Reinterpreting Joseph's Understanding of the Word Translate

[Johnnie Cake]

Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Golden Plates…yet if they ever existed he never used the plates.

Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Egyptian Papyri containing the written words of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus …yet even the church now admits that this is not true.

If one would merely take what the evidence presents one could logically conclude that Joseph Smith didn’t do what he himself claimed he did… He never translated anything. But believers don’t accept Joseph at his own word, they reinterpret Joseph’s own conclusions, change them and come up with completely different interpretive conversion process that allow for belief and their previously formed conclusions to remain intact.  In other words, rather than allowing the evidence to help form their conclusions, they reinterpret the evidence, change the meaning of the word “Translate “and  ignore what Joseph himself claimed he did so that they can maintain their conclusion that the church is all it claims to be.  At least that is how I see this playing out.

If one starts with the conclusion…then nothing matters I guess…any evidence that undermines ones previously formed conclusions can either be dismissed, ignored or subject to alternative interpretation when it doesn’t support the pre-arrived at conclusion.

This at least is how I, a non-believer, see this subject…How am I wrong?  I’m willing to reinterpret my own conclusions but I would need compelling evidence in order to do so.  I'm only guessing but I would assume that the majority of the posters here don't believe that Joseph Translated anything...he merely dictated "revelation"...yet he claimed that he translated not received revelation...so how am I to make sense of all of this?

[The Nehor]

You are not expected to make sense of it at all. Hope this helps. Namaste.

[JAHS]

Oliver Cowdery said:

"These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom. Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history or record called the Book of Mormon." 

Joseph said he translated the plates "by the gift and power of God". At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and it was not expedient for him to relate these things" (HC 1:220).

The fact that the plates were translated "by the gift and power of God", immediately tell us that it was not done by normal means that we would typically call translation; for example from English to Spanish. But there is no other word that best describes the conversion of the language written on the plates to the English language. I don't see anything wrong with Joseph saying he translated the plates. The end result is a translation, even though it did not come about through a typical translation process. 

 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Golden Plates…yet if they ever existed he never used the plates.

Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Egyptian Papyri containing the written words of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus …yet even the church now admits that this is not true.

On number one, that may or may not be true that "he never used the plates." I do not recall Oliver Cowdery giving any details about how Joseph did the translation except that Joseph used the "interpreters." As to the existence of the plates, there were enough witnesses to their existence to rationally conclude that they did exist.

Would you please clarify your statement that the church the church "now admits that that this is not true" concerning Joseph's claim concerning the Book of Abraham. Are you saying that the church admits that Joseph did not actually translate anything or the "by his own hand" thing. Please provide a reference (CFR) for either of those scenarios.

As JAHS noted, Joseph believed that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. He did not claim to be a translator in the sense that he understood the language (reformed Egyptian) and rendered those words in biblical sounding English.

As far as the translation process of the Book of Abraham, I do not know of any direct quotes from Joseph as to the translation process, but different witnesses note that it was by much the same process, i.e. by inspiration and revelation.

Thanks,

Glenn

Edited June 7, 2016 by Glenn101

[cynth]

Quote

As to the existence of the plates, there were enough witnesses to their existence to rationally conclude that they did exist.

Glenn101, could you explain what you meant by this?   I was not aware that there was anything other than 'spiritual' witnessing, and certainly nothing that would justify the use of the word 'rationally.' 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, cynth said:

Glenn101, could you explain what you meant by this?   I was not aware that there was anything other than 'spiritual' witnessing, and certainly nothing that would justify the use of the word 'rationally.' 

The eight witnesses claimed no spiritual manifestation. They just saw plates.

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, cynth said:

Glenn101, could you explain what you meant by this?   I was not aware that there was anything other than 'spiritual' witnessing, and certainly nothing that would justify the use of the word 'rationally.' 

"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it."

 Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun.
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen.
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

There were three original witnesses who did have a spiritual experience when seeing the plates and the angel Moroni. But for the above 8 witnesses there was no spiritual experience involved; it was an ordinary physical examination of the gold plates.

[Thinking]

I think the title of this thread should be...

"Translate. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

[churchistrue]

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/book-of-mormon-modern-expansion-theory-midrash/

 

I wrote about this. Regardless of whether you agree with his use of the word translate, I think it's clear Joseph meant it more to mean something Ike "convey God's word" not "convert a text from one language to another". 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Golden Plates…yet if they ever existed he never used the plates.

Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Egyptian Papyri containing the written words of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus …yet even the church now admits that this is not true.

If one would merely take what the evidence presents one could logically conclude that Joseph Smith didn’t do what he himself claimed he did… He never translated anything. But believers don’t accept Joseph at his own word, they reinterpret Joseph’s own conclusions, change them and come up with completely different interpretive conversion process that allow for belief and their previously formed conclusions to remain intact.  In other words, rather than allowing the evidence to help form their conclusions, they reinterpret the evidence, change the meaning of the word “Translate “and  ignore what Joseph himself claimed he did so that they can maintain their conclusion that the church is all it claims to be.  At least that is how I see this playing out.

If one starts with the conclusion…then nothing matters I guess…any evidence that undermines ones previously formed conclusions can either be dismissed, ignored or subject to alternative interpretation when it doesn’t support the pre-arrived at conclusion.

This at least is how I, a non-believer, see this subject…How am I wrong?  I’m willing to reinterpret my own conclusions but I would need compelling evidence in order to do so.  I'm only guessing but I would assume that the majority of the posters here don't believe that Joseph Translated anything...he merely dictated "revelation"...yet he claimed that he translated not received revelation...so how am I to make sense of all of this?

Note that he also "re-translated" portions of the Bible by writing whole sections out of nothing.  Notice also that one definition of "translate" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary is "to change", AND "TO EXPLAIN"

That is a far cry from our modern meaning, and there are others that make the use of the word totally appropriate.

 

Quote

 

Translate

TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

 

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Golden Plates…yet if they ever existed he never used the plates.

False.  Any historian knows that Joseph immediately began to use the plates to copy down hieroglyphs and a translation of them from those plates -- the material taken by Martin Harris to a variety of well-educated persons.  

Joseph Smith claimed that he “Translated” Egyptian Papyri containing the written words of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus …yet even the church now admits that this is not true.

You need to cite and quote from the LDS Church essay on this, rather than falsifying what was said.

If one would merely take what the evidence presents one could logically conclude that Joseph Smith didn’t do what he himself claimed he did… He never translated anything. But believers don’t accept Joseph at his own word, they reinterpret Joseph’s own conclusions, change them and come up with completely different interpretive conversion process that allow for belief and their previously formed conclusions to remain intact.  In other words, rather than allowing the evidence to help form their conclusions, they reinterpret the evidence, change the meaning of the word “Translate “and  ignore what Joseph himself claimed he did so that they can maintain their conclusion that the church is all it claims to be.  At least that is how I see this playing out.

You have described your own apriori approach to such issues:  You reach a negative conclusion first, and then arrange pretended evidence to cover it.

If one starts with the conclusion…then nothing matters I guess…any evidence that undermines ones previously formed conclusions can either be dismissed, ignored or subject to alternative interpretation when it doesn’t support the pre-arrived at conclusion.

Exactly what you have been doing, instead of citing and quoting real sources, and basing conclusions on real evidence.

This at least is how I, a non-believer, see this subject…How am I wrong?  I’m willing to reinterpret my own conclusions but I would need compelling evidence in order to do so.  I'm only guessing but I would assume that the majority of the posters here don't believe that Joseph Translated anything...he merely dictated "revelation"...yet he claimed that he translated not received revelation...so how am I to make sense of all of this?

You might try examining the meaning of the word "translate" in the OED and the 1828 Webster's Dictionary.  You might also try reading the recent work of Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack on the Early Modern English form of the Book of Mormon -- which Joseph dictated to his scribes -- which could not have been used in Joseph's time, but had to have originated several centuries earlier.  That is a quandary about which no one has yet made a definitive statement or conclusion.

Since you are an ill-wisher, your apriori claims will always supersede any historical facts, and this will always be your fundamentally flawed approach.

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Note that he also "re-translated" portions of the Bible by writing whole sections out of nothing.  Notice also that one definition of "translate" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary is "to change", AND "TO EXPLAIN"

That is a far cry from our modern meaning, and there are others that make the use of the word totally appropriate.

 

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

The Webster's dictionary of 1828 provided 7 alternate definitions for the word translate. In regards to Joseph Smith taking a written text in a foreign language (choose your favourite: Golden plates for the Book of Mormon-reformed Egyptian, or Egyptian papyrus for the Book of Abraham) which of those 7 definitions do you think fits for what he did? Please refer back to the 1828 dictionary and compare your choice to the dictionary defintion. 

Because you shy away from using defiition no. 6 as the clarifying meaning, why have you chosen number 5 or no. 7?

[Derl Sanderson]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

I think the title of this thread should be...

"Translate. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

I, on the other hand, think the title of this thread should be...

"Presentism. Let me give you a good example."

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

Oliver Cowdery said:

"These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom. Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history or record called the Book of Mormon." 

Joseph said he translated the plates "by the gift and power of God". At a Church conference in 1831, Hyrum Smith invited the Prophet to explain more fully how the Book of Mormon came forth. Joseph Smith responded that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and it was not expedient for him to relate these things" (HC 1:220).

The fact that the plates were translated "by the gift and power of God", immediately tell us that it was not done by normal means that we would typically call translation; for example from English to Spanish. But there is no other word that best describes the conversion of the language written on the plates to the English language. I don't see anything wrong with Joseph saying he translated the plates. The end result is a translation, even though it did not come about through a typical translation process. 

 

How would he or anyone know if what was being dictated was a translation of what was on the plates? 

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Note that he also "re-translated" portions of the Bible by writing whole sections out of nothing.  Notice also that one definition of "translate" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary is "to change", AND "TO EXPLAIN"

That is a far cry from our modern meaning, and there are others that make the use of the word totally appropriate.

 

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

I agree with you mfbulowski, he did cough cough "translate" the JS Version of the Bible without prop or rock (or did he use the rock?).  But I get your point.  I guess the purpose of my OP is that I'm trying to wrap my head around how believers justify and come to grips with the new interpretation of Joseph's translation process in light of everything that's come to light in the past 20 years as well as the churches admission that he never translated anything via the traditionally taught process as spelled out in the church essays

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Note that he also "re-translated" portions of the Bible by writing whole sections out of nothing.  Notice also that one definition of "translate" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary is "to change", AND "TO EXPLAIN"

That is a far cry from our modern meaning, and there are others that make the use of the word totally appropriate.

 

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

I think this is an interesting consideration when it comes to his translations for sure.  It makes me very curious if the process in producing the BoM, the Bible, and the PoGP were similar--how they related to each other. 

When the papyrus came along, it might be said that Joseph needed something, used the scrolls as a catalyst, not really knowing what the actual content was.  What acted as a catalyst for his inspired writings about the Bible?  The Bible itself?  I guess it could be. 

Anyway, good point.

[Johnnie Cake]

12 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

On number one, that may or may not be true that "he never used the plates." I do not recall Oliver Cowdery giving any details about how Joseph did the translation except that Joseph used the "interpreters." As to the existence of the plates, there were enough witnesses to their existence to rationally conclude that they did exist.

Would you please clarify your statement that the church the church "now admits that that this is not true" concerning Joseph's claim concerning the Book of Abraham. Are you saying that the church admits that Joseph did not actually translate anything or the "by his own hand" thing. Please provide a reference (CFR) for either of those scenarios.

As JAHS noted, Joseph believed that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. He did not claim to be a translator in the sense that he understood the language (reformed Egyptian) and rendered those words in biblical sounding English.

As far as the translation process of the Book of Abraham, I do not know of any direct quotes from Joseph as to the translation process, but different witnesses note that it was by much the same process, i.e. by inspiration and revelation.

Thanks,

Glenn

CFR: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How would he or anyone know if what was being dictated was a translation of what was on the plates? 

Only God knows that. Apparently it was a correct translation since God partly based the restoration of His church on it.

Shortly after Oliver Cowdery began acting as scribe for Joseph's translating, the Lord said, "The words or the work which thou hast been writing are true" (D&C 6:17)

To the Three Witnesses, prior to their viewing the plates from which the record was translated, the Lord declared, "And he has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true" (D&C 17:6)

The Testimony of Three Witnesses  says: "And we also know that [the plates] have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true."

[HappyJackWagon]

It sounds like most people agree that Joseph didn't "translate" anything in the way we normally think of translation. That's a start.

I find it interesting though that if I suggest that Joseph "wrote" the book of Mormon there will be a huge backlash. "He didn't write it, he translated," even though we all know that isn't the case.

He dictated the scriptures. He didn't use plates or papyri. He said it was done by the "power of God", but we don't really know what he meant by that. Maybe his interpretation of "power of God" is as different to our understanding as "translate" is. Where did inspiration cut off and where did Joseph's  creativity and story telling take over? We will never know. But we do know he didn't translate or transcribe the exact words from ancient records.

I don't have a problem thinking that joseph dictated the stories to scribes that he was inspired to tell. Does inspiration mean that those stories are historical? No. I know many authors who have felt inspired to write and share certain messages.

The main difference of course is that most people don't claim to have an ancient record they are translating from. They simply say "I was inspired to write this." If Joseph did the same, or if the church took that approach, many problems would fade away.

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Only God knows that. Apparently it was a correct translation since God partly based the restoration of His church on it.

Shortly after Oliver Cowdery began acting as scribe for Joseph's translating, the Lord said, "The words or the work which thou hast been writing are true" (D&C 6:17)

To the Three Witnesses, prior to their viewing the plates from which the record was translated, the Lord declared, "And he has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true" (D&C 17:6)

The Testimony of Three Witnesses  says: "And we also know that [the plates] have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true."

Sure, but if the word translate does not mean taking writings from one language into another, then we're back to the square in which we don't know if what was on the plates relates to the words that became the BoM.  It's interesting as we get to the BoA on this question, because all that we can figure, the papyrus did not contain that which is the BoA.  We have a lot of theories and guess work on that, but the theory that seems to be growing in influence in the Church and may present the best possibility of them all is the papyrus was only a catalyst--inspiring Joseph to dictate what is the BoA. 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sounds like most people agree that Joseph didn't "translate" anything in the way we normally think of translation. That's a start.

I find it interesting though that if I suggest that Joseph "wrote" the book of Mormon there will be a huge backlash. "He didn't write it, he translated," even though we all know that isn't the case.

He dictated the scriptures. He didn't use plates or papyri. He said it was done by the "power of God", but we don't really know what he meant by that. Maybe his interpretation of "power of God" is as different to our understanding as "translate" is. Where did inspiration cut off and where did Joseph's  creativity and story telling take over? We will never know. But we do know he didn't translate or transcribe the exact words from ancient records.

I don't have a problem thinking that joseph dictated the stories to scribes that he was inspired to tell. Does inspiration mean that those stories are historical? No. I know many authors who have felt inspired to write and share certain messages.

The main difference of course is that most people don't claim to have an ancient record they are translating from. They simply say "I was inspired to write this." If Joseph did the same, or if the church took that approach, many problems would fade away.

 

fewf! all I can say is there is a lot to be confused about regarding Joseph's "translations".  The scribes testimony is interesting because they make it seem like exact wording appeared to Joseph (of course they may not really know what he was seeing).  One, as I recall, suggested that markings, presumably from the plates appeared along with the English translation.  That seems a little far-fetched, though, since he nor Joseph seemed to really consult the plates (imagine Joseph seeing ancient markings as he peered in his hat, then went to the plates to find those markings to confirm they were found on the plates) and translation, as I understand, is hard to accomplish if you take one language line by line and translate it.  The end result could be pretty confusing. 

With that, all I can really wonder is if Joseph really was told parts, saw parts, and tried to put parts in his words as impression, and scenes and words came to him.  That theory would feel better if there was some reason to accept it though.  I think tight translation theories hold some weight because it seems reasonable to an extent.  Whatever the case, there are far too many questions that simply can't be answered.

[Johnnie Cake]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since you are an ill-wisher, your apriori claims will always supersede any historical facts, and this will always be your fundamentally flawed approach.

I always enjoy Robert F. Smith's participation in any thread.  You always push me to a higher standard, which I appreciate. You always have my respect. 

Quote

False.  Any historian knows that Joseph immediately began to use the plates to copy down hieroglyphs and a translation of them from those plates -- the material taken by Martin Harris to a variety of well-educated persons.  

FALSE:  You are over stating reality.  We don't know this at all.  What we do know is that Joseph produced some characters from a non-existent fictional (yet to be found anywhere in the entire world) language that he claimed came from plates. This is what we know. And as for Charles Anthon, I'm sure you have read his version of the events involving Martin Harris...very damning to the authorized story.

Quote

You need to cite and quote from the LDS Church essay on this, rather than falsifying what was said.

From Church Essay: "None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham". Need I say more?

Quote

You have described your own apriori approach to such issues:  You reach a negative conclusion first, and then arrange pretended evidence to cover it.

Joseph is the one who claimed that the papyri was written by Abrahams own hand...not me.  You, I'm guessing reject his claim just as I do. The papyri were not written by Abraham, only by rejecting Joseph's own statements regarding the papyri, reinterpreting, ignoring Joseph and inventing a new "translation" process can you maintain belief.  If taken at his word, you can't.  all I'm doing is logically following Joseph's own claim, finding it false and making a conclusion based on THAT false claim instead of inventing a new pathway to belief.

Quote

Exactly what you have been doing, instead of citing and quoting real sources, and basing conclusions on real evidence.

If the book isn't what Joseph claimed it is...who here is following the evidence and who isn't?

Quote

You might try examining the meaning of the word "translate" in the OED and the 1828 Webster's Dictionary.  You might also try reading the recent work of Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack on the Early Modern English form of the Book of Mormon -- which Joseph dictated to his scribes -- which could not have been used in Joseph's time, but had to have originated several centuries earlier.  That is a quandary about which no one has yet made a definitive statement or conclusion.

I really enjoy you Robert, but you lose all credibility when you jump the shark with the Elizabethan Ghost Theory stuff...if belief in the Book of Mormon requires this level of mental gymnastics...the church is in real trouble

Edited June 7, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure, but if the word translate does not mean taking writings from one language into another, then we're back to the square in which we don't know if what was on the plates relates to the words that became the BoM

It does mean taking writings from one language to another if the end result represents a translation of something someone wrote in a different language. Someone wrote the reformed Egyptian characters on the gold plates, which represent the words we now see in the Book of Mormon. That is a translation.
Someone wrote down the words of the Book of Abraham at some time in history  in a different language(even if it was not on the papyrus) which had to be converted to the English language. How is that not a translation?

[Johnnie Cake]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It does mean taking writings from one language to another if the end result represents a translation of something someone wrote in a different language. Someone wrote the reformed Egyptian characters on the gold plates, which represent the words we now see in the Book of Mormon. That is a translation.
Someone wrote down the words of the Book of Abraham at some time in history  in a different language(even if it was not on the papyrus) which had to be converted to the English language. How is that not a translation?

My head is hurting...

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It does mean taking writings from one language to another if the end result represents a translation of something someone wrote in a different language. Someone wrote the reformed Egyptian characters on the gold plates, which represent the words we now see in the Book of Mormon. That is a translation.
Someone wrote down the words of the Book of Abraham at some time in history  in a different language(even if it was not on the papyrus) which had to be converted to the English language. How is that not a translation?

And what about the Josephs' translations fo the Bible, including Moses?  What language did those writings come from?  There's plenty for us to assume about all of this, but often such assumptions only raise more questions.  As I said in another post, there is tons to be confused about regarding these translations.