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

[T-Shirt]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

The problem is that you can't have both, but you need both. 

No you don't

[omni]

On March 7, 2016 at 2:37 PM, 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.

The gospel topic essay approved by the brethren supports the process described in the article.  Are they exceeding the scope of what we know about the translation?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, omni said:

The gospel topic essay approved by the brethren supports the process described in the article.  Are they exceeding the scope of what we know about the translation?

CFR, if you please.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

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.

I find it baffling as well, but the Easter Egg theory (fecundity, fertility) is certainly a new approach.  Even if we come to terms with Stanford Carmack's work, we will still have to explain why someone in 1521 (or whenever) did the translation, only to have Joseph read it off his seerstone like some talking dog centuries later.

Carmack, Stanford, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter, 11 (2014): 209-262, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-look-at-some-nonstandard-book-of-mormon-grammar/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter, 13 (2015): 175-217, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-command-syntax-tells-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter, 14 (2015): 119-186, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828),” Interpreter, 15 (2015): 65-77, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/why-the-oxford-english-dictionary-and-not-websters-1828/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 33-40, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 41-64, online at 
   http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-smith-read-the-words/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016):79-108, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-the-th-plural-in-the-earliest-text/  .

Carmack, Stanford, "The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016):109-137, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-plural was-in-the-earliest-text/  .

Edited March 9, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[canard78]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, if you please.

Thanks,

-Smac

I hope he won't mind. 

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

And 

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. 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.”

And

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.”

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&_r=1

 

You and I may have our pet theories about the translation process. The LDS.org essay appears to have come down in favour of the "Joseph read words as they appeared to him" theory. The essay doesn't make any reference to the "tight" and "loose" debate and doesn't speculate at all about the meaning of "study it out in your mind if it be right" approach to translation. 

[canard78]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I find it baffling as well, but the Easter Egg theory (fecundity, fertility) is certainly a new approach.  Even if we come to terms with Stanford Carmack's work, we will still have to explain why someone in 1521 (or whenever) did the translation, only to have Joseph read it off his seerstone like some talking dog centuries later.

Carmack, Stanford, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter, 11 (2014): 209-262, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-look-at-some-nonstandard-book-of-mormon-grammar/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter, 13 (2015): 175-217, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-command-syntax-tells-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter, 14 (2015): 119-186, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828),” Interpreter, 15 (2015): 65-77, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/why-the-oxford-english-dictionary-and-not-websters-1828/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 33-40, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 41-64, online at 
   http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-smith-read-the-words/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016):79-108, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-the-th-plural-in-the-earliest-text/  .

Carmack, Stanford, The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016):109-137, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-plural was-in-the-earliest-text/  .

Thanks for the references. Some of them are new to me so I'll find some time to catch up on them at some point. 

When I said Easter Egg I was referring to the phrase that's used to describe the trend of hiding something inside a text, video game, film, DVD menu. It's an Easter Egg because it's knowingly hidden by the producer and put their with the intention of the dedicated fans finding it at a later stage as a reward for their loyalty. 

The 16thC theory needs a root cause to explain why those linguistic anachronisms are in there. 

Either it was translated first by someone who spoke in that tongue and dialect and the 16thC "isms" were a natural byproduct of their translation style. Their text was then "beamed" through space and time to Joseph's stone (I've seen this referred to as the Tinsdale theory... as in: someone like Tinsdale was the original translator)

Or, the translation was done by God (or the Holy Spirit or similar) and the words He/they chose to appear on the stone were a mix of eras. God (or other) intentionally inserted the 16thC grammar into the text that was projected from the stone so they could be found later as a small extra evidence that He, not Joseph, was the author. This is what I've called the Easter Egg theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg_(media)

Out of interest, have you settled yet on a preference for either of the above explanations for how the grammar appears in the text, or are you still at the stage of evaluating the evidence of whether it's 16thC at all, before moving to question how/why it's in there at all?

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

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. 

My time has finally come......Once more unto the breach dear friends! I will claim this theory!

[canard78]

On 7 March 2016 at 8:33 PM, The Nehor said:

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

I don't understand why D&C 9 doesn't get more attention in the translation discussion. 

It's one of the rare instances of Joseph/the Lord describing the mechanics of the translation process. 

Joseph never confirmed the "words on a stone" approach. 

What's the first record of the words of light mode of translation? Is it Harris or Whitmer?

Weren't they both "inerrant scripture" advocates? I wonder whether their own bias of what scripture is (God breathed) influenced their description of how it was received. It's also likely that once one (credible) witness articulated this approach that others repeated it. 

How would they know there were words on the stone? Joseph's face was blocking the view of stone to all but himself. 

[omni]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

CFR, if you please.

Thanks,

-Smac

From the essay:

 

"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

The scribes who assisted with the translation unquestionably believed that Joseph translated by divine power. Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.....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.” An associate who interviewed Harris recorded him saying that Joseph “possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.”³⁰

It is generally thought that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the lost 116 pages and then switched to the seer stone for the remainder of the BoM.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

Thanks for the references. Some of them are new to me so I'll find some time to catch up on them at some point. 

When I said Easter Egg I was referring to the phrase that's used to describe the trend of hiding something inside a text, video game, film, DVD menu. It's an Easter Egg because it's knowingly hidden by the producer and put their with the intention of the dedicated fans finding it at a later stage as a reward for their loyalty. 

The 16thC theory needs a root cause to explain why those linguistic anachronisms are in there. 

If the translation was done in 1521, then there are no linguistic anachronisms.

Either it was translated first by someone who spoke in that tongue and dialect and the 16thC "isms" were a natural byproduct of their translation style. Their text was then "beamed" through space and time to Joseph's stone (I've seen this referred to as the Tinsdale theory... as in: someone like Tinsdale was the original translator)

I think you mean Tyndale.

Or, the translation was done by God (or the Holy Spirit or similar) and the words He/they chose to appear on the stone were a mix of eras. God (or other) intentionally inserted the 16thC grammar into the text that was projected from the stone so they could be found later as a small extra evidence that He, not Joseph, was the author. This is what I've called the Easter Egg theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg_(media)

Out of interest, have you settled yet on a preference for either of the above explanations for how the grammar appears in the text, or are you still at the stage of evaluating the evidence of whether it's 16thC at all, before moving to question how/why it's in there at all?

I'm just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, omni said:

From the essay:

 

"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

The scribes who assisted with the translation unquestionably believed that Joseph translated by divine power. Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.....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.” An associate who interviewed Harris recorded him saying that Joseph “possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.”³⁰

It is generally thought that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the lost 116 pages and then switched to the seer stone for the remainder of the BoM.

A major defect of this LDS Church essay is the repeated use of the phrase "Urim and Thummim," which is a major anachronism -- and still causes confusion today.  It is solely a biblical term which some of Joseph's associates began to use in the 1830s, long after translation of the Book of Mormon.  The term is never used in the BofM for the very good reason that it is inapplicable.

I wish that they would let me rewrite that essay, but you know what "fat chance" means.

[longview]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A major defect of this LDS Church essay is the repeated use of the phrase "Urim and Thummim," which is a major anachronism -- and still causes confusion today.  It is solely a biblical term which some of Joseph's associates began to use in the 1830s, long after translation of the Book of Mormon.  The term is never used in the BofM for the very good reason that it is inapplicable.

I wish that they would let me rewrite that essay, but you know what "fat chance" means.

But have you forgotten D&C 17:1?   The LORD Himself refers to the "interpreters" which He gave to the Brother of Jared as being the "Urim and Thummim" which was later given to Mosiah (I&II), to Moroni, to Joseph Smith (remember our previous discussion in 

?)  The "Urim and Thummim" was NOT merely limited to the use of Temple priests in OT times but by prophets and seers for gaining intelligence and insights (such as Abraham using the U&T to learn about the governing stars in the Universe).  There are/will be many kinds of U&T to be used for obtaining information.  U&T is FAR from being a "major anachronism."  Here are more illuminating scriptures:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. 8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim. 9 This earth, 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, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.  10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;  11 And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.
Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by longview

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, longview said:

But have you forgotten D&C 17:1?   The LORD Himself refers to the "interpreters" which He gave to the Brother of Jared as being the "Urim and Thummim" which was later given to Mosiah (I&II), to Moroni, to Joseph Smith

I believe that the words "Urim and Thummim" were not in the original Book of Commandments, but were added in the 1835 edition (after W.W. Phelps first used them in 1833, iirc).  I need to look this up again, but that's what I remember.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I believe that the words "Urim and Thummim" were not in the original Book of Commandments, but were added in the 1835 edition (after W.W. Phelps first used them in 1833, iirc).  I need to look this up again, but that's what I remember.

 

You are correct.

[ERMD]

Joseph went to great lengths to not disclose how he translated.  Any proposed methods/nuts and bolts are speculation.

"...by the gift and power of God."

[canard78]

2 hours ago, ERMD said:

Joseph went to great lengths to not disclose how he translated.  Any proposed methods/nuts and bolts are speculation.

"...by the gift and power of God."

Apart from D&C 9 of course, where Joseph/the Lord give a very clear description of how the translation process happened. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I believe that the words "Urim and Thummim" were not in the original Book of Commandments, but were added in the 1835 edition (after W.W. Phelps first used them in 1833, iirc).  I need to look this up again, but that's what I remember.

Doesn't matter.

A prophet, under divine inspiration, can make corrections and additions to scripture, just as a prophet can receive new revelation.

 

[canard78]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

Any thoughts on the shape or source of that "shoe?" 

I can completely understand advancing on this topic with some caution as it seems such a big departure from anything else that has previously been proposed. 

In the absence of anything other than the language within the book, I'm not sure how this theory is going to be able to be taken any further. 

The 16thC theory needs a root cause to explain why those linguistic anachronisms are in there. 

If the translation was done in 1521, then there are no linguistic anachronisms.

 

Yes, I agree. I just meant that we could accept that the 16C-isms are credible and anachronistic for an 18thC author (and therefore more supporting evidence for Joseph as translator, not author)... but at some point it would be nice if someone were able to offer a theory of why they're in the there at all. 

 

A new poster offered the theory earlier in the thread that God delegated the translation of the plates to a committee of spirit-translators (Tyndale, thanks... not Tinsdale, potentially among them). It seems such an "earthly" description of a translation process that I struggle to give it any credibility. God, being to busy to translate it, delegates it to a committee of translators who retain their mortal dialect while making the translation. 

 

The poster hasn't theorised when "Tyndale and co" had time to learn reformed Egyptian.

[canard78]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Doesn't matter.

A prophet, under divine inspiration, can make corrections and additions to scripture, just as a prophet can receive new revelation.

On the other hand, the interpolation could also have been done "as a man."

[carbon dioxide]

On 3/7/2016 at 1:31 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...

My problem with it is if Joseph read the words in English from the seer stone, they clearly Oliver Cowdery could do this when he was trying to translate.  But perhaps when Oliver tried it the words came up in French or Chinese so he could not translate.

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, canard78 said:

On the other hand, the interpolation could also have been done "as a man."

It strikes me as less than likely that a prophet who had the true spirit of his calling would thus desecrate scripture.

 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It strikes me as less than likely that a prophet who had the true spirit of his calling would thus desecrate scripture.

W.W. Phelps was the first to speculate that the interpreters may be the Biblical Urim and Thummim.  It did not originate with Joseph Smith.

 

I've posted this before, but here is more information on it:

Quote

It is notable that the term 'Urim and Thummim' is not found in the Book of Mormon and was never used by Joseph Smith with reference to producing the Book of Mormon until after 1833. In that year, a close associate of Smith, W.W. Phelps, speculated that the ancient Nephite interpreters mentioned in the Book of Mormon and by Joseph Smith might be the Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament. Phelps wrote in the LDS publication The Evening and Morning Star (Jan. 1833) that the Book of Mormon had been translated, 'through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles (known perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim). Phelps words, 'known perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummin' show that it was merely speculation on his part that associated Josephs magic seer stone with the biblical Urim and Thummim. 

Phelps' speculation gained quick popularity to the point where LDS writers used the term Urim and Thummim to refer to both the mystical interpreters Joseph Smith said were with the gold plates, and to the seer stone Joseph placed in his hat while dictating the Book of Mormon. As a result, many LDS writings used the term Urim and Thummim synonymously for seer stone.

 

Here's a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith that shows the confusion at times:

Quote

'The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church.'

Edited March 10, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

W.W. Phelps was the first to speculate that the interpreters may be the Biblical Urim and Thummim.  It did not originate with Joseph Smith.

 

I've posted this before, but here is more information on it:

 

Here's a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith that shows the confusion at times:

And your point is ____?

Edited to add:

You didn't document your source. Do you have a citation?

Also, it cannot be definitively concluded that Joseph never mentioned it prior to that time, only that there is no known written record of his having done so.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And your point is ____?

What was your point?

You inferred this came through the Prophet.  It did not originally.  Joseph did not use the terms "Urim and Thummim" until after Phelps speculated that his seer stones may be the Biblical U&T.  Joseph then started using the terms and must have ok'd the change in the Book of Commandments.

Edited March 10, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What was your point?

You inferred this came through the Prophet.  It did not originally.  Joseph did not use the terms "Urim and Thummim" until after Phelps speculated that his seer stones may be the Biblical U&T.  Joseph then started using the terms and must have ok'd the change in the Book of Commandments.

See my prior post, including the addition.

What point are you trying to make with this? I don't see anything substantive.

Are you saying Joseph invented the Urim and Thummim and stuck it in the scripture only because Phelps had suggested it? I think that's a pretty tenuous contention.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd