Gospel Topics: Book Of Mormon Translation

[David T]

Hot off the digital press at lds.org: 

http://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

 

 

Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote of two instruments used in translating the Book of Mormon. According to witnesses of the translation, when Joseph looked into the instruments, the words of scripture appeared in English. One instrument, called in the Book of Mormon the “interpreters,” is better known to Latter-day Saints today as the “Urim and Thummim.” Joseph found the interpreters buried in the hill with the plates.¹⁶Those who saw the interpreters described them as a clear pair of stones bound together with a metal rim. The Book of Mormon referred to this instrument, together with its breastplate, as a device “kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord” and “handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages.”¹⁷

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”¹⁸ As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.¹⁹ As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.²⁰

Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.²¹ In ancient times, Israelite priests used the Urim and Thummim to assist in receiving divine communications. Although commentators differ on the nature of the instrument, several ancient sources state that the instrument involved stones that lit up or were divinely illumined.²² Latter-day Saints later understood the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer exclusively to the interpreters. Joseph Smith and others, however, seem to have understood the term more as a descriptive category of instruments for obtaining divine revelations and less as the name of a specific instrument.

 

Very nice that they note that the term Urim and Thummim is to be understood as a catch-all category, and identifies the interpreters and seer stone are distinct, and distinctly named. Nice!

 

And here's the Stone in the Hat:

 

 

Nevertheless, the scribes and others who observed the translation left numerous accounts that give insight into the process. Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates. Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.²⁶ The process as described brings to mind a passage from the Book of Mormon that speaks of God preparing “a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light.”²⁷

 

Nice to have all this info in one place. They also link to the old Elder Nelson Ensign article which mentions the other method. Having all this set out in one easy to find place is really great. Nothing substantially new, but the presentation of the content is great! It hasn't been all laid out and presented so coherently before (I think they gave the idea of Near Eastern Hebraisms as evidence little too much weight than it probably deserves - especially given the biblical influence and contemporary stuff which did the same thing like Late War, but oh well.)

 

Loving this new online topical library!

Edited December 30, 2013 by David T

[omni]

 According to witnesses of the translation, when Joseph looked into the instruments, the words of scripture appeared in English

 

 

and

 

Another scribe, Martin Harris sat across the table from Joseph Smith and wrote down the words Joseph dictated. Harris later related that as Joseph used the seer stone to translate, sentences appeared. Joseph read those sentences aloud, and after penning the words, Harris would say, “Written.”

 

 

The principal scribe, Oliver Cowdery, testified under oath in 1831 that Joseph Smith “found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.”³¹ In the fall of 1830, Cowdery visited Union

 

 

Interesting...the article seems to be doubling down on the tight translation theory.  I was under the impression that apologists were moving in the loose translation direction.

[Calm]

 I was under the impression that apologists were moving in the loose translation direction.

My experience is that there are a number in both camps and many of us totally undecided.  

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Interesting...the article seems to be doubling down on the tight translation theory.  I was under the impression that apologists were moving in the loose translation direction.

Describing "apologists" as though they are a herd of cattle all chewing the same grass together is illusory.  The range of opinion among LDS scholars on translation of the Book of Mormon is quite stark and has been for a long time.  You need only compare the published views of Brant Gardner set over against those of Royal Skousen to realize this.  Moreover, the discussions on this board have been anything but united on which theory is correct.

 

Also, this current article, while very welcome and well-informed, does not provide advantage to one particular translation theory or another.

[Duncan]

My experience is that there are a number in both camps and many of us totally undecided.  

 

 

unless more information is forthcoming like some lost document or something then we'll probably never know

[Tacenda]

I wonder if the church will make a statement on Nauvoo polygamy soon.

[J Green]

Interesting...the article seems to be doubling down on the tight translation theory.  I was under the impression that apologists were moving in the loose translation direction.

I think you mean mechanical or reader theory. Tight/loose is an entirely different proposition.

[Robert F. Smith]

Hot off the digital press at lds.org: 

http://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

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

Loving this new online topical library!

Nice article.  Thanks for calling it to our attention.

 

I did provide feedback to the site letting them know that the last sentence in footnote 12 is  in error.  Royal Skousen no longer believes that the typesetter used the Original Manuscript to set type because the scribes had gotten behind in copying.  They had not gotten behind.  What happened was that the Brethren took the Printer's Manuscript to Canada to seek copyright.

 

The other problem is that I could see no date attached to the article.  I asked them to please include such mundane things in the future, so as to make it easier to cite.

[Robert F. Smith]

I wonder if the church will make a statement on Nauvoo polygamy soon.

This is off-topic for this thread, Tacenda, so we shouldn't continue this here  -- I will discuss this with you on a new OP, if you like.

 

If you are referring to the RLDS Church (now the Community of Christ), they finally had their Church Historian (Richard Howard) make such a statement decades ago in their official magazine.  Up until then, they had always excoriated the LDS Church and Brigham Young for inventing polygyny after the death of Joseph Smith.

 

The LDS Church has long maintained that it was a revelation to Joseph Smith which established polygyny as official Church doctrine.  The historical record is clear and no further statement is needed.

 

I personally doubt that the LDS Church will reinstitute polygyny when the courts declare it legal -- which will occur within the next 5 years.

[David T]

This is off-topic for this thread, Tacenda, so we shouldn't continue this here  -- I will discuss this with you on a new OP, if you like.

 

If you are referring to the RLDS Church (now the Community of Christ), they finally had their Church Historian (Richard Howard) make such a statement decades ago in their official magazine.  Up until then, they had always excoriated the LDS Church and Brigham Young for inventing polygyny after the death of Joseph Smith.

 

The LDS Church has long maintained that it was a revelation to Joseph Smith which established polygyny as official Church doctrine.  The historical record is clear and no further statement is needed.

 

I personally doubt that the LDS Church will reinstitute polygyny when the courts declare it legal -- which will occur within the next 5 years.

 

Robert, I think you mistook the intent of what Tacenda meant. The point was that the Church put out a topic on Utah Polygamy, and did not cover the historical period of Kirtland-Nauvoo, and specifically JS polygamy. I think many of us are looking forward to seeing how the Church handles that particular area.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I think you mistook the intent of what Tacenda meant. The point was that the Church put out a topic on Utah Polygamy, and did not cover the historical period of Kirtland-Nauvoo, and specifically JS polygamy. I think many of us are looking forward to seeing how the Church handles that particular area.

Actually I didn't mistake her intent.  I was being subversive.  The operative sentence in my reply to her was "The LDS Church has long maintained that it was a revelation to Joseph Smith which established polygyny as official Church doctrine.  The historical record is clear and no further statement is needed."

 

If someone does not know that the record on LDS polygyny is clear and needs no further statement, I'll be happy to provide some bibliography.  However, we really should do so in a new OP.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[David T]

Actually I didn't mistake her intent.  I was being subversive.  The operative sentence in my reply to her was "The LDS Church has long maintained that it was a revelation to Joseph Smith which established polygyny as official Church doctrine.  The historical record is clear and no further statement is needed."

 

If someone does not know that the record on LDS polygyny is clear and needs no further statement, I'll be happy to provide some bibliography.  However, we really should do so in a new OP.

 

What keeps this on topic is the point that these study resources are designed to address problematic issues that often raise concerns, and to present  clear layout of the fact, presented in a safe environment. This is still very much needed with regards to Fanny Alger prior to the Sealing Power being restored, Polyandry, hiding things from Emma, and other aspects of JS's introduction that are not relevant in the Utah Period. This will be covered.

 

This present article is also good in presenting what to many members are likely unfamiliar facts (Urim and Thummim not actual names of interpreters, separate seer stone found in his local town used in money digging prior to recovery of the BoM used as a translation tool, stone in a hat, etc) all are matters of historical record, but not generally contextualized, and not in a single thorough official 'safe' resource. This is the key importance of these study guide topic pages.

[Robert F. Smith]

What keeps this on topic is the point that these study resources are designed to address problematic issues that often raise concerns, and to present  clear layout of the fact, presented in a safe environment. This is still very much needed with regards to Fanny Alger prior to the Sealing Power being restored, Polyandry, hiding things from Emma, and other aspects of JS's introduction that are not relevant in the Utah Period. This will be covered.

 

This present article is also good in presenting what to many members are likely unfamiliar facts (Urim and Thummim not actual names of interpreters, separate seer stone found in his local town used in money digging prior to recovery of the BoM used as a translation tool, stone in a hat, etc) all are matters of historical record, but not generally contextualized, and not in a single thorough official 'safe' resource. This is the key importance of these study guide topic pages.

I think that you are correct, David, in your assessment of the need for the details on the Book of Mormon translation.  I myself have done what I can in the past to correct rampant misinformation.  Together with my colleagues, I think we made major inroads in that matter 30 years ago, and what you see now is the result (or reverberations) of those earlier efforts.

 

This is quite apart from the notion that every rumor and wild claim made about Mormons needs to be discussed at lds.org --  a view which I don't share.  I think that it is quite enough for scholars to continue studying and writing about more sensitive issues and publishing the positions taken in that debate.  FAIR Mormon is a good place for a summary of those debates to be presented, but certainly not the only one -- the "safest" venue you are going to get for the time being.  I think that Dialogue, Sunstone, JMH, Utah Historical Quarterly, and other journals have played an important role, as have the Tanners.  I think that we are yet in the midst of discovery and debate about polyandry and cases such as that of Fanny Alger, and it would be premature for an official LDS Church site to expound on that issue.  Once the Joseph Smith Papers Project has been completed, we will be in a better position to assess what history actually tells us.

[omni]

Describing "apologists" as though they are a herd of cattle all chewing the same grass together is illusory.  

 

That's quite the projection.  I'd be curious as to what you see in this simple rorschach test 

 

The range of opinion among LDS scholars on translation of the Book of Mormon is quite stark and has been for a long time.

 

 

I never said there wasn't still debate, only that it was my impression that (most) apologists were moving in the direction of a loose translation.

 

Also, this current article, while very welcome and well-informed, does not provide advantage to one particular translation theory or another.

 

 

I've given three examples from the brethren-approved essay that support the tight translation.  Can you give me three examples from the same essay that support a loose translation?

Edited December 31, 2013 by omni

[Tacenda]

Robert, very grateful for people like you that want history to be what it was and not a fantasy. Honesty, will always win out. And the statements coming from the church is indeed what a church of integrity should do. And I credit Mormon scholars for keeping it real.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

That's quite the projection.  I'd be curious as to what you see in this simple rorschach test 

Looks like the coat of Elsie the Borden Cow.  Is that what eventually happened to her?

 

I never said there wasn't still debate, only that it was my impression that (most) apologists were moving in the direction of a loose translation.

I haven't taken a poll, and am not sure of the latest fads, but, based on my own assessment on this board and elsewhere (I am a part of that active debate), I do not see most scholars moving in that direction.  Of course, you may intend separate classifications here: (1) apologists, and (2) scholars, or you may see them as one group.  My problem with that is that I am inclusive -- all of those competent to participate in the debate, Mormon or non-Mormon, are welcome.  I consider it improper to exclude those qualified to participate, regardless of POV..

 

I've given three examples from the brethren-approved essay that support the tight translation.  Can you give me three examples from the same essay that support a loose translation?

I consider the article to be neutral on the issue.  History is not facts, but interpretation of facts.  The examples given by you are your interpretations, if I understand them correctly.  Perhaps you could clarify why you consider them as solid evidence pro or con? 

As for being "Brethren approved," I see no evidence of that, even if it a reasonable assumption.

 

Edited December 31, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[omni]

I think you mean mechanical or reader theory. Tight/loose is an entirely different proposition.

I was thinking along the lines of the description FairMormon uses:

 

 

Was the Prophet provided with the exact wording of every sentence in the Book of Mormon? Was he simply given impressions which he then dictated within the context of his own understanding? Was it some combination of the two methods?

Edited December 31, 2013 by omni

[JAHS]

Hot off the digital press at lds.org: 

http://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

 

 

Very nice that they note that the term Urim and Thummim is to be understood as a catch-all category, and identifies the interpreters and seer stone are distinct, and distinctly named. Nice!

 

And here's the Stone in the Hat:

 

Nice to have all this info in one place. They also link to the old Elder Nelson Ensign article which mentions the other method. Having all this set out in one easy to find place is really great. Nothing substantially new, but the presentation of the content is great! It hasn't been all laid out and presented so coherently before (I think they gave the idea of Near Eastern Hebraisms as evidence little too much weight than it probably deserves - especially given the biblical influence and contemporary stuff which did the same thing like Late War, but oh well.)

 

Loving this new online topical library!

 

I have always assumed that the Urim and Thummim was simply two seer stones in the silver bow; anything wrong with that assumption or were the Urim and Thummim stones different from the single seer stone? 

[Rivers]

I was hoping the article would delve into tight/loose translation theories. Oh well.

I prefer the loose theory because it helps explain away anachronisms.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Rivers

[Palerider]

I have always assumed that the Urim and Thummim was simply two seer stones in the silver bow; anything wrong with that assumption or were the Urim and Thummim stones different from the single seer stone? 

 

The term "Urim and Thummim" was used later in church history.

 

Initially either "seer stone" or "interpreters" were terms used to describe either the small stone or the silver bow and breast plate, respectively.

 

The term "Urim and Thummim" later got used loosely to describe both.

[Palerider]

Personally I'd feel much better if this article was included in the missionary discussions.

 

That's what I would call being "up front".

 

Go ahead, I can take the slings and arrows............

[canard78]

I was hoping the article would delve into tight/loose translation theories. Oh well.

I prefer the loose theory because it helps explain away anachronisms.

Likewise. But I'm glad that these articles are being compiled and published. It's a positive step.

I have to remind myself that for many members, if they're reading them, this will be the first they've ever heard of "head in a hat" issues. Perhaps to have thrown in "loose translation" too is a step too far at this stage.

[mormonnewb]

While I absolutely applaud the Church for its efforts to be candid, I'm not sure that these website entries are going to solve the problem (i.e., saints having faith crises when they learn about seer stones in a hat for the first time).  After all, unless we are going to change our primary and seminary materials to reflect this more complicated view of the translation process, many saints are still going to feel "blind-sided" when they learn these things two years out of a mission.  And I don't think it's going to help to say, "Sure, we painstakingly drilled a certain narrative into your head for 18 years, but you could have found out the whole truth on the Internet years ago."

 

That being said, while I think I know everything, I don't have a solution to this problem.  It just seems to me that the way we teach the Gospel creates very firm, but sometimes, brittle testimonies.  As saints, we KNOW what we know and will act boldly on it (e.g., go on missions, observe the law of chastity, get our Eagle Scout, etc.).  This is just as it should be UNTIL new information creates a chip in our testimony and the whole thing can then come crumbling down.  For instance, I've read several accounts of saints who began to lose their testimony over this very issue (i.e., learning about the seer stones).  I'm not sure this happens as often in other Christian denominations.

 

For instance, I grew up as a generic Christian without any great "brand loyalty" (we attended AME, Lutheran, Baptist and non-denomination churches at various times).  However, in EVERY church Sunday school class, we were shown a picture of Noah and his ark that was grossly inaccurate when compared to the actual blueprints as set forth in the text of Genesis.  Yet, I've never met anyone who left the faith because they felt lied to by their Sunday school teacher.  Nor do they feel that since their Sunday school teacher didn't know the real shape of the ark then she must not know the fundamentals of the Gospel.

 

In fact, many protestant pastors seem to relish in showing just how wrong we've been in the past.  I recently heard a radio program where a pastor was explaining the Christmas narrative to his congregation.  He seemed to take great delight in informing his parishioners that we're off on both the day and year of Christ's birth, and that there might not have been THREE wise men and that they didn't show up to visit the baby Jesus in the manger on that holy night but rather two years later.  I don't think that this pastor was trying to clear out his membership rolls for the new year.  Instead, I suspect he was confident that his parishioners could handle changed facts without feeling that they had been lied to or led by false prophets.

 

Why is it so hard for us to do this?

Edited December 31, 2013 by mormonnewb

[Tacenda]

While I absolutely applaud the Church for its efforts to be candid, I'm not sure that these website entries are going to solve the problem (i.e., saints having faith crises when they learn about seer stones in a hat for the first time). After all, unless we are going to change our primary and seminary materials to reflect this more complicated view of the translation process, many saints are still going to feel "blind-sided" when they learn these things two years out of a mission. And I don't think it's going to help to say, "Sure, we painstakingly drilled a certain narrative into your head for 18 years, but you could have found out the whole truth on the Internet years ago."

That being said, while I think I know everything, I don't have a solution to this problem. It just seems to me that the way we teach the Gospel creates very firm, but sometimes, brittle testimonies. As saints, we KNOW what we know and will act boldly on it (e.g., go on missions, observe the law of chastity, get our Eagle Scout, etc.). This is just as it should be UNTIL new information creates a chip in our testimony and the whole thing can then come crumbling down. For instance, I've read several accounts of saints who began to lose their testimony over this very issue (i.e., learning about the seer stones). I'm not sure this happens as often in other Christian denominations.

For instance, I grew up as a generic Christian without any great "brand loyalty" (we attended AME, Lutheran, Baptist and non-denomination churches at various times). However, in EVERY church Sunday school class, we were shown a picture of Noah and his ark that was grossly inaccurate when compared to the actual blueprints as set forth in the text of Genesis. Yet, I've never met anyone who left the faith because they felt lied to by their Sunday school teacher. Nor do they feel that since their Sunday school teacher didn't know the real shape of the ark then she must not know the fundamentals of the Gospel.

In fact, many protestant pastors seem to relish in showing just how wrong we've been in the past. I recently heard a radio program where a pastor was explaining the Christmas narrative to his congregation. He seemed to take great delight in informing his parishioners that we're off on both the day and year of Christ's birth, and that there might not have been THREE wise men and that they didn't show up to visit the baby Jesus in the manger on that holy night but rather two years later. I don't think that this pastor was trying to clear out his membership rolls for the new year. Instead, I suspect he was confident that his parishioners could handle changed facts without feeling that they had been lied to or led by false prophets.

Why is it so hard for us to do this?

Because the things brought up aren't that long ago, and science, evidence, or whatever didn't need to clear it up. Just good old fashioned honesty in the reporting of it from the start, no hiding or whitewashing facts because some feel it might be faith altering, crushing. The church leaders didn't think we could handle the truth. Just like with Nauvoo polygamy ie: JS' s polygamy, according to Robert it most likely won't be put it in a statement because it's already been stated? Even though Brian Hales now has books written on it and Deseret Book is selling them online only, not in stores. Just enough to say it isn't hidden. They know it's a biggy, it might take a few more years to fully come out. The church is breaking it gently with these statements. Just as it has in putting them in various places throughout time, with the exception of JS' s polyandry. Unless it was online on the genealogy website for some time. I wonder if it's been on the genealogical records of the church the whole time. But as mormonnewb has stated, it needs to be taught at a young age starting yesterday in order to prevent fall out.

For those of us that are hanging on a thread, the church coming out with statements does heal somewhat the damage done. But it's still not really out there. Until they are put in the Ensign or explained in the Newsroom or Sunday School classes. They still seem obscure somewhat.

[omni]

I consider the article to be neutral on the issue. History is not facts, but interpretation of facts. The examples given by you are your interpretations, if I understand them correctly. Perhaps you could clarify why you consider them as solid evidence pro or con?

As for being "Brethren approved," I see no evidence of that, even if it a reasonable assumption.

These essays were not haphazardly thrown together. I think it's safe to assume that each word was carefully chosen by the author and that each essay has been scrutinized and approved by the brethren. Compare this essay to the one covering the priesthood ban. The latter was ambigious allowing the reader to believe the ban was of divine origin (but not the previously held views describing the reasoning for it) or a result of the commonly held racist views of the time.

In this essay we are given multiple examples from the historical record describing a tight translation, but none (in my reading) describing a loose translation. Isn't the purpose of these essays to provide clarification of difficult issues? Why do you think the author (with the approval of the brethren) neglected to add a section describing the alternative loose translation method?

Edited January 1, 2014 by omni