Gospel Topics: Book Of Mormon Translation

[Palerider]

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?

 

 

 

Excellent observations. I'd like to answer your last question but..........I better not.........

[Calm]

" 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"

Typical conspiracy theorising. DB offers a very limited selection of books now in its stores, whether it is to promote their own publications most or to cut down on shelf space of low volume products so they can devote more space to those products that give higher profit returns, I don't know...probably a combination given how "books" especially nonfiction ones appear to be a minor category these days.... but if one has to resort to mind reading convoluted devious purposes into what DB is doing, I think one has twisted reality too far. DB is pretty open in their attempts to manipulate the market IMO as well as their heavy promotion of nonbook items to add to the 'quality of life'. Even my little nonDB church bookstore pushed heavily the art and jewellery products as yielding the best profit for work and shelf space requirements.

I would not be surprised to find very few Greg Kofford books in smaller DB stores. Haven't been in any large ones for quite some time so don't know if they have gone to almost all kitsch as the few I go into these days (I go solely for the purpose of getting James Christiansen puzzles).

Also...since the serious student is much more likely to go online to research and find a book on a topic rather than go to a brick and board which will at best offer one or two selections, to say that something is hidden when it is avalable through an online service is pure nonsense.

Edited December 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

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.

 

Yes it certainly does.

 

Uh... er.....could you remind me of those anachronisms again.

[cinepro]

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

 

Indeed, I've never met an apologist who was shy about using either the tight or loose translation theory, depending on which fit the topic under discussion best.  Sometimes even both in the same conversation.

 

After all, why settle for one unworkable theory when two will do just as well?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

They don't appear to be haphazardly written to me either. However, your automatic attribution to the close scrutiny of the Brethren in the case of the piece on translation seems a stretch. I am especially curious about your notion "that each word was carefully chosen," but by whom? The errors and missed opportunities in the piece indicate that the author, while well-informed, should have been more careful, and should have submitted it for peer review to, say, Royal Skousen.

 

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?

As I said, I see the article as neutral.  It is an excellent and informative article, which is interpreted by some readers in accordance with their preconceptions.  That is predictable and cannot be avoided.

 

One of the reasons why trained scholars who specialize in the area of translation disagree with one another so strongly here, is because they bring well-informed considerations to the debate  which go beyond the bare facts as non-scholars understand them.  I always recommend that those who are so certain they have all the answers read a little more broadly.  Here are some suggestions from opposing positions:

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2013/12/06/fair-issues-33the-tight-control-theory/ 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2013/12/13/fair-issues-34four-evidences-for-tight-control/ 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2013/12/20/fair-issues-35loose-control-translation/ 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2013/12/11/fairmormon-frameworks-11-brant-gardner-gift-and-power/ 

 

My own take on this question was presented to Sunstone (which ignored it) back in June of 1980:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46307834/Translation-of-Languages .

[Robert F. Smith]

Indeed, I've never met an apologist who was shy about using either the tight or loose translation theory, depending on which fit the topic under discussion best.  Sometimes even both in the same conversation.

 

After all, why settle for one unworkable theory when two will do just as well?

Always the cynic, huh cinepro!!    

 

Happy New Year!!

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Are you sure that we are talking about the same thing, Tacenda?

 

Polygyny (which most people call "polygamy") has been around as a subject of discussion and scholarly input for a long time.  The Mormon people are famous or infamous for it, and it was the subject of the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v USA.  The Federal Govt was on the verge of literally destroying the Church when the Manifesto was published and the Church accommodated itself to monogamy.  The history is well known and lots of books and articles have been written about it.  There is nothing mysterious or hidden about it.  If you doubt this, please ask for a basic bibliography from me.

 

Brian Hales' excellent book deals with a different subject, polyandry and other odd sealing practices.  Are you confusing the two separate subjects?

 

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.

The matters treated by Hales are obscure, and until adequate scholarly work has been done on them, it would be foolish to publish premature claims or conclusions.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

You're overthinking this whole thing, omni, but that is only my opinion.

See this comment, which is both serious and humorous: http://plonialmonimormon.blogspot.com/2013/12/in-case-you-missed-it.html .

[Tacenda]

I wonder if the church will bring out JS's seerstones. I believe there are 3 in the vault.

[Tacenda]

Are you sure that we are talking about the same thing, Tacenda?

Polygyny (which most people call "polygamy") has been around as a subject of discussion and scholarly input for a long time. The Mormon people are famous or infamous for it, and it was the subject of the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v USA. The Federal Govt was on the verge of literally destroying the Church when the Manifesto was published and the Church accommodated itself to monogamy. The history is well known and lots of books and articles have been written about it. There is nothing mysterious or hidden about it. If you doubt this, please ask for a basic bibliography from me.

Brian Hales' excellent book deals with a different subject, polyandry and other odd sealing practices. Are you confusing the two separate subjects?

The matters treated by Hales are obscure, and until adequate scholarly work has been done on them, it would be foolish to publish premature claims or conclusions.

When I say JS' s polygamy, I'm including polyandry.

[Tacenda]

Why are these topics not front page news? They are not being seen by the majority of the members. I like someone's analogy on NOM. It's only a "crop dusting". How is this going to innoculate if only a few read or hear about it???? ETA: when I say front page I don't mean the newspaper, just the Newsroom or something on the first page of LDS.org, or maybe a letter to the wards. I thought this was something that would get out to the masses, but as someone else put it, all that is heard are "crickets chirping". It's only really heard on boards like this or FB groups of NOM- like people.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Tacenda

[why me]

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!

 

 

“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, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

Emma Smith, who acted as an earlier scribe for Joseph, gave this account in 1856:

“When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.

“When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘Oh! [i didn’t know.] I was afraid I had been deceived.’ He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History, Jan. 1916, p. 454.)

On another occasion, Emma Smith recorded:

“The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, p. 290; spelling modernized.)

Although the Prophet would polish his skills over the years, Emma acknowledged that Joseph possessed only rudimentary literacy at the time he translated the gold plates:

“Joseph Smith … could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, it is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as much so as to any one else.” (Ibid.)

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

 

What I found interesting is the article above that was in the ensign in 1993. No one seemed to care about the head in the hat. It is only with the exmormon spin do people seem to care. But the head in the hat was known years ago.

Edited January 1, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Why are these topics not front page news? They are not being seen by the majority of the members. I like someone's analogy on NOM. It's only a "crop dusting". How is this going to innoculate if only a few read or hear about it???? ETA: when I say front page I don't mean the newspaper, just the Newsroom or something on the first page of LDS.org, or maybe a letter to the wards.

 

Why should they? Us old members knew these things years ago. It was no big deal. We had a testimony of the book of mormon regardless of how it was done or how it was claimed it was done.

[why me]

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."

 

Why is it so hard for us to do this?

 

The correlation committee decided to ignore much during the last couple of decades. But years ago we knew of the head in the hat. I learned it in the 1970s. And it was in the ensign too. We had no problems with it. The problem comes with the exmormon spin that the church was hiding it. It wasn't.  The church correlation committee only decided to ignore what was taught previously. Likewise for the various vision accounts. That was also in the ensign.

Edited January 1, 2014 by why me

[Tacenda]

I so disagree, in my experience no one had heard of it. My husband's co workers talk about the church a lot and when my husband brought up the "head in the hat" no one knew, he had to show them the Ensign article. One Ensign article doesn't cut it, especially when the audience it was for, was to certain individuals.

[why me]

I so disagree, in my experience no one had heard of it. My husband's co workers talk about the church a lot and when my husband brought up the "head in the hat" no one knew, he had to show them the Ensign article. One Ensign article doesn't cut it, especially when the audience it was for, was to certain individuals.

Well, I don't know. What would cut it? The problem is that we do not have Joseph's account of it. Also, we have various versions just how the process occurred. Hard to know if they all occurred or what version is correct. What we do know is that the book of mormon exists. And that it was translated. I like the head in the hat. Hard to write any book with a head in the hat. I find it very faith promoting.

[theplains]

Why should they? Us old members knew these things years ago. It was no big deal. We had a testimony of the book of mormon regardless of how it was done or how it was claimed it was done.

 

I think it was done to clean up Joseph's image when they took the message to other

countries that are more familiar with occult/magick practices.  Even the last 2 editions

of Gospel Principles do not give an accurate depiction of how he supposedly translated

the plates.

 

Regards,

Jim

[why me]

Here is another head in the hat from the ensign in 1977:

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god

 

“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. The characters I speak of are the engravings on the golden plates from which the book was translated.”¹¹

It is tempting to accept the above statement at face value. However, since David Whitmer had not personally translated, his accuracy on details depends on whether he correctly understood what Joseph Smith told him in the first place, and whether he correctly remembered such details after that. This explanation has Joseph Smith simply read off the entire translation rather than formulate it. In one David Whitmer interview, however, such a procedure is limited to proper names. At that time David Whitmer said that Joseph “was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together.”¹² This much is likely, for proper names are not a subject for translation, but for transliteration; that is, their sounds and not their meanings carry over into the second language. So Joseph’s dictation of these names fits any informed concept of translation.

But many anti-Mormons have seized on the implications of going further: that is, if Joseph Smith only dictated divinely given English from his viewing instrument, then God is the author of some bad grammar in the original.

Some critics have also felt that misspellings in the Book of Mormon “prove” it is false. The latter cannot be blamed on the printer, for we possess parts of the original unpunctuated Cowdery manuscript from Joseph’s dictation in 1829. The scribe on occasion wrote “hart” for “heart”; “desirus” for “desirous”; and “futer” for “future.”¹³ These spelling errors were corrected in the recopied printer’s manuscript and thus appeared in correct form in the first printing.¹⁴ They were probably mistakes of the secretary in the rapidly moving dictation process, and had nothing to do with Joseph Smith. Thus there is no logical problem with scribal misspellings, even under David Whitmer’s explanation of Joseph simply reading “the interpretation in English.” This much refutes the extreme claim that the Prophet’s use of divine aid in translation rules out “all changes, regardless of how minor.” There have been notable misspellings in the printing process of Bible editions that have nothing to do with the question of the inspired nature of the original writings!

Yet David Whitmer’s explanation clearly goes too far in respect to sentence structure and grammar. The first edition of the Book of Mormon carried numerous sentences with a plural subject and singular verb, and vice versa; it sometimes placed an idiomatic “a” before a participle (“a marching”) or an idiomatic “for” before an infinitive (“for to destroy them”); it regularly used “which” for the personal “who.” Such language clearly originated with the Prophet as he dictated, not with the secretary.

Accuracy is not the issue, since ungrammatical language can still communicate clearly the meaning of the original. Perhaps David Whitmer unconsciously added his own ideas as he spoke on the translation method. He could legitimately speak on the physical appearance of translation but had no personal knowledge of the translation itself. Watching a scientist at work with a delicate instrument gives an untrained observer no insight into the inner workings of either the apparatus or the mind of the scientist. In the case of Book of Mormon translation, the only one that fully understood the procedure was Joseph Smith.

Thus a close look at the Prophet’s comments is probably the most reliable method of understanding how he produced the Book of Mormon. As is generally known, Joseph Smith chose to speak in summary terms, though there are interesting reiterations in early but little-known sources. For instance, the Prophet gave a private account of his early visions in 1832, speaking of the Urim and Thummim in simple terms: “The Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the book; therefore I commenced translating the characters.”¹⁵

Again in 1835 he went over the same ground with the colorful “Joshua, the Jewish Minister,” and Warren Cowdery wrote Joseph’s comments about the plates: “I obtained them and translated them into the English language by the gift and power of God and have been preaching it ever since.”¹⁶

Joseph Smith used practically the same words in responding to a standard question on the ancient records in 1838: “I obtained them and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates, and thus came the Book of Mormon.”¹⁷

The earliest statements of Joseph Smith thus stress two elements, the instrument of translation and also the inspiration to use it. The latter point was emphasized in January 1833, when the Prophet referred to the Book of Mormon as “translated into our own language by the gift and power of God.”¹⁸ Both elements appear in balanced summary in the Wentworth letter, approved for publication in 1842: “Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God.”¹⁹

The above statements are concise, but bear eloquent testimony to divine aid. Joseph Smith evidently did not try to explain the complex process of inspired translation. At one point he felt that it was not wise “to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth Of the Book of Mormon.”²⁰ Yet some details and outlines emerge in his writings, one of which suggests his direct use of the plates. On occasion the Prophet spoke of the ancient script: “I translated the Book of Mormon from hieroglyphics, the knowledge of which was lost to the world.”²¹ Or he would comment that the plates “were filled with engravings in Egyptian characters.”²² But the most detailed glimpse of the original is Joseph Smith’s report of the title page, which was translated from the “very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates … the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general.”²³ Referring to a particular page while mentioning the right-left script throughout “the whole” shows that the Prophet claimed knowledge of the plates themselves, not merely a vision of individual characters in the stone interpreters.

Another glimpse of the process of translation comes from the Lord’s invitation to Oliver Cowdery to translate: “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.” (D&C 8:2.) And this was followed by the revelation explaining how Oliver might have succeeded: “You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right, I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you.” (D&C 9:8.)

This seems to indicate that Joseph Smith’s assignment was to understand the ideas of the ancient language and place them, with all their nuances, in coherent English. Obviously the first step, understanding completely the meaning of an unknown language, was more difficult than transferring those ideas, once grasped, into English. Assistance from the Spirit was vital in the understanding stage, or the Prophet would have had no idea where to begin! And that initial step is where direct revelation would operate, according to the Doctrine and Covenants.

Nothing in Doctrine and Covenants 8 or 9 suggests that Oliver Cowdery (and thus Joseph Smith) was to be given perfect final language—rather he was to be inspired in the fundamental thought to be translated. This first, conceptual stage has parallels to the experience of all good translators. They must resist the temptation to open a dictionary with its mechanical answers; they must reach mentally for clues to the meaning of a word in its setting.

Oliver Cowdery was told that he would have the burning witness of the Spirit after mental and spiritual outreach, evidently a glimpse into the Prophet’s own procedures. Yet at the point that ideas in the original language are correctly grasped, translation continues as a highly creative activity. Speaking from experience with several languages, Elder John A. Widtsoe stressed that the translator must first perceive the thought and “then attempt to reproduce the thought correctly, with every inflection of meaning, in the best words at his command. … This makes it unavoidable that much of the translator, himself, remains in his translation.”²⁴

But how far does this axiom of communication apply to an inspired translation? One traditional view was published in 1883 and portrayed Joseph Smith as rather automatically directed by revelation: “It was done by divine aid. There were no delays over obscure passages, no difficulties over the choice of words, no stoppages from the ignorance of the translator; no time was wasted in investigation or argument over the value, intent, or meaning of certain characters, and there were no references to authorities. These difficulties to human work were removed. All was as simple as when a clerk writes from dictation.”²⁵

But this 1883 interpretation hardly fits the “study it out” commandment to Oliver Cowdery in D&C 9. Quoting that revelation, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith generalized: “All knowledge and skill are obtained by consistent and determined study and practice, and so the Prophet found it to be the case in the translating of the Book of Mormon.”²⁶

The 1883 interpretation is also contradicted by the optional “choice of words” that Joseph Smith himself displayed when he corrected hundreds of grammatical errors in the second edition of the Book of Mormon in 1837. In thus upgrading the correctness of Book of Mormon English, Joseph Smith proved that he operated from the premise that all the concepts in the book were accurate but that some could be more effectively expressed by slight modifications in language. This no more proves the Book of Mormon to be man-made than the constant new translations of the Bible disprove the inspiration of that book. There is a difference between word changes and idea changes.

The Church unofficially faced this problem at the turn of the century when a letter came to President Joseph F. Smith asking how the Church could justify grammatical corrections if the Book of Mormon were truly inspired. President Smith directed Elder B. H. Roberts to reply to the question, and his answers appeared in Church publications after discussion and basic concord was reached with Church leaders. Elder Roberts acknowledged that this was less than an official statement, but it involved General Authorities in thinking through the implications of the evidence.²⁷

As explained by Elder Roberts, the Prophet grasped “every detail and shade of thought” of the original by revelation, but expressed himself “in such language as he could command.”²⁸ On occasion that was “faulty English, which the Prophet himself and those who have succeeded him as the custodians of the word of God have had and now have a perfect right to correct.”²⁹

On this issue David Whitmer’s general philosophy of revelation may have influenced his view of the translation. Joseph Smith updated some revelations and made many grammatical changes for better communication in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. David Whitmer went along at the time, as he said, but, after decades of reflection outside of the Church, concluded that no modification could possibly be made in any revelation. This highly rigid view of these revelations matched his highly rigid view of the origin of the Book of Mormon. But the Lord had earlier allowed for a process of better expressing the revelations in the preface given for them, indicating that their divine commands were expressed by “my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language.” (D&C 1:24.)

This phrase applies specifically to Joseph Smith’s revelations, but probably cannot be isolated from the process by which he translated. For one thing, many of the 1829 revelations came through the Urim and Thummim, during the very time that the Book of Mormon was being dictated.³⁰ Since the “manner of their language” concept applies specifically to these divine commands through the Urim and Thummim, there is little reason to suppose that translation was received differently, particularly when one of these revelations (D&C 7) was itself a translation.

In fact, the language in the sections of the Book of Mormon that correspond to parts of the Bible is quite regularly selected by Joseph Smith, rather than obtained through independent translation. For instance, there are over 400 verses in which the Nephite prophets quote from Isaiah, and half of these appear precisely as the King James version renders them. Summarizing the view taken by Latter-day Saint scholars on this point, Daniel H. Ludlow emphasizes the inherent variety of independent translation and concludes: “There appears to be only one answer to explain the word-for-word similarities between the verses of Isaiah in the Bible and the same verses in the Book of Mormon.” That is simply that Joseph Smith must have opened Isaiah and tested each mentioned verse by the Spirit: “If his translation was essentially the same as that of the King James version, he apparently quoted the verse from the Bible.”³¹ Thus the Old Testament passages from Isaiah display a particular choice of phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith’s general freedom throughout the Book of Mormon for optional wording.

Good translations typically strike a balance between the literalism of the first language and the idiom of the new one. Here the Book of Mormon measures up well. Some of the grammatical patterns changed after the first edition definitely match known Joseph Smith expressions of his early period. On the other hand, there seems to be a good deal of Semitic literalness in the translation as a whole, with a number of striking ancient patterns, emphasized in the research of Hugh Nibley.³² Emma Smith was impressed during the work that her husband exceeded his abilities in dictation, but nowhere says that he acquired a temporary perfection of grammar!

One of the Prophet’s essential methods was constant prayerfulness, as David Whitmer stressed, for when out of harmony Joseph “would go out and pray, and when he became sufficiently humble before God, he could then proceed with the translation.”³³ Thus one who has faith in sincere prayer can have faith that Joseph Smith’s petitions were answered in that work.

The translation of the Book of Mormon was not unlike the gift of the “interpretation of tongues” mentioned by Paul (1 Cor. 12), a phrase that also can be rendered “translation of languages.” In his first calling as translator, Joseph Smith used his best efforts, which were divinely supplemented, as the Book of Mormon preface says, while the “interpretation” came through “the gift of God.”

There are many questions that we cannot answer from the evidence we have at this time: Exactly how, for example, does the Urim and Thummim work? Was there a basis of truth behind David Whitmer’s viewpoint that writing appeared on the Interpreters? Or did the stones somehow focus the thought of the translator? Or did the stones serve to confirm translation? These things the Lord has not revealed to the Church at large, and the answer must remain, “We don’t know.”

But we will know, for the Lord has promised that all who enter the celestial kingdom will dwell on this earth, which “in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon. …

“Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one; …

“And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom.” (D&C 130:9–11.)

Though at this time we do not comprehend the exact way in which the Urim and Thummim were used in the translation of the Book of Mormon, we are promised that the miraculous gift given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in order to receive revelation and translate scripture will be given to all who live worthy to enter into exaltation; and then “things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known.” (D&C 130:10.)

 

I wish the church would have continued with such type of articles. But it decided somewhere in the late 80s to change direction in church magazines. But I knew about it from the 70s. For us members back in the 70s we knew much about stones, head in the hat, and other issues. Our testimony was based on personal prayer about the book of mormon and how the spirit testified to us of its truth.

Edited January 1, 2014 by why me

[why me]

I think it was done to clean up Joseph's image when they took the message to other

countries that are more familiar with occult/magick practices.  Even the last 2 editions

of Gospel Principles do not give an accurate depiction of how he supposedly translated

the plates.

 

Regards,

Jim

No, that wasn't it. The church was in many countries in the early 90s and in the seventies too. It was a policy change. We need to remember that no one would have known that a couple of decades down the road the internet would come about and the accusation of hiding information would surface. The point is: the details about the translation had no impact on the membership. No one to my knowledge left the fold because of the head in the hat or the various vision accounts of the first vision. It was all in the magazines.

[why me]

From my link from the seventies:

 

At one point he felt that it was not wise “to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth Of the Book of Mormon.”²⁰ Yet some details and outlines emerge in his writings, one of which suggests his direct use of the plates. On occasion the Prophet spoke of the ancient script: “I translated the Book of Mormon from hieroglyphics, the knowledge of which was lost to the world.”²¹ Or he would comment that the plates “were filled with engravings in Egyptian characters.”²² But the most detailed glimpse of the original is Joseph Smith’s report of the title page, which was translated from the “very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates … the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general.”²³ Referring to a particular page while mentioning the right-left script throughout “the whole” shows that the Prophet claimed knowledge of the plates themselves, not merely a vision of individual characters in the stone interpreters.

 

Wow...what we knew way back when and how we knew that the book was true. I would endeavor to claim that the church changed its policy for the simple reason that joseph claimed:

 

At one point he felt that it was not wise “to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth Of the Book of Mormon.”²⁰

 

But maybe the church was wrong if so.

[theplains]

 

At one point he felt that it was not wise “to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth Of the Book of Mormon.”²⁰

 

But maybe the church was wrong if so.

 

Could it be said that it would be unwise to tell the world all the particulars of the

coming forth of the Bible? If yes, why?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[why me]

Could it be said that it would be unwise to tell the world all the particulars of the

coming forth of the Bible? If yes, why?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Atheists are doing this: Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris have books on it. It is a common attack from intellectual atheists.

[why me]

I don't think that the coming forth of the gospels is all that faith promoting. And atheists attack christianity because of it.
 

Edited January 1, 2014 by why me

[omni]

Why are these topics not front page news? They are not being seen by the majority of the members. I like someone's analogy on NOM. It's only a "crop dusting". How is this going to innoculate if only a few read or hear about it???? ETA: when I say front page I don't mean the newspaper, just the Newsroom or something on the first page of LDS.org, or maybe a letter to the wards. I thought this was something that would get out to the masses, but as someone else put it, all that is heard are "crickets chirping". It's only really heard on boards like this or FB groups of NOM- like people.

I would suspect that they want this information available for those who are specifically searching for answers or as an official resource that BP and SP can point questioning members towards. I think if they wanted the entire membership to be aware of the information you would see it more prominently displayed on LDS.org, in the Ensign, and taught in the curriculum. Who knows though, they may eventually take this approach in the coming years.

[omni]

 

 

“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, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

Emma Smith, who acted as an earlier scribe for Joseph, gave this account in 1856:

“When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.

“When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘Oh! [i didn’t know.] I was afraid I had been deceived.’ He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History, Jan. 1916, p. 454.)

On another occasion, Emma Smith recorded:

“The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, p. 290; spelling modernized.)

Although the Prophet would polish his skills over the years, Emma acknowledged that Joseph possessed only rudimentary literacy at the time he translated the gold plates:

“Joseph Smith … could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, it is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as much so as to any one else.” (Ibid.)

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

 

What I found interesting is the article above that was in the ensign in 1993. No one seemed to care about the head in the hat. It is only with the exmormon spin do people seem to care. But the head in the hat was known years ago.

 

What's concerning is this article confirms the brethren were aware of the stone-in-the-hat method of translation, yet the church continued to portray it in film and illustrations as Joseph translating directly off the gold plates.