time period and he was the one who contributed the occasional archaic usage.

 

Of course this is all pure speculation, but some people look on it as pure fun to imagine such things.

[canard78]

There are some in my acquaintance who look at it as suggesting the possibility that it wasn't necessarily God (though revealed through his authority and power) who revealed the text to Joseph, but rather someone he delegated the task to for whom the more archaic language was more familiar...perhaps even a committee of those who recorded the plates such as Nephi, Mormon and Moroni and then some authorities of the English language and scripture that might have been from varying time periods, including those most familiar with the language of the KJV (as the most common language of scripture for JS's environment) but perhaps one member of the committee was from an earlier time period and he was the one who contributed the occasional archaic usage.

 

Of course this is all pure speculation, but some people look on it as pure fun to imagine such things.

 

Wow...

 

Now that's some impressive mental gymnastics

[Calm]

Wow...

 

Now that's some impressive mental gymnastics

I did gymnastics as a child, it was fun.  I don't see why everyone tends to see it as a bad thing.

[omni]

Hello Canard,

 

At this point in time I consider myself to be in the "tight" camp, although my opinion may evolve as we gain more light and knowledge.  In your comparison of the translation of the Book of Mormon to a priesthood blessing there is one aspect that you have overlooked.  God specifically provided a physical instrument to aid in the translation and Joseph had to use physical exertion to use it.  There was something unique and special occurring during the translation of the Book of Mormon that does not allow it to be easily compared to a traditional blessing.  Although both are performed through the power of God, we need not assume that because God chooses to reveal something using one method at one time, he cannot use another method at another time.

 

If we believe any of the descriptions of the translation (if not there is not much to discuss) they seem to describe Joseph physically seeing something, we don't know what, but something.  In order to see this something he had to physically block out the light (hence the hat) and exert physical effort which made him become tired (more tired with the Nephite interpreters than with his seer stone apparently due to their size).

 

My point is that there is no contradiction in viewing a priesthood blessing as a "loose" translation of God's will (which I do) while viewing the Book of Mormon translation as "tight" (which I also do).  I have been asked to participate in a number of priesthood blessings, but I have never physically seen something which directed my pronouncements, and I have never been given an instrument by God to aid me in revealing his will.  If I had been given such I think there is a greater likelihood that another would have uttered the identical words as I when pronouncing the blessing.

 

As for the overall debate about "tight" vs "loose", after reviewing the evidence presented by Royal Skousen and others I feel there is more observable evidence for a "tight" translation than there is for a "loose".  In fact I don't know of any observable evidence for a "loose" translation, although I think it is a perfectly valid theory and I think the work done by Brant Gardner and others is wonderful.

 

I think the "loose" translation makes more sense to a lot of people and removes some doubts or stumbling blocks they may have and so it becomes appealing.  I can't think of any doubts the "loose" translation solves for me and from solely looking at the evidence, in my opinion the translation was tightly controlled (for what my opinion is worth).

 

-guerreiro9

As a proponent of a tight translation I'm curious how you would explain the thousands of changes from the original manuscript. I realize that most of the changes were due to grammatical errors or the usage of early nineteenth century colloquialisms, but wouldn't a tight translation eliminate those? In addition why would God choose an out of use and difficult to understand form of English for what is arguably the most important book ever written?

[J Green]

I would like to see Royal provide a more thorough and systematic argument on that issue.  I have heard him speak to the issue in lectures in recent years, and he seems to be saying that it may be a sign from God.  He does not mean by that to claim that the entire Book of Mormon is rendered in a dead form of English.  Only that there are specific examples of very archaic usage which ceased in such usage long before the time of Joseph Smith.  The OED is particularly valuable in that endeavor because it provides actual dated sources, and quotes from them.  Royal has buttressed that with citations from other Bible translations, and even from the Book of Common Prayer.  One problem with that is the Bible of Colonial America was not the 1611 KJV, but rather the earlier Geneva Bible -- which Royal cites for at least one extinct usage..Royal is a world-class expert in linguistics and is familiar with studies of the vernacular of the region occupied by the Smith family, but I would like to see a detailed analysis made and published on that basis before I would accept the notion that Joseph was merely reading an archaic translation made a couple of centuries before he came on the scene.

I'd love to hear some of the research he is starting to share in lectures recently. I too think that the OED is valuable for the wealth of sources sampled--I own a copy for that reason--but I don't think it's definitive, which is why in modern linguistics field researchers will add data from a specific time and place in addition to the OED citations. Especially in rural areas you would see families preserving archaic expressions that last through generations.

Cheers

[J Green]

I have a general question to the "tight" camp. When a priesthood holder gives a blessing, they give it by revelation/inspiration. Do you think the selected words are theirs, God's or a mix of both? In other words, if someone is about to do a blessing/setting and then gets suddenly called away, would the person that steps in to do say the exact same words that the first person would have (assuming both are equally worthy and in tune with the spirit).

Although I was taught so as a youth by my Bishop. I now believe that's not the case.

People who take the completely "tight" approach are essentially saying the same as my Bishop about blessings. That the text was revealed independent of Joseph and he was only a voice box for some other translator.

Canard,

I'm not fixed in either the "tight" or the "loose" camp, as I believe that the BoM translation swings along a continuum between these two ends of the spectrum. But I'll answer the question from my perspective.

When I give priesthood blessings, I find that the promptings I receive are a mix of language that I formulate, language that is given to me, and language directly from scripture that I'm prompted to share. At times, but less frequently, a specific thought is given me to say exactly, while most of the time, it is a thought or idea that I then attempt to articulate in my own words. In fact, sometimes I can hear myself use a word that I believe has the wrong meaning or nuance. Sometimes I'll back up and rephrase the idea, but other times I feel that the Spirit is communicating the meaning in spite of my using a phrase or word that is slightly off and I don't correct it. In the latter case, if there are others there who aren't listening with spiritual ears, so to speak, they might event get the wrong idea.

As I've discussed this with others while serving in various callings, I believe that most of us have a common experience in this regard. It also seems to follow the ideas about translation and revelation spelled out in the D&C when talking about the translation of the BoM. And to me it also seems to describe the process we see with Joseph, who felt comfortable changing phrases and ideas later, etc. This is one (but only one) reason why I believe Joseph was actually translating and not simply dictating words off of his iStone like reading a scrolling NASDAQ ticker. I think that most of the time he articulated the ideas in his own words, sometimes the words or phrases were given to him exactly, and sometimes he simply went to the scriptural passages that were prompted from the text and quoted them verbatim. Not only does it fit the data for me but it mirrors what I think happens day in and day out in the living church.

I'd love to hear other perspectives, whether they differ or are similar to my own experiences.

Cheers

Edited August 18, 2013 by J Green

[J Green]

For what it's worth, a few musings Royal's writings about a "tight" translation.

Royal does a great job at linking text critical data to assumptions about the dictation process with the scribes during translation. From this he has extrapolated instances that he believes are indicators of a "tight" translation. He then makes the connection between a tight translation and a mechanical one. It is this connection that I would likely dispute without better evidence.

On a translation spectrum, the transference of ideas from source language to target language can more resemble the surface phrasing and construction of the source language ("tight" translation) or be closer to a free-flowing rendition common to the target language ("loose" translation).

On a totally different spectrum, if an individual participates fully in a translation by taking ideas in the source text and actually making choices about what words to use in the target language, this would be a participatory translation. On the other end of this spectrum, the author could merely dictate what someone else has already produced--a "mechanical" dictation or translation.

In my opinion Dr. Skousen has taken what he sees as evidence for a "tight" translation and has made the connection between tight and mechanical without demonstrating fully that the one equals the other. Translators who participate in the entire process can just as easily produce "tight" translations as loose ones. In fact, both beginning translators and translators of religious texts feel less comfortable taking liberties (so to speak) with the source text ideas and usually end up with "tight" translations.

Brant's excellent book makes the case for a functional equivalence that backs off from the "tight" end of the spectrum. I would mostly agree with his assessment. But Skousen makes some good points based on meticulous data. I would just like to see more more evidence for his view that a tight translation equals a mechanical dictation. I don't think that kind of connection can be assumed or purchased on a thin diet of evidence.

Regards

[guerreiro9]

As a proponent of a tight translation I'm curious how you would explain the thousands of changes from the original manuscript. I realize that most of the changes were due to grammatical errors or the usage of early nineteenth century colloquialisms, but wouldn't a tight translation eliminate those? In addition why would God choose an out of use and difficult to understand form of English for what is arguably the most important book ever written?

 

Hello omni,

 

There is a reason I have been using quotations marks around the words "tight" and "loose".  People can read a lot into those words and my definition of tight does not appear to mean what you think it means, which is why I am glad you asked me to clarify.

 

When I use the word "tight" what I mean is that I believe that Joseph Smith saw the words of the Book of Mormon and that he read them off to a scribe.  I do not believe he was formulating the words himself from thoughts/impressions/visions as he went along.  That is the limit of the tight control over the wording of the Book of Mormon in my view.  I believe that Joseph saw and read the words, but:

• I do not believe he read them 100% correctly
• I do not believe the scribes copied his spoken words 100% correctly in the original manuscript
• I do not believe the original manuscript was copied to create the printer's manuscript 100% correctly
• I do not believe that the printer set the type 100% correctly
• I do not believe that the corrections that have been made to the Book of Mormon since the 1830 edition are 100% correct

I do believe however that all of the important doctrines and teachings were transmitted correctly, and that the Book of Mormon contains the word of God and will bring one closer to Christ if they read it and follow its teachings.

 

I think a lot of the 19th century colloquialisms were introduced as part of the transmission process from written text to spoken text to scribal text.  This occurs constantly when reading a text aloud.  I have been amazed at the words some people think they see in a text as they read.  The words are simply not there, but when read aloud, the words are inserted and they are usually colloquialisms or other phrases that people are accustomed to hearing.

 

The vast majority of the grammatical changes made to the Book of Mormon were made to make the book a little more readable, but in a strict sense they were not needed and could have been omitted altogether.

 

I think that an older form of English was used in the translation because that gave the book the correct "feel".  It was supposed to "feel" like scripture, it was supposed to "feel" like the word of God, and to 19th century America (and England) it needed to "feel" similar to the King James Version of the Bible.  That was what they were used to, to them that is what the voice of God sounded like.  The KJV was also a static piece of literature that could be used as a datum to reference the translation against.  I know of no other piece of English literature that has been read as widely or as continuously as the KJV has been for the last 400 years.

 

Language is constantly changing and evolving.  There is no such thing as "correct" English, we are making this up as we go.  It's not like mathematics where you can always refer back to hard and fast rules, the language simply becomes what people want it to become, or what it needs to become to communicate.

 

I cannot think of a better reference point than what was chosen.  What else would have been better?  19th century English as spoken by a frontier farmer?  How about someone from New York?  Boston?  The South?  How about from England?  Which part of the country would you recommend basing the translation on?  How about English as spoken by 21st century Americans in California?  Surely God can see the future and could foresee how the English language would change.

 

The language used in all of these locations was vastly different from one another, but they all had one thing in common.  They all looked to the King James Version of the bible as the word of God, and I think it is still the most widely used English translation today (the NIV may have passed it).

 

If you wanted to translate something to English that needed to "feel" like scripture to English speakers the world over, and needed to stand the test of time, it would have to "feel" like the KJV.

 

Unsurprisingly the Book of Mormon does..... I think the correct choice was made.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited August 18, 2013 by guerreiro9

[J Green]

guerreiro9's comments illustrate my point about confusing the idea of a tight translation with the idea of a mechanical dictation. When asked to clarify what he means by a "tight" translation, he doesn't explain a "tight" translation at all but rather a mechanical process -- one in which Joseph merely dictates what he sees. Of course, this is not a "tight" process at all -- it is a mechanical one. Tight simply means that the phrasing and structure in English seems to sound more like the language from which it was translated. If the BoM *IS* the product of a "tight" translation, this could just as easily be the result of Joseph's own word choice as that of Royal's earlier translator. There is nothing inherent in a tight or a loose translation that points to Joseph as a translator or simply a reader of someone else's translation (mechanical).

Cheers

[Robert F. Smith]

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

I'd love to hear other perspectives, whether they differ or are similar to my own experiences.

Cheers

Your evenhanded speculations, J, are as good as any I've heard, but I'd like to pose an additional notion which builds on them:

 

Suppose Joseph were a full participant in the translation process via a kind of feedback loop through his mind:  Would it then be conceivable that inspiration of the Holy Spirit could work with Joseph's own limited powers of English expression, as well as to enhance them when necessary?  Would that result in a mix of dynamic metaphrase, mechanical equivalence, and something in between?  Would the text show evidence of any of that?

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................  

Unsurprisingly the Book of Mormon does..... I think the correct choice was made.

 

-guerreiro9

Your suggestions all seem reasonable enough, but do raise some questions:

This plenary dictation theory you propound has been around for a long time, and it is indeed subject to all the very human risks you list.

 

However, why bother with a prophet when any "talking dog" will do?  "Talking dog" is of course the way in which some people refer to news broadcasters who don't know anything about the news or world affairs, but are pretty good at reading copy placed in front of them.  Indeed, journalism school teaches them how to look good and be articulate, but nothing deeper than that.

 

Does the evidence show Joseph to have been merely a "talking dog"?  Does careful analysis of the Book of Mormon text prove that case?  If so, what is that evidence?

[Robert F. Smith]

canard78 said:

A consensus? On a topic concerning the Book of Mormon's historicity? I hear hell's also freezing over  

 

No, a consensus on whether we actually have certain archaic words or phrases (or the archaic meanings they carry) in the Book of Mormon.  This has nothing to do with historicity at all:  Where did you get that odd notion?

 

 

 

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

People who take the completely "tight" approach are essentially saying the same as my Bishop about blessings. That the text was revealed independent of Joseph and he was only a voice box for some other translator.

You are a victim here of the all or nothing fallacy (and maybe your bishop is too).

Blessings given by merely human power, without any particular inspiration, are just as effective as those which are provided by inspiration.  The power of the priesthood is always honored by God.  For God is not fickle and hoity toity.  He cares as much about a prayer in the mouth of a humble, unsure deacon as he does about the prayers of his Prophet on the Earth.  The difference in gravity of some things which are of deep concern to all of us leads God to provide special counsel when it is appropriate -- to that deacon or to that prophet.

 

For example, not long ago I attended a symposium at Utah Valley University in which Prof. Richard Bushman was a panelist:  Bushman told how he, as a stake patriarch, received blessings and transcribed them himself.  In the process, he sometimes found it difficult to find just the right expression or word during the actual blessing, but later was able to edit his remarks slightly to make them fit what inspiration was suggesting to him originally.  Years earlier, at the Claremont Colleges in Southern California, I attended another meeting in which Bushman was asked by a theology student how he got patriarchal blessings:  Bushman replied, "I don't know.  They just come."  This fits neither the legalistic "talking dog" act approach, nor the fully off-the-cuff approach.  You might want to study the writing prophets of ancient Israel to see what sort of phenomenon they exhibit, or even to recall Bob Dylan's reply to a question about how he managed to write such awesome poetry.  His reply: "I don't know.  Maybe it comes from God."

Edited August 18, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[guerreiro9]

guerreiro9's comments illustrate my point about confusing the idea of a tight translation with the idea of a mechanical dictation. When asked to clarify what he means by a "tight" translation, he doesn't explain a "tight" translation at all but rather a mechanical process -- one in which Joseph merely dictates what he sees. Of course, this is not a "tight" process at all -- it is a mechanical one. Tight simply means that the phrasing and structure in English seems to sound more like the language from which it was translated. If the BoM *IS* the product of a "tight" translation, this could just as easily be the result of Joseph's own word choice as that of Royal's earlier translator. There is nothing inherent in a tight or a loose translation that points to Joseph as a translator or simply a reader of someone else's translation (mechanical).

Cheers

 

Potato (poh-tay-toe) potato (poh-taw-toe).  There is no confusion in my mind about the difference between what you have described as a "mechanical dictation" and what you describe as a "tight" translation.  I believe the translation was a "mechanical dictation" and I choose to call this method a "tight" translation.  This is a perfectly valid use of the word tight, but a single word cannot be expected to convey the entire meaning of a complicated process.  I hate labels for this reason, they cause both the reader and the writer to make assumptions about what is being discussed, and more often than not those assumptions are not the same.  Call the method I have described whatever you like, as long as you understand what I mean I am not going to disagree for the sake of a meaningless label.

 

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

Your suggestions all seem reasonable enough, but do raise some questions:

This plenary dictation theory you propound has been around for a long time, and it is indeed subject to all the very human risks you list.

 

However, why bother with a prophet when any "talking dog" will do?  "Talking dog" is of course the way in which some people refer to news broadcasters who don't know anything about the news or world affairs, but are pretty good at reading copy placed in front of them.  Indeed, journalism school teaches them how to look good and be articulate, but nothing deeper than that.

 

Does the evidence show Joseph to have been merely a "talking dog"?  Does careful analysis of the Book of Mormon text prove that case?  If so, what is that evidence?

 

Why bother with a translation at all?  Why didn't Moroni simply hand Joseph a bound English language copy of the Book of Mormon.  Why even bother with Mormon and Moroni?  Why didn't God simply hand Joseph a perfect English language version of "The Nephites: A Concise History" during the first vision?

 

If God's only purpose was to provide a complete perfect record of the Nephites (and others), he could have done so, but that is not his purpose.  His purpose is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, and in order to accomplish this he has to provide opportunities for people to progress and grow.  This is what happened with Joseph Smith.

 

As I have studied the life of Joseph Smith, one of the biggest realizations I have made is that my perceptions of him as a young man are colored by what he became later in his life, and by what the Church has become since his martyrdom.  We (or I at any rate) project back on Joseph an air of confidence, experience, and wisdom, that was simply not there in his early life.

 

Joseph received the plates from Moroni when he was 21 years old.  21 years old!  I remember how naive and inexperienced I was at 21, and I can't imagine being asked to do what Joseph was asked to do.  From what evidence we have, it appears that he was very unsure how to proceed with the translation in the beginning.  We also seem to forget that Joseph's faith was in need of sustaining as much as our own.  We have the anecdote about the time when he was translating with Emma as a scribe and they came to a portion that mentioned the walls of Jerusalem.  He stopped the translation and asked Emma if Jerusalem did indeed have walls, because he was worried that he had been deceived by the translation.  A question pops up all the time "Why did the Angel even provide the plates when they were not used in the translation?"  No, they were not used much in the translation, but I believe Joseph needed them to sustain his faith, and God needed Joseph to establish his Church so they were provided.

 

I think the "loose" translation method (J Green may need to describe his definition of "loose") is a perfectly valid and reasonable explanation for the translation process, but I think there is more evidence for a "tight" translation (mechanical dictation).  I have not seen any observable evidence for a "loose" translation, but I agree that it does make sense.

 

The most striking evidence I see for a "tight" translation is from Royal Skousen's work which shows that the more Joseph revised the text the less consistent it become in its word usage.  Joseph seems to have disliked a lot of the grammatical structure of the 1830 edition as much as anyone.  When revisions were made in 1837 and 1840 along with fixing minor errors that had accidentally crept in, large grammatical constructs were removed because they didn't sound right to Joseph.  This was not an occasional change, they were grammatical constructs that were contained throughout the entire book.  Whoever provided the text of the Book of Mormon does not appear to have provided it in a way that Joseph Smith himself would have done.  The more he touched it, the less consistent it became, which probably indicates that he was not the original translator.

 

Providing revelation by means of a written record also appears to be a method that God has used in the past.

 

We read in the book of Nephi that Lehi had a vision where he learned that Jerusalem would be destroyed.  How did he learn that it would be destroyed?  He was given a book to read and he read about their wickedness.  Why wasn't he just told what he needed to know?  I don't have any idea, but this is not the only time when a written revelation has been provided.

 

I believe that through his faith and the power of God, Joseph was able to see the translated words of the Book of Mormon.  It still required a lot of him both physically and spiritually and could not have been done by just anyone (as the "iStone" analogy implies).  We have to remember that Joseph was still a prophet in training at this point and would not have dismissed the experience as being unnecessary.  When a talking dog finishes speaking we are still left with a talking dog, but when Joseph finished speaking the words of the Book of Mormon we were left with a prophet of God.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited August 19, 2013 by guerreiro9

[J Green]

Your evenhanded speculations, J, are as good as any I've heard, but I'd like to pose an additional notion which builds on them:

 

Suppose Joseph were a full participant in the translation process via a kind of feedback loop through his mind:  Would it then be conceivable that inspiration of the Holy Spirit could work with Joseph's own limited powers of English expression, as well as to enhance them when necessary?  Would that result in a mix of dynamic metaphrase, mechanical equivalence, and something in between?  Would the text show evidence of any of that?

An interesting suggestion, Bob. I think certainly the Spirit enhances our capacity to comprehend beyond our normal level. I don't see why that comprehension can't expand into the areas you're looking at. But I'm not sure how we would verify it from a textual analysis.

Cheers

[canard78]

Canard,

I'm not fixed in either the "tight" or the "loose" camp, as I believe that the BoM translation swings along a continuum between these two ends of the spectrum. But I'll answer the question from my perspective.

When I give priesthood blessings, I find that the promptings I receive are a mix of language that I formulate, language that is given to me, and language directly from scripture that I'm prompted to share. At times, but less frequently, a specific thought is given me to say exactly, while most of the time, it is a thought or idea that I then attempt to articulate in my own words. In fact, sometimes I can hear myself use a word that I believe has the wrong meaning or nuance. Sometimes I'll back up and rephrase the idea, but other times I feel that the Spirit is communicating the meaning in spite of my using a phrase or word that is slightly off and I don't correct it. In the latter case, if there are others there who aren't listening with spiritual ears, so to speak, they might event get the wrong idea.

As I've discussed this with others while serving in various callings, I believe that most of us have a common experience in this regard. It also seems to follow the ideas about translation and revelation spelled out in the D&C when talking about the translation of the BoM. And to me it also seems to describe the process we see with Joseph, who felt comfortable changing phrases and ideas later, etc. This is one (but only one) reason why I believe Joseph was actually translating and not simply dictating words off of his iStone like reading a scrolling NASDAQ ticker. I think that most of the time he articulated the ideas in his own words, sometimes the words or phrases were given to him exactly, and sometimes he simply went to the scriptural passages that were prompted from the text and quoted them verbatim. Not only does it fit the data for me but it mirrors what I think happens day in and day out in the living church.

I'd love to hear other perspectives, whether they differ or are similar to my own experiences.

Cheers

I'd say that's a good summary of the way I receive it too when giving blessings.

I think the "reading off a ticker" evidence is very limited and (from memory) comes from those for whom "tight" or "mechanical" revelation was the way they thought it should be. Didn't David Whitmer get quite upset when Joseph started tweaking the D&C?

I also wonder about how they can say that words appeared on the stone. It was in a hat with Joseph's head obscuring the opening. How were they able to see anything at all other than the back of his head?

[omni]

I also wonder about how they can say that words appeared on the stone. It was in a hat with Joseph's head obscuring the opening. How were they able to see anything at all other than the back of his head?

I've never understood why so many won't take these witnesses at their word. All they would have had to do is simply ask Joseph? If you spent days and days transcribing for Joseph don't you think the method would have come up occasionally in conversation?

[J Green]

Potato (poh-tay-toe) potato (poh-taw-toe).

 

One of my favorite John Cleese skits is built around him attempting to sight sing "Let's call the whole thing off" for a Broadway audition. He's handed the sheet music, the pianist plays the intro, and then he starts singing the song, clearly not understanding that you're supposed to pronounce the two words differently. Of course, he sings the words the same way, but he's looking around at everyone trying to figure out what the joke is. Funny stuff. But this is a little different than two pronunciations of the same word. It's more like using the word tomato when you really mean potato.

But it's also clear that the source for this is not you but Skousen himself. His articles do not use the correct terminology, even though he does define his terminology. I.e., his loose, tight, and iron-clad ideas are not the accepted standards for the discipline. And your post above simply reads like an executive summary of his JBLM article. For the record, I disagree with the conclusions as you state them above and would be willing to discuss the specific examples if you'd like. As with the case of his "Archaic English" thesis, I believe he extrapolates large ideas from very small data sets that have several possible interpretations.

Lehi saw a book in vision, but he wasn't asked to translate it. A closer analogy would be the stone from Omni that needed to be translated using the interpreters. Or the Jaredite plates. Or the writing on the temple wall from God's finger, or almost any other episode in scripture actually involving . . . translation.

By the way, have you read other LDS scholars on the translation method? Roger Nicholson? Brant Gardner? Steven Ricks? Thoughts on how their interpretation differs from Royal's and what you think of the different arguments?

Cheers

[J Green]

I'd say that's a good summary of the way I receive it too when giving blessings.

I think the "reading off a ticker" evidence is very limited and (from memory) comes from those for whom "tight" or "mechanical" revelation was the way they thought it should be. Didn't David Whitmer get quite upset when Joseph started tweaking the D&C?

I also wonder about how they can say that words appeared on the stone. It was in a hat with Joseph's head obscuring the opening. How were they able to see anything at all other than the back of his head?

As Omni suggests, the fact that quite a few of the first-hand witnesses describe words in the stone leads to a conclusion (not really documented anywhere) that Joseph must have discussed this with them at some point. Like you, I don't think they could have seen the process over his shoulder or anything.

By the way, these same witnesses describe that along with the words in English, there were also the characters from the plates that appeared in the stone as well. This isn't usually addressed by those who think Joseph wasn't interacting with the text but simply reading a translation done by someone hundreds of years earlier.

Similarly, when Joseph was first interacting with the plates, he copied off characters and then placed the interpreters over them to assist in translating (Emma acting as scribe). At this point he was simply feeling his way and it was very slow. And when he sent out the initial attempts at translation for "quality control" by the Anthon Harrises of the world, he was in part seeking a kind of validation for his attempts at translation. This also is not discussed by Royal. To me the totality of the evidence doesn't add up to a Joseph who is simply reading from a previously-translated document in a stone. He is involved in the process and trying to understand his spiritual gifts as he goes.

Cheers

[Calm]

I also wonder about how they can say that words appeared on the stone. It was in a hat with Joseph's head obscuring the opening. How were they able to see anything at all other than the back of his head?

Who might have witnessed translation occurring before he started to use the seerstone in the hat?  If so, may they have been more aware of what Joseph was doing (it seems to me likely that if they could have seen the words themselves in some fashion, they would likely have said so as evidence that Joseph saw them as well)?

 

Did those witnesses report anything?