Royal Skousen’S Lecture

[strappinglad]

I'm not sure how one can make a 100% tight or mechanical translation of a language such as Reformed Egyptian into 1830s English. The Inuit have a dozen words for snow which would require an great deal of background experience to nuance correctly. There are many languages that have no words at all for the English words. The BoM itself tells of the technical differences between RE and Hebrew. To say the same thing in English and Spanish can take  more expressions in one than the other. That leaves us with having to express ' ideas' not just words. What do we use to express these ideas if not our own vocabulary, which will probably change with time and study.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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?

Since a number of those present tell a very similar story about how the translation took place, one might reasonably suggest that Joseph told them what was taking place.  That he didn't make a public statement about it is irrelevant.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not sure how one can make a 100% tight or mechanical translation of a language such as Reformed Egyptian into 1830s English. The Inuit have a dozen words for snow which would require an great deal of background experience to nuance correctly. There are many languages that have no words at all for the English words. The BoM itself tells of the technical differences between RE and Hebrew. To say the same thing in English and Spanish can take  more expressions in one than the other. That leaves us with having to express ' ideas' not just words. What do we use to express these ideas if not our own vocabulary, which will probably change with time and study.

You seem to understand the problems:

One is free to provide a wooden, word-for-word translation of dictionary equivalents, but that may not convey concepts adequately -- not to mention cultural differences.  The number of synomyms available for one word doesn't really matter much (all Inuit words for varieties of snow could simply be translated "snow").

 

Professional translators generally try to find the dynamic equivalence in the receptor language for the language being translated.  This avoids delivering a highly mechanical translation in favor of metaphrase.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Skousen has been employing textual criticism for some time now to argue for his particular views on translation.  Are you faulting the data or the arguments he makes?    Does Brant Gardner's approach make more sense to you?  Why?

[Calm]

 (all Inuit words for varieties of snow could simply be translated "snow").

 

But if one had the reverse, just the English word "snow" and were translating into Inuit, how would one know which Inuit word would be best?

 

For those interested (especially mfb):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow

 

In fact, the Eskimo–Aleut languages have about the same number of distinct word roots referring to snow as English does, but the structure of these languages tends to allow more variety as to how those roots can be modified in forming a single word.^[1][2] A good deal of the ongoing debate thus depends on how one defines "word", and perhaps even "word root".

 

Edited August 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Hamba Tuhan]

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?

 

I don't consider myself in any 'camp', but for what it's worth, I'll reshare this previously posted experience:

 

'About four years ago, one of my Young Men was preparing to receive his patriarchal blessing, and he asked me to fast with him on the day. Later that morning, he came down sick with the flu and then had trouble at school, and he felt like everything was going wrong. In despair, he sent me a text message. Before responding, I prayed and asked that I'd know exactly what this boy needed to hear to help buoy him up for the experience which was to come that evening. Then I tapped out a very long (several screens in length) message in reply. At the home of the patriarch that evening, I sat and listened to the patriarch speak what I then thought were the exact words of counsel which I had many hours earlier written. When I checked, I was wrong, however; they were the exact same words except for one, and there the patriarch had used a synonym'.

[guerreiro9]

But it's also clear that the source for this is not you but Skousen himself.

Of course of I am using Skousen as a source.  I don't know of anyone that knows as much about the text of the Book of Mormon as he does.  If you really want to understand the translation process you would be foolish to ignore the work he has done.  I do not agree will all of his conclusions, but I do agree that the evidence suggests that the English text of the Book of Mormon was not formulated by Joseph.

 

His articles do not use the correct terminology, even though he does define his terminology.

Don't get so hung up on the terminology.  I will agree to use what ever terminology you want in our discussion.  I don't care what labels you use, the labels themselves are meaningless, it is the ideas behind the labels that are important.

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.

My point is God has revealed information in a number of instances through written text, whether that text needed to be translated or not it was still written text (not impressions/feelings/understanding).  A similar thing occurs in D&C 7 where Joseph receives a translation of a parchment written by the apostle John.  It is unknown whether Joseph translated the parchment or if the translation was given to him, but my question is why involve the parchment at all?  Why wasn't Joseph just given impressions/feelings/understanding to convey the knowledge?  I don't know, but it appears that when a text is available God uses it.  It would not have been out of place for God to have revealed a text to Joseph.

 

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?

I have read Brant Gardner extensively, but have not read Roger Nicholson or Steven Ricks.  I think Brant Gardner's work is excellent.  I don't have any problems with his interpretation, I think it is perfectly valid and greatly adds to the conversation about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

 

 

 

At this point in time I simply think that Royal Skousen's theories have more observable evidence behind them.  I am unaware of any observable evidence for a "loose" translation.  The "loose" translation theory is more abstract and "mushy" and while it does make sense, I don't think it makes use of all the observable evidence we do have.  Royal's theories take into account, the statements from witnesses, and all of the textual information available from all the manuscripts.  He is able to statistically show the results of the linguistic arguments he is making.  I think his case is stronger, not that the other is bad, but Royal's is stronger.  I do not believe that Joseph formulated the language of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon.  He seems to have been as uncomfortable with it and confused by it as anyone.  I don't think the language matches what we could expect Joseph to produce based upon his knowledge and understanding, which means the knowledge and understanding came from somewhere else.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited August 19, 2013 by guerreiro9

[Robert F. Smith]

At this point in time I simply think that Royal Skousen's theories have more observable evidence behind them.  I am unaware of any observable evidence for a "loose" translation.  The "loose" translation theory is more abstract and "mushy" and while it does make sense, I don't think it makes use of all the observable evidence we do have.  Royal's theories take into account, the statements from witnesses, and all of the textual information available from all the manuscripts.  He is able to statistically show the results of the linguistic arguments he is making.  I think his case is stronger, not that the other is bad, but Royal's is stronger.  I do not believe that Joseph formulated the language of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon.  He seems to have been as uncomfortable with it and confused by it as anyone.  I don't think the language matches what we could expect Joseph to produce based upon his knowledge and understanding, which means the knowledge and understanding came from somewhere else.

 

-guerreiro9

I'm not sure of what you mean by the terms "tight," "loose," "mushy," etc., both here and above, but some of them do carry a strong element of negative value judgment.  There are a number of ways in which to test the theories of translation which have been put forward, but I see little of that in this thread.  Perhaps you could provide some examples that you find particularly convincing.

 

The same applies to belief in an already extant translation made long before Joseph came on the scene -- perhaps the beginning of an infinite series of such pre-translations, but to what purpose?  Reminds me of claims that the pyramids of Egypt had to have been constructed by aliens of by supernatural power, since Egyptians obviously could not have done so on their own.  So also, Joseph could not have done the translation assigned to him.  Somebody else had to do it.  We seem to be long on claims, and rather short on specific evidence.

[J Green]

Skousen has been employing textual criticism for some time now to argue for his particular views on translation. Are you faulting the data or the arguments he makes? Does Brant Gardner's approach make more sense to you? Why?

I don't fault the textual criticism elements of Royal's work. They are top notch. But I do fault his interpretation of that textual criticism when applied to the translation process. Off the top of my head, a few things with which I take issue:

1. Terminology. When Royal starts to delve into the discipline of translation theory, he uses (a) a very limited range of terms, and (b) the terms he chooses are the wrong terms. In translation theory and linguistics the spectrum ranges from "tight" to "loose" along a continuum. But when considering a text, we shouldn't limit ourselves to merely the two ends of that spectrum, although that is what Royal essentially does. It's a binary proposition. But more than simply using the terminology from the edges, he then takes this essentially binary terminology and redefines it in his own way that is contra that used by the discipline itself. For him, "tight" and "loose" are defined by who makes the decision about word choices and not about how well the source information reflects the target language structure (which is how the discipline defines these terms). "Loose" means Joseph made the choice, "tight" means God makes the choice, etc. Even though he defines this terminology at the beginning of his analysis, the terminology he chooses is wrong for the discipline in which he is working and leads to the next error.

2. Tight = Mechanical. Already in the terminology he has defined a "tight" translation as a mechanical dictation contra how it is defined in the discipline. This sets him up to show examples of a "tight" translation as per the discipline but at the same time claim that Joseph is not the author of the translation because he has already defined "tight" in this manner. You can see the confusion this causes when disciples like guerreiro9 show up using the same terminology. Royal needs to demonstrate the extra step. If this is indeed a "tight" translation, why couldn't Joseph have been the author of that tight translation? As a math teacher might say, "let me see the work." How did you get from A to B? He never adequately tackles this issue head on but rather simply assumes it right in the definition at the very beginning.

3. Limited data sets. He argues the archaic English thesis from four examples. And the same with the theory that Joseph's redaction leads to less consistent language, ergo Joseph is not the original translator. His MO is to give a few examples of textual analysis followed by sweeping conclusions extrapolated from these few examples. For me the very limited data sets are not convincing enough to make the kinds of conclusions he does. I'd simply like to see more evidence of the pattern. Given a text of over 500 pages, four instances of archaic words/phrases do not demonstrate to me that the entire text is written in archaic English.

4. Not addressing contrary evidence. Other LDS scholars believe there are examples of phrases or ideas from Joseph's culture embedded in the text that are not part of the KJV terminology. What does Royal think of these phrases? Why would he disagree with their assessment? Part of making a case in any academic setting is addressing any evidence that others have adduced to the contrary through the years, right?

But even if he fleshes this out, you are correct that I find other theories more compelling, including Ricks short piece as well as Brant's larger one. A partial summary would be as follows:

1. There is a relationship between the BoM KJV italicized portions and Joseph's later translation of the Bible. Not all are the same, but the relationship exists and Joseph is the center of gravity for it. The same relationship exists between many BoM phrases and later revelations in the D&C and elsewhere. I believe much of the data surrounding the Book of Abraham also shows a Joseph who believes he is the one translating and not a Joseph who is simply reading a previous translation.

2. There are phrases that seem more in place in Joseph's time and place (e.g., "song of redeeming love") that are not part of KJV text or older archaic language.

3. I believe the later BoM editing by Joseph demonstrates a larger scope. A Joseph who is comfortable editing ideas he had received previously, just as you point out in the patriarch analogy with Bushman. Royal's interpretation of the very limited data he provides on this issue reads like he is pulling that data in a predetermined direction.

4. I believe the revelation about BoM translation method (D&C 9) tells us that Joseph needed to study the translation out in his mind. Something he wouldn't have to do if he were simply reading. He was part of the translation.

5. Joseph started translating by tracing out characters from the plates and then placing the interpreters over the characters, laboring for definitions and short translations. This effort was then passed to the smart people of his day for validation. (He got prophecy fulfillment instead of the validation he was seeking.) This is the effort of figuring out a translation and not a reading.

6. Later, when Joseph switched to the seer stone, he still saw specific characters from the plates. This appears to be tied to the same method that he used when he started by tracing individual characters and placing the interpreters over them. A reading of a prior translation doesn't need to be tied to specific characters at each location on the plates.

7. Occam's razor. Without explicitly talking about the process, the plain common sense interpretation of everything Joseph says tangentially about it seems to imply his hand in the work. Regardless of possible definitions from 1828 Webster's, I don't think Joseph had in mind simply reading a previous translation onto the record when he proclaimed himself the translator on the title page.

8. Spiritual practice. As I pointed out in a previous post, I believe the idea of Joseph as translator follows a pattern that is followed to this day in fathers blessings and other priesthood blessings and aspects of revelation in the Church. It all fits a pattern and seems delicious to me when taken in the context of Alma 32.

These are simply a few of the reasons. But most of them are not addressed by Royal directly. I'd love to see him address these issues head on so I could then start to really weigh the text critical evidence he has as it applies to the translation process.

Your thoughts?

Cheers

Edited August 20, 2013 by J Green

[J Green]

At this point in time I simply think that Royal Skousen's theories have more observable evidence behind them.  I am unaware of any observable evidence for a "loose" translation.  The "loose" translation theory is more abstract and "mushy" and while it does make sense, I don't think it makes use of all the observable evidence we do have.  Royal's theories take into account, the statements from witnesses, and all of the textual information available from all the manuscripts.  He is able to statistically show the results of the linguistic arguments he is making.  I think his case is stronger, not that the other is bad, but Royal's is stronger.  I do not believe that Joseph formulated the language of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon.  He seems to have been as uncomfortable with it and confused by it as anyone.  I don't think the language matches what we could expect Joseph to produce based upon his knowledge and understanding, which means the knowledge and understanding came from somewhere else.

 

-guerreiro9

HI, guerreiro9.

As with Robert, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a "loose" translation. This gets back to my point that terminology sometimes actually does matter. I can tell you agree with Royal's thesis, but unless you (a) start to define what you mean by loose or (b) agree to discuss specific examples of Royal's findings, there really doesn't seem much to talk about other than to acknowledge that you agree with Royal and leave it at that.

Cheers.

[guerreiro9]

I'm not sure of what you mean by the terms "tight," "loose," "mushy," etc., both here and above, but some of them do carry a strong element of negative value judgment.  There are a number of ways in which to test the theories of translation which have been put forward, but I see little of that in this thread.  Perhaps you could provide some examples that you find particularly convincing.

 

The same applies to belief in an already extant translation made long before Joseph came on the scene -- perhaps the beginning of an infinite series of such pre-translations, but to what purpose?  Reminds me of claims that the pyramids of Egypt had to have been constructed by aliens of by supernatural power, since Egyptians obviously could not have done so on their own.  So also, Joseph could not have done the translation assigned to him.  Somebody else had to do it.  We seem to be long on claims, and rather short on specific evidence.

 

 

HI, guerreiro9.

As with Robert, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a "loose" translation. This gets back to my point that terminology sometimes actually does matter. I can tell you agree with Royal's thesis, but unless you (a) start to define what you mean by loose or (b) agree to discuss specific examples of Royal's findings, there really doesn't seem much to talk about other than to acknowledge that you agree with Royal and leave it at that.

Cheers.

 

It appears that I have failed miserably in my attempts at communication, I will attempt to be more clear in the future.

 

"Loose" = Joseph formulated the English words of the Book of Mormon somehow.

"Tight" = The English words of the Book of Mormon were given to Joseph somehow.

 

These are the extent of my definitions, I will no longer use them as they appear to be confusing.

 

Some specific examples that I believe indicate he saw the English language text and read it to his scribes are:

1. The excessive use of "and it came to pass".  I have not seen any examples of its use in 19th century America, and its use in the KJV is limited.  Joseph does not appear to have used this phrase excessively in any of his other writings, and removed a number of them from the text during the editorial process.
2. Use of the "if, and" conditional structure.  Likewise does not appear to be used in 19th century America and is not used in the KJV.

If these we used just once or twice throughout the Book, I think it would be more plausible that Joseph Smith formulated the text.  They were not though, they were used continuously and consistently indicating that they were a preferred grammatical structure for transmitting the desired meaning.

 

What sentences and phrases do you think are indicative of Joseph formulating the text based upon words of his choosing?

 

-guerreiro9

[Calm]

6. Later, when Joseph switched to the seer stone, he still saw specific characters from the plates..

Are you saying he saw characters in the stone? I thought he only saw English words...or perhaps I don't understand what you are getting at.

[Calm]

. They were not though, they were used continuously and consistently indicating that they were a preferred grammatical structure for transmitting the desired meaning.

-guerreiro9

why could not they have simply been Joseph's preferred choice for a repeated idea? Why does their repetition mean to you it is someone else's preference involved? Edited August 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Thanks J Green for making the point about D&C 9 not fitting with someone who just reads from a magic words emitting stone, I was about to say something similar.

Besides which, the "mechanical" testimonies contradict. One says a floating parchment, another talks of words on the stone.

[guerreiro9]

Hello J Green,

 

It appears you were requesting a reply from Robert, but I will give my input (for what it is worth).

 

1. Point Conceded on Terminology

2. Point Conceded on Terminology, you seem to be the only one arguing this point

3. I do not agree with Dr. Skousen that the BOM was written in English pre-dating the KJV.

4. I would like to see him address this, perhaps he will have time now his critical text project is in print.

   1. The text of the BOM is dependent on the previous KJV text, Dr. Skousen admits this.

    2. These phrases could just as easily have been given to Joseph

    3. It also shows a Joseph who was uncomfortable with a good portion of the original phrasing in the 1830 edition, something that would also indicate it is not the way he would have formulated the text.

    4. Joseph would still have had to study it out in his mind.  He was still a part of the translation.

    5. If Joseph was given the text, that does not preclude the need to study the characters.  I see no conflict here, Joseph studied the characters and God provided a translation.

    6. I don't see any conflict here, Joseph saw the characters studied it out and read off a translation.

    7. I think Occam's Razor is getting duller by the year.  I don't see how Joseph would have considered himself any less a part of the translation if God had provided the phrasing instead of himself.

    8. If the exact words to say are given to you during a blessing, is the blessing any less spiritually rewarding?  I think the exact opposite has been the case, those who have received exact wording from God have found the experience to be very uplifting.

 

The only difference between what I am advocating and what you are is that your are arguing that Joseph provided the phrasing of the Book of Mormon, I am arguing that it was provided to him through the power of God.  All of the other particulars are identical, and I think your arguments are valid but I believe Occam's (Dull) Razor slices in the other direction.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited August 20, 2013 by guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

why could not they have simply been Joseph's preferred choice for a repeated idea? Why does their repetition mean to you it is someone else's preference involved?

 

Hello calmoriah,

 

They could have been Joseph's preferred choice, but they do not appear to have come from his environment.  Perhaps someone can find some examples of their usage by Joseph at other points, but I have not seen any.  If Joseph did provide the phrasing, if would mean that he made the conscious choice to repeatedly render the phrase in a way that had never been spoken by him before, had never been heard by him before, and had never been read by him before.  If it is a particularly difficult phrase to translate, then it is more understandable, but the phrases I mentioned above have much simpler and common English translations.  When editing the text he replaced most of these occurrences with phrases he was familiar with.  This is not definitive proof, but indicates to me that Joseph was not responsible for formulating those phrases.  I believe if it had been Joseph's responsibility the text would have been rendered in language he was more familiar with as were his editorial changes.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited August 20, 2013 by guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

delete - My son pounded on the Keyboard

Edited August 20, 2013 by guerreiro9

[J Green]

Are you saying he saw characters in the stone? I thought he only saw English words...or perhaps I don't understand what you are getting at.

 

Cal,

 

I believe this is one of the statements I was thinking about:

 

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man." (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 12)

 

This process still seems connected to his first method where he would copy a few characters onto a separate piece of paper and place the interpreters over each of the characters. I.e., he is using essentially the same method but is using the seer stone to access the specific characters for translation instead of copying them himself.

 

Cheers

[J Green]

guerreiro9,

 

I appreciate the response. I have limited time now, so I'll likely reply later in the day.

 

Cheers.

[canard78]

4. Joseph would still have had to study it out in his mind. He was still a part of the translation.

5. If Joseph was given the text, that does not preclude the need to study the characters. I see no conflict here, Joseph studied the characters and God provided a translation.

6. I don't see any conflict here, Joseph saw the characters studied it out and read off a translation.

-guerreiro9

4. What did he have to study in his mind? So are you saying he didn't read off a ticker on the stone? What was the process then?

5 & 6. How could he study characters he couldn't see? The plates were usually wrapped/packed away and Joseph's head was in a hat. Are you saying he could see, through his hat, onto the characters that were out of site.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Please could you develop that a little further?

[David T]

4. What did he have to study in his mind? So are you saying he didn't read off a ticker on the stone? What was the process then?

5 & 6. How could he study characters he couldn't see? The plates were usually wrapped/packed away and Joseph's head was in a hat. Are you saying he could see, through his hat, onto the characters that were out of site.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Please could you develop that a little further?

 

I don't know about guerreiro9, but Gardner's book The Gift and Power: Translating The Book of Mormon directly addresses and nuances Skousen's model - and these questions raised. He presents a fascinating idea of, if I can get it across properly, that the message being delivered to Joseph by revelation was in the language of pure thought ("mentalese"), and then Joseph's brain having to work to translate that into English using his own resources - and what he worked out is what his mind's eye projected, or "saw".

 

(he had tried first translating the character themselves - and even trying to get someone else to do it - and that didn't work. The translation by revelation method was a follow-up. And that's what worked.)

 

The stones  were focusing devices, so to say. He thus both translated and 'read' what he projected, as an expression of his Eidetic memory.

 

This theory also is applicable to all revelations, if God transmits them to us in "pure intelligence", and then our minds translate that into our own idiom and language, based on our worldview, context, and experience.

 

I highly, highly, highly recommend the book.

Edited August 20, 2013 by David T

[Calm]

 

This process still seems connected to his first method where he would copy a few characters onto a separate piece of paper and place the interpreters over each of the characters. I.e., he is using essentially the same method but is using the seer stone to access the specific characters for translation instead of copying them himself.

 

Cheers

Thank you, I had forgotten the details of this quote for some reason...

[cinepro]

I don't know about guerreiro9, but Gardner's book The Gift and Power: Translating The Book of Mormon directly addresses and nuances Skousen's model - and these questions raised. He presents a fascinating idea of, if I can get it across properly, that the message being delivered to Joseph by revelation was in the language of pure thought ("mentalese"), and then Joseph's brain having to work to translate that into English using his own resources - and what he worked out is what his mind's eye projected, or "saw".

 

 

 

I've heard of other authors that use the same process.  It's called "writing a book".  They have ideas, think of the words in their heads, and then express those ideas using those words on paper.

 

I guess one way of getting critics to shut up is to formulate apologetic theories that veer towards the critics' own theories.  Kind of like how many non-believers agree with the Meso-american theorists that the Book of Mormon didn't take place in the Heartland, while they also agree with the Heartlanders that it didn't take place in Mesoamerica.  

 

In the end, you can disarm them by agreeing with them.

[David T]

I've heard of other authors that use the same process.  It's called "writing a book".  They have ideas, think of the words in their heads, and then express those ideas using those words on paper.

 

Well, before I knew anything about Mormonism, when I thought I was developing a novel, I ended up writing the outline of the history of the Restoration, with interesting name correlations. So I have experiential sympathy to the idea of Joseph being able to have an actual history implanted in his mind that needs to get worked out.

Edited August 20, 2013 by David T

[guerreiro9]

4. What did he have to study in his mind? So are you saying he didn't read off a ticker on the stone? What was the process then?

5 & 6. How could he study characters he couldn't see? The plates were usually wrapped/packed away and Joseph's head was in a hat. Are you saying he could see, through his hat, onto the characters that were out of site.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Please could you develop that a little further?

 

I don't know what he saw, the only one who does for sure is Joseph and to our knowledge he never described it fully.  We have descriptions from the witnesses, and they all seem to described him seeing the text in some form.  David Whitmer as described above thought Joseph saw a parchment with the reformed Egyptian characters from the plates on it.  The witness's descriptions are not completely reliable, because some of them thought that God would not even allow for errors in the scribal transcription (spelling/grammar anything).  This is obviously not true, because there are numerous spelling and grammar errors on the scribal manuscript including a few nonsensical phrases such as the "Ishmael's hole hole" phrase. 

 

If we believe the witnesses, Joseph also had to be in the "right" state of mind in order for the translation to work.  If something was bothering him at home, he had to resolve it before continuing.  He could not simply stick his head into his hat and read the scrolling words.  He had to have the spirit with him and be concentrating on what he was doing.

 

What we know for sure (we think) is that Joseph when in the right state of mind was able to place his seer stone in the hat, place his face in the hat, and dictate the words of the Book of Mormon. 

 

I think there is more evidence that the words he dictated were formulated by someone else, than there is evidence that Joseph formulated the words.  If Joseph formulated the words according to his understanding then all of the words and phrases would have to have been available to him in his environment, but that does not appear to be the case.  If the text was revealed to him somehow, then it would not need to be limited to Joseph's understanding.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited August 20, 2013 by guerreiro9