Deseret News: "[Joseph Smith] read words of light in English from the seer stone"

[cinepro]

So, tight translation process?

Teaching our Kids About Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon Translation

Parents: Good. Now another question. How hard would it be to translate a book from a foreign language that you didn’t know, and all you had to do was to read the words that appeared in English on a stone?

Kids: Not too hard.

Parents: That is essentially what God had Joseph Smith do, read words of light in English from the seer stone. But it was a lot of work spiritually for Joseph. He had to exercise righteousness and faith and trust in God. There was spiritual work and effort involved in the translation. God did a marvelous work and wonder to help Joseph Smith, who brought forth the Book of Mormon by reading words of light from specially prepared stones.

This should work until the kids are faced with 19th century anachronisms in the text...

[The Nehor]

If all you had to do was look and see them then how come Oliver had problems?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So, tight translation process?

Teaching our Kids About Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon Translation

 

 

 

Re: the thread title. On an opinion piece such as this, it is better to attribute it directly to the author rather than just putting "Deseret News" with a colon, as though the piece were expressing the institutional viewpoint of the newspaper. To do so would be more precise and less confusing.

Just sayin'.

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Mars]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

This should work until the kids are faced with 19th century anachronisms in the text...

helping people meet doubt and lack of information with an eye of faith head on is a fantastic preparation tool for all of religion's problems - be they Book of Mormon flora and fauna, chariots, or how is it that some dude can get killed and that magically absolves everyone else of the responsibility to suffer for the consequences of their so called "sins".

i can't think of a better way to help kids face <random problem> in the text, religion, faith, what have you.

[smac97]

From the end of the article:

Quote

Taylor Halverson (PhDs: Biblical Studies; Instructional Technology) is a BYU Teaching & Learning Consultant. http://taylorhalverson.com. His views are his own.

I appreciate his intent. But I think he exceeds the scope of what we know about the translation process when he describes it in this article.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So, tight translation process?

Teaching our Kids About Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon Translation

 

 

This should work until the kids are faced with 19th century anachronisms in the text...

In which case, one could go here for enlightenment on, if not resolution of, any concerns.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

So, tight translation process?

Teaching our Kids About Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon Translation

This should work until the kids are faced with 19th century anachronisms in the text...

What about the 16th century anachronisms?  In both Bible and BofM.

[Nofear]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the end of the article:

I appreciate his intent. But I think he exceeds the scope of what we know about the translation process when he describes it in this article.

Unfortunately things like this that help give rise to things like below. The image series is anti-mormon, though when I first read through it I didn't see that until the very end. Would have been much better without the anti-mormon ending. Bleh.

Full series: http://imgur.com/a/yZcP9

[AllenJ]

My humble opinion is that Joseph Smith did receive the exact words of the Book of Mormon as described in the quote in the opening post.  This would mean that somebody else did the actual translation.  Some assume that God did it directly through some miraculous means, but it makes sense to me that that it would have been "assigned".  Consider the resources available in the spirit world with experience translating scripture.  If I had to guess, I would say it was translated by a committee, led by one of the English Bible translators, with assistance from the actual authors of the BOM.  They would likely have used the existing English translations of the Bible (which they originally translated), and guidance from the Spirit.  This would explain both 16th century and King James Bible language, including direct passages from the KJV.  I assume once completed, it would have been reviewed and approved in a similar fashion as a translation done by the church today.  The completed translation could then be provided word for word to Joseph Smith as described in the historical testimony of the scribes.

Of course this is conjecture, but it fits what we know from the scribes description of the translation process, the education of Joseph Smith, the early English phrases and language, the use of King James version text, etc.  It also fits with our belief that gospel work is ongoing in the spirit world.

[CA Steve]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If all you had to do was look and see them then how come Oliver had problems?

Everyone knows it is a lot harder to read words on a sprout than it is on a rock. Duh.

[T-Shirt]

I believe a tight translation is quite likely.  The, so called, anachronisms can be easily explained.  Just as inspired words by anyone are spoken and written in the words, understanding and culture of the person receiving the inspiration, including errors in grammar and spelling, the Urim & Thummim displayed the words as Joseph would have written them if he was actually able to read and translate the characters from Reformed Egyptian to English.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/7/2016 at 0:36 PM, Mars said:

helping people meet doubt and lack of information with an eye of faith head on is a fantastic preparation tool for all of religion's problems - be they Book of Mormon flora and fauna, chariots, or how is it that some dude can get killed and that magically absolves everyone else of the responsibility to suffer for the consequences of their so called "sins".

i can't think of a better way to help kids face <random problem> in the text, religion, faith, what have you.

We oldsters were raised before electronic displays showed "words in light", but they were not.

I think this approach might be very convincing for them since they see words in light all the time.

Anachronisms?  The display wasn't working well and Joseph misunderstood- after all it was a rock.

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

I believe a tight translation is quite likely.  The, so called, anachronisms can be easily explained.  Just as inspired words by anyone are spoken and written in the words, understanding and culture of the person receiving the inspiration, including errors in grammar and spelling, the Urim & Thummim displayed the words as Joseph would have written them if he was actually able to read and translate the characters from Reformed Egyptian to English.

Long time no see. I'm more of a loose translation process. It allows for Oliver to have trouble doing it.

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[canard78]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What about the 16th century anachronisms?  In both Bible and BofM.

Are you subscribing to the Skousen theory? I'd be interested, sincerely, in understanding exactly the detail of what this train of thought proposes.

I've seen it caricatured and misrepresented in other discussions by those critical of the theory, so preferred to ask you directly. I've read the articles on Interpreter about it and understand the evidences proposed, but what's the actual model, on a broader level?

Are you/Skousen/others concluding something bigger/broader... like a 16th Century translation (I've seen some people jokingly call it the Tinsdale translation... I think) which was then conveyed to Joseph somehow? Or do you still believe that the original translator was God directly and that God put the words of light onto the seer stone and intentionally put in 16th C words as "easter eggs" for later readers to discover?

Like I said, I understand the evidences (though I've disputed some of them as not being as "dead" as they claim them to be), but beyond the isolated evidences proposed, what is the actual end-to-end process suggested, if there is one.

Like I said earlier, this is a sincere question. I'm not trying to set you up for a jibe. I find the 16th proposal baffling, so I'm trying to get a better understanding of how they fit into the broader model and translation process.

[canard78]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Everyone knows it is a lot harder to read words on a sprout than it is on a rock. Duh.

Genuinely though, beyond a fun quip, surely D&C 9 is an obstacle to any proponents of the tight/words of light on a stone theory?

The only statement I'm aware of from Joseph directly describing the translation process is in D&C 9:8

"But, behold, I say unto you, that 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; therefore, you shall feel that it is right."

This is Joseph/the Lord describing to Oliver how to translate (after Oliver asked to). This is probably the best description of the translation process available. All others are third hand descriptions. All of the references to words of light appearing on the stone are from other people (like Whitmer and others).

Why would Joseph (or Oliver) need to study it out in his mind and then feel it is right, in order to dictate a translation, if all Joseph needed to do was look at the words appearing on a seer stone?

[Bernard Gui]

On March 7, 2016 at 0:31 PM, cinepro said:

So, tight translation process?

Teaching our Kids About Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon Translation

 

 

This should work until the kids are faced with 19th century anachronisms in the text...

This works for me.......maybe not for you, though? Seems to be the way the thing worked.

https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm

 

Quote

 

The process of questioning for Divine aid with the ÔUrim V'Tummim' was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.

The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?"

The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.

Flavius Josephus writes (Antiquities 3:8:9) that the stones also shone brilliantly when Israel went forth into battle. This was considered as an auspicious sign for their victory.

Another midrashic passage indicates that when the tribes of Israel found favor in G-d's eyes, each respective stone shone brilliantly. But when particular members of any one tribe were involved in a transgression, that tribe's stone would appear tarnished and dimmed. The High Priest would see this phenomena and understand its cause. He would then cast lots within the rank of this tribe, until the guilty person was revealed and judged (Midrash HaGadol).

 

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[USU78]

On 3/7/2016 at 1:33 PM, The Nehor said:

If all you had to do was look and see them then how come Oliver had problems?

Some folks won't even look when looking'd cure snakebite.

[CA Steve]

30 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Genuinely though, beyond a fun quip, surely D&C 9 is an obstacle to any proponents of the tight/words of light on a stone theory?

The only statement I'm aware of from Joseph directly describing the translation process is in D&C 9:8

"But, behold, I say unto you, that 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; therefore, you shall feel that it is right."

This is Joseph/the Lord describing to Oliver how to translate (after Oliver asked to). This is probably the best description of the translation process available. All others are third hand descriptions. All of the references to words of light appearing on the stone are from other people (like Whitmer and others).

Why would Joseph (or Oliver) need to study it out in his mind and then feel it is right, in order to dictate a translation, if all Joseph needed to do was look at the words appearing on a seer stone?

I think "study it out" is another way of saying concentrate, because the 'it' in that phrase is not referring to text since Joseph was not looking at the actual plates. So I assume the process was to concentrate very hard to come up with the words. Now that could of been until the words appeared on the rock (tight translation) or until a phrase suggested itself in his mind (loose translation). So I don't think D&C 9 is an obstacle to the tight translation.

[omni]

On March 7, 2016 at 2:33 PM, The Nehor said:

If all you had to do was look and see them then how come Oliver had problems?

Hmmm, I can think of a pretty good explanation for why he couldn't.

[cinepro]

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

Unfortunately things like this that help give rise to things like below. The image series is anti-mormon, though when I first read through it I didn't see that until the very end. Would have been much better without the anti-mormon ending. Bleh.

Full series: http://imgur.com/a/yZcP9

Pretty good, but it should have been:

Vizzini: Have you ever heard of Talmage, Widtsoe and Nibley?

DPR: No.

Vizzini: Mormons.

Also, he spelled "Widtsoe" wrong.

Edited March 9, 2016 by cinepro

[canard78]

5 hours ago, AllenJ said:

My humble opinion is that Joseph Smith did receive the exact words of the Book of Mormon as described in the quote in the opening post.  This would mean that somebody else did the actual translation.  Some assume that God did it directly through some miraculous means, but it makes sense to me that that it would have been "assigned".  Consider the resources available in the spirit world with experience translating scripture.  If I had to guess, I would say it was translated by a committee, led by one of the English Bible translators, with assistance from the actual authors of the BOM.  They would likely have used the existing English translations of the Bible (which they originally translated), and guidance from the Spirit.  This would explain both 16th century and King James Bible language, including direct passages from the KJV.  I assume once completed, it would have been reviewed and approved in a similar fashion as a translation done by the church today.  The completed translation could then be provided word for word to Joseph Smith as described in the historical testimony of the scribes.

Of course this is conjecture, but it fits what we know from the scribes description of the translation process, the education of Joseph Smith, the early English phrases and language, the use of King James version text, etc.  It also fits with our belief that gospel work is ongoing in the spirit world.

I'm really fascinated by this 16thC theory. 

Fascinating because there are so many extra questions from it.

How would that account for some the 19thC phrases and theology in there if it were a 16thC group of spirits?

Does that mean that we take our language, idiom, accent and dialect into the spirit world? I'd love to sit down and share creative writing stories (I write plays as a hobby) with Shakespeare and Chaucer. If Chaucer is still speaking his archaic English then we're going to be in trouble! 

I can understand the excitement about the apparent 16thC grammar in the BoM (though I'm yet to be fully convinced), but the implications of this theory are pretty mind boggling. 

[cinepro]

But as the Princess Bride parody points out, the problem with the "tight" and "loose" translation theories isn't that they aren't good, or that they don't explain a lot of the text.  The problem is that you can't have both, but you need both.  The ultimate (and silly) resolution to this will be someone seriously suggesting that both methods were used, and at times the words were shown to Joseph, while at other times it switched to images and concepts.

I can't wait. 

[canard78]

21 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think "study it out" is another way of saying concentrate, because the 'it' in that phrase is not referring to text since Joseph was not looking at the actual plates. So I assume the process was to concentrate very hard to come up with the words. Now that could of been until the words appeared on the rock (tight translation) or until a phrase suggested itself in his mind (loose translation). So I don't think D&C 9 is an obstacle to the tight translation.

I would agree that "study it out" is likely an instruction to Oliver to concentrate. 

But if concentrating leads to words appearing that he can read out, why does he also get told that he needs to wait for the feeling that what he receives is right. The second half of the verse is a much better fit with a loose approach. I can't see a very good fit with a tight (or "read") one. 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think "study it out" is another way of saying concentrate, because the 'it' in that phrase is not referring to text since Joseph was not looking at the actual plates. So I assume the process was to concentrate very hard to come up with the words. Now that could of been until the words appeared on the rock (tight translation) or until a phrase suggested itself in his mind (loose translation). So I don't think D&C 9 is an obstacle to the tight translation.

There was also the time Joseph said he had a fight with Emma and it wasn't until he put things right with Emma before he could translate again.