Royal Skousen and the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So tell me kind sir, how did the church interpret and teach this until recently?

Who cares?  We need to grow up and even question Mommy's opinions. 

It's like criticizing an impressionist painting because it's not a photograph. 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How about you provide a definition.  And yes I did provide a definition.  I said I define it the same way JS did.  The same way the LDS Church leaders have up until recently.

Joseph Smith never provided a definition. I am not sure that the LDS Church leaders (even in the current day) have ever provided a definition of the term 'translation'. I think you are confusing the question of what it means to translate with the idea of what it looked like when Joseph Smith translated. Those are two very different things. I am not sure what the bee is in your bonnet. YHou aren't really being very clear about what your issue is. But we aren't going to have much of a discussion if you can't help with the semantics here.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not interested in word games. It is a pretty simple proposition.  What do LDS members think when the read JS translated the BoA from papyri?  What did you think it meant before you had to become more nuanced?

I think that you are presenting two very different issues. And when you conflate them, it causes all sorts of problems. We can have one discussion about what really happened, and we can have another discussion about what the general perception is of what happened. The two different discussions mean very different things.

My own views became very nuanced very early in my life. It was fairly early on that I decided that the Book of Abraham had, at the very least, textual insertions by Joseph Smith. It was much later (only 18-20 years ago) that I started really forming my own understanding of texts and the various roles played by those who write and read them (speech act theory). Somewhere in between, I spent a lot of time with the so-called translation documents, and connected parts of them to various textual sources known to have been in the possession of Joseph Smith. I realize that my views are quite different from someone who hasn't spent any time with these kinds of materials. But then, the leaders of the LDS Church aren't particularly well read in these kinds of subjects either.

So we can agree that both the leaders and the general membership of the LDS Church do not have a very nuanced view of the translation process. There is, however, a disconnect here. We tend to rely on certain historical accounts more than others. This became a larger problem during the time of Joseph Fielding Smith, who discounted a number of historical accounts on the basis that he simply didn't believe them. One of those is apparent when we talk about the Book of Mormon translation and the seer stone - JFS wrote this:

Quote

While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.

"These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes.

Joseph Smith (despite your assertions) never really explains much about his process of translation. Most of the time, he just uses the phrase from the Book of Mormon to describe what he did. In the early Church, there was (it seems) some discomfort with the idea of seer stones being used. After Phelps starts calling both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters a Urim and Thummim, the idea takes off in LDS writings - and so we end up with a language created mess that allows for someone like JFS to make the statement that he did. And then that view becomes correlated - and it becomes a part of LDS thought.

The reason why I want to see a definition of translation is this - most members (certainly the early ones) understood that Joseph Smith read the text through the interpreters (or using the seer stone), or, as we read regularly in early criticism, using his magic spectacles. This isn't translation as we understand it today. This is, I think, on some level a natural change - especially with a desire to make the process sound more and more biblical or traditional. There was always the belief that Joseph Smith's 'translations' would match well with academic translations once they could be made (I think that even Joseph Smith believed this on some level). However, it is also clear that at least early on, this sort of belief wasn't there. Brigham Young suggested that had the Book of Mormon been translated again at a later date and with a different audience, it would have been substantially different in places.

As far as the rest of it goes -

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I define it in the more narrow way and that is how I was taught.  As were you.  You can do all the word smiting and mental gyrations you want to define it in some other way because  you need to.  And you need to because JS did not translate.  Not how a linguist would. Not even how he might from the "gift and power of God."  Nowhere has the Church tried to teach, until recently, that the BoA or the BoM was a revelation in the way we understand that word (like the revelations in the D&C).  Such is the ever moving target of Mormonism and it apologetics. 

To be quite frank, this just rubs me the wrong way. Nowhere has the Church ever described the process of producing the Book of Mormon as a translation process the way that we normally think of translation. Most of the descriptions that we have suggest that he used the Urim and Thummim to do it - which already makes this something that isn't normal translation. You may not like this, but I was never taught this idea that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham in a way that resembled what a professional translator might do. When I first started studying foreign languages back in 1988, I never once thought that I was engaged in a process similar to what Joseph Smith did to produce the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham.

I am not doing mental gyrations. I am not trying to redefine things. That is what you are doing. You are trying to insist that the understanding that you were taught - that you believed - has been consistently there since the beginning. But once we actually look at the historical context, I find that this isn't true. So, I think that you are offering an alternative narrative to the one you were taught, but it is just as wrong and just as problematic as that one you are trying to replace. So I have very little sympathy for your nonsense here. If you want to be unhappy about the wrong things you were taught - that's fine. But, to create your own bad narrative to replace it - that makes you just as culpable as those you are criticizing.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Joseph Smith never provided a definition. I am not sure that the LDS Church leaders (even in the current day) have ever provided a definition of the term 'translation'. I think you are confusing the question of what it means to translate with the idea of what it looked like when Joseph Smith translated. Those are two very different things. I am not sure what the bee is in your bonnet. YHou aren't really being very clear about what your issue is. But we aren't going to have much of a discussion if you can't help with the semantics here.

I think that you are presenting two very different issues. And when you conflate them, it causes all sorts of problems. We can have one discussion about what really happened, and we can have another discussion about what the general perception is of what happened. The two different discussions mean very different things.

My own views became very nuanced very early in my life. It was fairly early on that I decided that the Book of Abraham had, at the very least, textual insertions by Joseph Smith. It was much later (only 18-20 years ago) that I started really forming my own understanding of texts and the various roles played by those who write and read them (speech act theory). Somewhere in between, I spent a lot of time with the so-called translation documents, and connected parts of them to various textual sources known to have been in the possession of Joseph Smith. I realize that my views are quite different from someone who hasn't spent any time with these kinds of materials. But then, the leaders of the LDS Church aren't particularly well read in these kinds of subjects either.

So we can agree that both the leaders and the general membership of the LDS Church do not have a very nuanced view of the translation process. There is, however, a disconnect here. We tend to rely on certain historical accounts more than others. This became a larger problem during the time of Joseph Fielding Smith, who discounted a number of historical accounts on the basis that he simply didn't believe them. One of those is apparent when we talk about the Book of Mormon translation and the seer stone - JFS wrote this:

Joseph Smith (despite your assertions) never really explains much about his process of translation. Most of the time, he just uses the phrase from the Book of Mormon to describe what he did. In the early Church, there was (it seems) some discomfort with the idea of seer stones being used. After Phelps starts calling both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters a Urim and Thummim, the idea takes off in LDS writings - and so we end up with a language created mess that allows for someone like JFS to make the statement that he did. And then that view becomes correlated - and it becomes a part of LDS thought.

The reason why I want to see a definition of translation is this - most members (certainly the early ones) understood that Joseph Smith read the text through the interpreters (or using the seer stone), or, as we read regularly in early criticism, using his magic spectacles. This isn't translation as we understand it today. This is, I think, on some level a natural change - especially with a desire to make the process sound more and more biblical or traditional. There was always the belief that Joseph Smith's 'translations' would match well with academic translations once they could be made (I think that even Joseph Smith believed this on some level). However, it is also clear that at least early on, this sort of belief wasn't there. Brigham Young suggested that had the Book of Mormon been translated again at a later date and with a different audience, it would have been substantially different in places.

As far as the rest of it goes -

To be quite frank, this just rubs me the wrong way. Nowhere has the Church ever described the process of producing the Book of Mormon as a translation process the way that we normally think of translation. Most of the descriptions that we have suggest that he used the Urim and Thummim to do it - which already makes this something that isn't normal translation. You may not like this, but I was never taught this idea that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham in a way that resembled what a professional translator might do. When I first started studying foreign languages back in 1988, I never once thought that I was engaged in a process similar to what Joseph Smith did to produce the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham.

I am not doing mental gyrations. I am not trying to redefine things. That is what you are doing. You are trying to insist that the understanding that you were taught - that you believed - has been consistently there since the beginning. But once we actually look at the historical context, I find that this isn't true. So, I think that you are offering an alternative narrative to the one you were taught, but it is just as wrong and just as problematic as that one you are trying to replace. So I have very little sympathy for your nonsense here. If you want to be unhappy about the wrong things you were taught - that's fine. But, to create your own bad narrative to replace it - that makes you just as culpable as those you are criticizing.

Are you trying to convince us that during Joseph Smith’s time, there was no difference between the word translate and revelation?  The two words meant the exact same thing?

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Are you trying to convince us that during Joseph Smith’s time, there was no difference between the word translate and revelation?  The two words meant the exact same thing?

No.

I'll try and describe it a little differently - and my comments below reflect the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a translation of some sort of an authentic ancient text.

A text in one language can be translated into a text in another language - creating some sort of equivalency between the two texts.

Normally, this is achieved by a translator who can read the text in its original language and can write the text in the new language - and the translator is the person who establishes the equivalency between the texts along with everything that this entails.

Joseph Smith doesn't do this. Joseph Smith doesn't understand the original language - he cannot read it. Instead - at least with the Book of Mormon - he uses the seer stone or the Nephite interpreters through which he can, somehow, see an english version of the text, which he reads and which gets copied to the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. In this way, Joseph Smith isn't responsible at all for establishing the equivalency represented by the English text of the Book of Mormon. I have stated elsewhere that Joseph's primary contribution here would be as a reader - perhaps as the intended reader - for whom the English text is presented.

Because of this, we can only refer to Joseph as a translator of the text in the sense that he provides us with the English translation of the ancient text - not because he himself performed the work of translation. This is similar in terms of the way that we discuss it to the argument that Oliver Cowdery offered about Joseph being identified as the author of the Book of Mormon - not because he chose the words being used, but because he wrote them down (he was the writer, Oliver says, and so according to the dictionary should also be considered the author).

Joseph Smith and his contemporaries recognized this limited role for Joseph Smith in producing the contents of the record. Joseph Smith only ever (if I remember correctly) describes the translation by suggesting that he did so through the gift and power of God - a phrase that he takes from Omni verse 20, which describes the Nephite leader Mosiah using the Nephite Interpreters to interpret the Jaredite record. This description is as much a comparison of Joseph's involvement with the process to that of the Nephite's as it is some sort of description of the process.

Nearly every description we have of the process describes how it looks, not what it accomplishes. We know that Joseph put his head into a hat (to block out the light). We read that Joseph didn't actually have to have the text in front of him to read from it using the seer stone or Nephite interpreters, and so on. Every indicator in these early witness accounts suggests that Joseph is simply a reader of the text - that the English text is being revealed to him - and that his role as 'translator' does not involve some sort of process in which Joseph Smith is involved in that two separate acts of communication that translation normally entails. He doesn't read it in its original language. He reads it in his own, and writes it down (or dictates it).

So given all of this, for us to claim that the early members of the Church and Joseph Smith believed that he was translating in the sense that we translate texts is wildly inaccurate.

I am not contesting that they used the word "translate" to express Joseph's role. I am suggesting that when they do use that term, they aren't trying to have us infer that Joseph Smith was going through the process I would go through were I to "translate" the first chapter of Genesis in the Old Testament from biblical Hebrew into English. But this seems to be exactly what Teancum is trying to suggest here - that the Church (at least until recently) has consistently portrayed Joseph as translating (just like I would translate) rather than going through some revelatory process. I am arguing that his position - assuming I understand it correctly - is nonsense. And further, he is arguing that my logic here is nothing more than some sort of mental gyration. It isn't. We can see a history of how the idea changes over time within the LDS Church.

For a more detailed look at my point of view along with the problems of current LDS approaches, you can look at the presentation which I linked earlier.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[T-Shirt]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you trying to convince us that during Joseph Smith’s time, there was no difference between the word translate and revelation?  The two words meant the exact same thing?

I am not going to speak for Ben, but I will answer according to my understanding. Of course they don't mean the same thing and I don't think Ben is saying that they do. As I see it, typically, when we use the word "translate' in an academic scenario, we would describe it as someone with experience and expertise in two languages who reads something written in one language and then conveys that which he has read into another language so that the original author's message can be read and understood by those who do not speak the author's language. This is not what happened with the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham and the Church has never taught differently. Joseph Smith did provide a translation, but he could not read the original language nor did he claim to be able to. How did he do it? Joseph Smith never explained it other than to say it was by the gift and power of God. The Church has never taught differently. Back in the 70's, when I was on my mission, we gave the memorized discussions. That is how we taught the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph was able to do it by the gift and power of God. 

Joseph Smith couldn't read reformed Egyptian nor could he read the hieroglyphics on the papyri. The difference is that he received the gold plates from an angel, so he knew that the translation came from the characters on the plates. With the Egyptian papyri, he had no way to know what was written on them. He provided a translation of something written anciently by Abraham. Were Abraham's writings actually on some of the papyri? I think we can be comfortable in saying that Joseph Smith, certainly, thought they were, but he couldn't read them. So, we have a translation, but not in any sort of academic sense and neither Joseph Smith or the Church has taught any differently. It was all done by means of revelation, or by the gift and power of God.

Were any of Abraham's writings actually on any of the papyri that Joseph Smith had? It is certain many have believed, including prophets, seers and revelators, that Abraham's words were written somewhere on the papyri, but how do we know and does it even matter? Regardless of the actual answer to the question and regardless of anyone's beliefs or statements by General Authorities, we still have a translation of Abraham's words whether they were actually on the papyri or not. The papyri may or may not have contained Abraham's writings, but it is the message contained in the translation that matter. If it were possible to determine, definitively, that none of the Joseph Smith papyri contained anything whatsoever having to do with Abraham, it wouldn't change anything for the Church or the Book of Abraham, we still have a translation, even if it didn't come from the papyri.

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

This particular section of the D&C is much different than what has been taught and claimed by the church for the BoM and BoA. 

That particular section of the D&C is definitely using the word "translate" differently than you are understanding it with regard to the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham.   But doesn't this all really depend on how the word "translate" was understood and used in that context by Joseph Smith?  If we misunderstand him, or misunderstand the church's use of the same word in application to the BoM and BoA, then that's really on us, not Joseph Smith.

Originally you included Joseph Smith in your statement:

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sorry.  Ain't buying it. JS and the church used TRANSLATE.  From the papyri. The word translate was never interpreted as revelation.  Until now.  Now they want to gaslight us.

Obviously, with respect to section seven of the Doctrine and Covenants, the word "translate" was interpreted as revelation, or to convey something from one place to another.  So at least by 1833, we can clearly see that Joseph Smith used "translate" in the more common use of the word in 1828 (see usage 1-5 in the 1828 Webster's dictionary, and the meaning we commonly give to the word today isn't until #6).  If some of us now come to realize that maybe we misunderstood what Joseph Smith originally meant when he used the same word in application to the BoM and BoA, then it's not "gaslighting" to try to correct that, is it?

Edited July 25, 2023 by InCognitus

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No.

I'll try and describe it a little differently - and my comments below reflect the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a translation of some sort of an authentic ancient text.

A text in one language can be translated into a text in another language - creating some sort of equivalency between the two texts.

Normally, this is achieved by a translator who can read the text in its original language and can write the text in the new language - and the translator is the person who establishes the equivalency between the texts along with everything that this entails.

Joseph Smith doesn't do this. Joseph Smith doesn't understand the original language - he cannot read it. Instead - at least with the Book of Mormon - he uses the seer stone or the Nephite interpreters through which he can, somehow, see an english version of the text, which he reads and which gets copied to the manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

I could be wrong, but I think most members probably think of "translating" as what you describe above.

The difference that people are seeing is the English version.  If you have papers in Chinese about cooking practices and you use the definition you give here then by translating we would expect that somehow through the power of God you were able to read the English version of the cooking practices.  What I'm getting from the idea of translating in the OP is that instead of the English words giving cooking practices it is giving building a house practices. 

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

In this way, Joseph Smith isn't responsible at all for establishing the equivalency represented by the English text of the Book of Mormon. I have stated elsewhere that Joseph's primary contribution here would be as a reader - perhaps as the intended reader - for whom the English text is presented.

Because of this, we can only refer to Joseph as a translator of the text in the sense that he provides us with the English translation of the ancient text - not because he himself performed the work of translation. This is similar in terms of the way that we discuss it to the argument that Oliver Cowdery offered about Joseph being identified as the author of the Book of Mormon - not because he chose the words being used, but because he wrote them down (he was the writer, Oliver says, and so according to the dictionary should also be considered the author).

Joseph Smith and his contemporaries recognized this limited role for Joseph Smith in producing the contents of the record. Joseph Smith only ever (if I remember correctly) describes the translation by suggesting that he did so through the gift and power of God - a phrase that he takes from Omni verse 20, which describes the Nephite leader Mosiah using the Nephite Interpreters to interpret the Jaredite record. This description is as much a comparison of Joseph's involvement with the process to that of the Nephite's as it is some sort of description of the process.

Nearly every description we have of the process describes how it looks, not what it accomplishes. We know that Joseph put his head into a hat (to block out the light). We read that Joseph didn't actually have to have the text in front of him to read from it using the seer stone or Nephite interpreters, and so on. Every indicator in these early witness accounts suggests that Joseph is simply a reader of the text - that the English text is being revealed to him - and that his role as 'translator' does not involve some sort of process in which Joseph Smith is involved in that two separate acts of communication that translation normally entails. He doesn't read it in its original language. He reads it in his own, and writes it down (or dictates it).

So given all of this, for us to claim that the early members of the Church and Joseph Smith believed that he was translating in the sense that we translate texts is wildly inaccurate.

I am not contesting that they used the word "translate" to express Joseph's role. I am suggesting that when they do use that term, they aren't trying to have us infer that Joseph Smith was going through the process I would go through were I to "translate" the first chapter of Genesis in the Old Testament from biblical Hebrew into English. But this seems to be exactly what Teancum is trying to suggest here - that the Church (at least until recently) has consistently portrayed Joseph as translating (just like I would translate) rather than going through some revelatory process. I am arguing that his position - assuming I understand it correctly - is nonsense. And further, he is arguing that my logic here is nothing more than some sort of mental gyration. It isn't. We can see a history of how the idea changes over time within the LDS Church.

For a more detailed look at my point of view along with the problems of current LDS approaches, you can look at the presentation which I linked earlier.

 

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who cares? 

I do.  So do tens of thousands of others.  Changing the goal posts is disingenuous IMO.

 

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

We need to grow up and even question Mommy's opinions.

And that is exactly what I did.  Questioned the mommy church and found it lacking and dishonest.  And so it continues.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 

It's like criticizing an impressionist painting because it's not a photograph. 

 

No it is not the same at all.  I am happy for that you can be so fine with such a moving target and lack of consistency in the narrative. And simply changing the narrative and then gaslighting those who question.  My personal standards of integrity are a bit higher than that.  But if it works for you wonderful.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Joseph Smith never provided a definition. I am not sure that the LDS Church leaders (even in the current day) have ever provided a definition of the term 'translation'. I think you are confusing the question of what it means to translate with the idea of what it looked like when Joseph Smith translated. Those are two very different things. I am not sure what the bee is in your bonnet. YHou aren't really being very clear about what your issue is. But we aren't going to have much of a discussion if you can't help with the semantics here.

So let me be clear.  My understanding of translate for the BoM was that JS had gold plates.  He had a urim and thummim.  This was a device from God that when he looked at the plated through the device the words appeared to him in English and he wrote them down. And that I believe has been the church narritve for most of its history.  As for the BOA JS had papyrai.  Whether he used a seer stone or a urim and thummim, or whether God just gave him power to translate, the words he read were in Egyption and he was able by some power beyond himself to pput then into English. And that the papryi actually were the words of Abraham.  Ad I believe that was the church narrative for most of its history.

Hope that helps.  Thus the "bee in my bonnet" is Skosan saying the BOA was really a revelation and JS was mistaken to call it a translation.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

That particular section of the D&C is definitely using the word "translate" differently than you are understanding it with regard to the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham.   But doesn't this all really depend on how the word "translate" was understood and used in that context by Joseph Smith?  If we misunderstand him, or misunderstand the church's use of the same word in application to the BoM and BoA, then that's really on us, not Joseph Smith.

Originally you included Joseph Smith in your statement:

Obviously, with respect to section seven of the Doctrine and Covenants, the word "translate" was interpreted as revelation, or to convey something from one place to another.  So at least by 1833, we can clearly see that Joseph Smith used "translate" in the more common use of the word in 1828 (see usage 1-5 in the 1828 Webster's dictionary, and the meaning we commonly give to the word today isn't until #6).  If some of us now come to realize that maybe we misunderstood what Joseph Smith originally meant when he used the same word in application to the BoM and BoA, then it's not "gaslighting" to try to correct that, is it?

Do you think JS used translate for the BOA and BoM the same way he did in the D&C section?

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

To be quite frank, this just rubs me the wrong way. Nowhere has the Church ever described the process of producing the Book of Mormon as a translation process the way that we normally think of translation. Most of the descriptions that we have suggest that he used the Urim and Thummim to do it - which already makes this something that isn't normal translation. You may not like this, but I was never taught this idea that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham in a way that resembled what a professional translator might do. When I first started studying foreign languages back in 1988, I never once thought that I was engaged in a process similar to what Joseph Smith did to produce the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham.

I am not doing mental gyrations. I am not trying to redefine things. That is what you are doing. You are trying to insist that the understanding that you were taught - that you believed - has been consistently there since the beginning. But once we actually look at the historical context, I find that this isn't true. So, I think that you are offering an alternative narrative to the one you were taught, but it is just as wrong and just as problematic as that one you are trying to replace. So I have very little sympathy for your nonsense here. If you want to be unhappy about the wrong things you were taught - that's fine. But, to create your own bad narrative to replace it - that makes you just as culpable as those you are criticizing.

I don't think I claimed the Smith translated in the way we would understand the word in the traditional sense.  And I just posted how I understood the process and I do believe it is consistent with what the church taught for most of its history.  Your KFS quote demonstrates that for the BOM and disparages the idea of a seer stone, which now the church has embraced.  If you think I am redefining things how about we see if you can find LDS authorities backing up your idea on translation and I will find LDS authorities backing up my claim.  And we can see who has the most evidence by the authorities.  After all they are the one that matter when it comes to LDS doctrine and official teachings. Not you.  Not me.  And now your position is rubbing me the wrong way.  Who  are you to say the things I was taught were wrong?  I just believed what the LDS authorities taught.  What I was taught in seminary.  In SUnday school and so on. And why should I trust you that you are right and that the church authorities think you are right? Talk about nonsense.  But such is apologetics. And thank you for proving my point.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Thus the "bee in my bonnet" is Skosan saying the BOA was really a revelation and JS was mistaken to call it a translation.

Isn’t how you describe it essentially a vision then?  If not, what would you call it?

How did Joseph receive the ability to translate in the way you describe in your view?  Wasn’t the ability a gift from God, something revealed to him?

I don’t think it was a mistake to call any of the changes from an ancient language to English a translation. What I think makes it confusing is labeling Joseph as the translator since he didn’t have the knowledge to change the words himself. Something or someone did it for him and then gave him the words.

I think it fair to call the giving of the words to him a revelation because he says it was done by the gift and power of God. The Spirit revealed the words to him, either by using the interpreters or the seerstones or something else. 
 

Did you believe back in the day that if someone copied a few characters from the Book of Mormon or the papyri or from other papyri from the same time period using the same writing as the ones connected to the Book of Abraham that Joseph would have been able to say what those words meant without the help of the Spirit in that moment?  (I am trying to understand the process as you see it because it seems we understood the story in the same way and yet you don’t see that as revelation and I always have.)

Edited July 25, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

@Teancum, when you say the Church has recently changed how they talk about how we got the Book of Mormon, does it essentially come down to moving to use the term “revelation” instead of “translation” and “revealed” instead of “translated” and associated ideas or is it something else?  If something else, could you explain in more detail because it seems it is not about the Church once claiming he had the knowledge of the language in his head from the way you describe your previous understanding of the process.  Please correct me if I am wrong here.

Another serious question (all my questions here are serious because I am trying to understand your criticism here—which I never have in this case—as you usually have a good basis for your ideas and criticisms Imo even if I personally disagree with some of your assumptions on which the criticisms  are founded and some of your conclusions on the impact)….

How recent is “recently” here?  The last 25 years, 50?  I am wondering if finding usages of “translate” in conference talks and seeing from the context of these if they lean towards meaning  “revelation” or are used in connection with revelation…or not…would be seen as useful by you and how far back should I go if I decide to do this to be informative in your view.  Then we could both present how we understand the older references and you could explain where you see the changes occur and I could explain why I see it as consistent (assuming I do, I wouldn’t actually know if I do until I see more examples than I am already familiar with).

Hopefully not too much work for you. I need something to get my mind moving, summer slows me down and nothing has engaged me for awhile, but this topic of change in the narrative interests me….but not enough just to do it out of curiosity. To have something to discuss and debate though… (especially the debate, lol, as that wakes me up).

Edited July 25, 2023 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

So let me be clear.  My understanding of translate for the BoM was that JS had gold plates.  He had a urim and thummim.  This was a device from God that when he looked at the plated through the device the words appeared to him in English and he wrote them down. And that I believe has been the church narritve for most of its history.  As for the BOA JS had papyrai.  Whether he used a seer stone or a urim and thummim, or whether God just gave him power to translate, the words he read were in Egyption and he was able by some power beyond himself to pput then into English. And that the papryi actually were the words of Abraham.  Ad I believe that was the church narrative for most of its history.

Hope that helps.  Thus the "bee in my bonnet" is Skosan saying the BOA was really a revelation and JS was mistaken to call it a translation.

So we get back to the same problem from a different direction.

Royal Skousen is a professional linguist. When he talks about translation, he uses the term in the same technical sense that we would expect from any professional linguist. And under that definition of the term 'translator,' Joseph Smith was not a translator. Skousen's definition of translator is not the same definition that was used by Joseph Smith or any of the other members of the early LDS Church (none of whom were professional linguists).

Take it for what its worth.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you think JS used translate for the BOA and BoM the same way he did in the D&C section?

Yes.

Joseph Smith did spend a fair amount of time trying to learn to translate in the more technical sense. He hired a Hebrew instructor to teach him biblical Hebrew. He acquired a small collection of grammars and lexicons. He wasn't particularly good at it ...

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't think I claimed the Smith translated in the way we would understand the word in the traditional sense.  And I just posted how I understood the process and I do believe it is consistent with what the church taught for most of its history.  Your KFS quote demonstrates that for the BOM and disparages the idea of a seer stone, which now the church has embraced.  If you think I am redefining things how about we see if you can find LDS authorities backing up your idea on translation and I will find LDS authorities backing up my claim.  And we can see who has the most evidence by the authorities.  After all they are the one that matter when it comes to LDS doctrine and official teachings. Not you.  Not me.  And now your position is rubbing me the wrong way.  Who  are you to say the things I was taught were wrong?  I just believed what the LDS authorities taught.  What I was taught in seminary.  In SUnday school and so on. And why should I trust you that you are right and that the church authorities think you are right? Talk about nonsense.  But such is apologetics. And thank you for proving my point.

I think I misunderstood your beef with Skousen. But, the sarcasm about LDS authorities makes me realize that I have no interest in continuing the discussion with you (not because of the general authorities issue but rather because you are simply hell bent on trying to score ideological points rather than trying to actually understand the history). So feel free to have the last word.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you think JS used translate for the BOA and BoM the same way he did in the D&C section?

Yes, for all the reasons described in posts made by others in this thread. 

[Calm]

On 7/23/2023 at 3:25 PM, Tweed1944 said:

The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1.

@Teancum, is the issue here with Skousen’s quote what is the connection of the text of the BoA to the papyri (whether the text was translated as we understand the word now or revealed, it was taught that it directly corresponded to the papyri by the Church) or something else?  The issue isn’t whether it’s a revelation or translation, the issue is where the revealed text originates from.  Is it the English version of what was on the plates and is on the papyri or was it a different text and if so, how different (the revealed text has what’s on the plates and papyri but is expanded or perhaps it is unrelated except in a general way)?

It’s not the process narrative you care about (the how it was done), but the narrative of the relationship of the contents (papyri and BoA, plates and BoM)?

Edited July 26, 2023 by Calm

[Tweed1944]

Does a testimony or religious experience reduce cognitive dissonance one experiences when confronted with difficult to accept facts?

" A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your soUrces. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." Festinger et al p.3.

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Nearly every description we have of the process describes how it looks, not what it accomplishes. We know that Joseph put his head into a hat (to block out the light). We read that Joseph didn't actually have to have the text in front of him to read from it using the seer stone or Nephite interpreters, and so on. Every indicator in these early witness accounts suggests that Joseph is simply a reader of the text - that the English text is being revealed to him - and that his role as 'translator' does not involve some sort of process in which Joseph Smith is involved in that two separate acts of communication that translation normally entails. He doesn't read it in its original language. He reads it in his own, and writes it down (or dictates it).

Thank you for your answer.  This is my understanding of how both the BoM and the BoA came about.  The text was there in a different language that Joseph Smith did not know.  Though the power of God, God gave Joseph Smith the english version of what was originally written.  This has always been the process that the Church taught about both books.

For me the problem comes when all the sudden there seems to be the suggestion (am I reading what you wrote wrong?) that what was written in reformed Egyptian or by the hand of Abraham, Egyptian in the case of the BoA (the original text) is irrelevant.  The original text was never written or recorded or important.  It could have been a recipe for chocolate chip cookies written in reformed Egyptian.  Hence, all the sudden what was originally written had no value at all.  That goes from being a translation to being a revelation.  In a translation, the original material is the bases for the english version given to Joseph Smith by the power of God.  If it is just a revelation, then the source material has no relevance.  Hence, the Gold Plates could be an ancient recipe book, or in the case of the BoA, just an ordinary burial scroll never written by the hand of Abraham as Joseph Smith claimed and never contained any religious writings which is also not what Joseph Smith claimed.  

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by california boy

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Isn’t how you describe it essentially a vision then?  If not, what would you call it?

I guess one could call it a vision.  Is that a revelation?

13 hours ago, Calm said:

How did Joseph receive the ability to translate in the way you describe in your view?  Wasn’t the ability a gift from God, something revealed to him?

I already used the bolded terminology.

 

 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t think it was a mistake to call any of the changes from an ancient language to English a translation. What I think makes it confusing is labeling Joseph as the translator since he didn’t have the knowledge to change the words himself. Something or someone did it for him and then gave him the words.

I think it fair to call the giving of the words to him a revelation because he says it was done by the gift and power of God. The Spirit revealed the words to him, either by using the interpreters or the seerstones or something else. 

Ok.  I am not sure I agree.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

 

 

Did you believe back in the day that if someone copied a few characters from the Book of Mormon or the papyri or from other papyri from the same time period using the same writing as the ones connected to the Book of Abraham that Joseph would have been able to say what those words meant without the help of the Spirit in that moment?  (I am trying to understand the process as you see it because it seems we understood the story in the same way and yet you don’t see that as revelation and I always have.)

Here is my take.  The accepted and official narrative re the BOA is JS somehow, with God's help translated whatever was in Egyptian. According to Joseph what was written on the Papyri was an account of Abraham written by his own hand.  Now we know that the papyri had nothing whatsoever do with Abraham. Skousen now wants us to believe Joseph was mistaken about is being a translation and it was actually revelation. This plays right into the new narrative that the papyri may have simply been a catalyst for Joseph to receive a revelation.  Again this seems to be a change in the narrative.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

@Teancum, when you say the Church has recently changed how they talk about how we got the Book of Mormon, does it essentially come down to moving to use the term “revelation” instead of “translation” and “revealed” instead of “translated” and associated ideas or is it something else?  If something else, could you explain in more detail because it seems it is not about the Church once claiming he had the knowledge of the language in his head from the way you describe your previous understanding of the process.  Please correct me if I am wrong here.

Another serious question (all my questions here are serious because I am trying to understand your criticism here—which I never have in this case—as you usually have a good basis for your ideas and criticisms Imo even if I personally disagree with some of your assumptions on which the criticisms  are founded and some of your conclusions on the impact)….

How recent is “recently” here?  The last 25 years, 50?  I am wondering if finding usages of “translate” in conference talks and seeing from the context of these if they lean towards meaning  “revelation” or are used in connection with revelation…or not…would be seen as useful by you and how far back should I go if I decide to do this to be informative in your view.  Then we could both present how we understand the older references and you could explain where you see the changes occur and I could explain why I see it as consistent (assuming I do, I wouldn’t actually know if I do until I see more examples than I am already familiar with).

Hopefully not too much work for you. I need something to get my mind moving, summer slows me down and nothing has engaged me for awhile, but this topic of change in the narrative interests me….but not enough just to do it out of curiosity. To have something to discuss and debate though… (especially the debate, lol, as that wakes me up).

Read my most recent response first then if not clear let me know.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

I think I misunderstood your beef with Skousen. But, the sarcasm about LDS authorities makes me realize that I have no interest in continuing the discussion with you (not because of the general authorities issue but rather because you are simply hell bent on trying to score ideological points rather than trying to actually understand the history). So feel free to have the last word.

You really don't know my motives but if it makes feel good to conclude such fine with me.  I am happy to move on. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

@Teancum, is the issue here with Skousen’s quote what is the connection of the text of the BoA to the papyri (whether the text was translated as we understand the word now or revealed, it was taught that it directly corresponded to the papyri by the Church) or something else?  The issue isn’t whether it’s a revelation or translation, the issue is where the revealed text originates from.  Is it the English version of what was on the plates and is on the papyri or was it a different text and if so, how different (the revealed text has what’s on the plates and papyri but is expanded or perhaps it is unrelated except in a general way)?

It’s not the process narrative you care about (the how it was done), but the narrative of the relationship of the contents (papyri and BoA, plates and BoM)?

I thought I had been pretty clear that it seems that the long held narrative is about how Smith generated the BOA is changing. Revealed, catalyst and so on. 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So we get back to the same problem from a different direction.

Royal Skousen is a professional linguist. When he talks about translation, he uses the term in the same technical sense that we would expect from any professional linguist. And under that definition of the term 'translator,' Joseph Smith was not a translator. Skousen's definition of translator is not the same definition that was used by Joseph Smith or any of the other members of the early LDS Church (none of whom were professional linguists).

Take it for what its worth.

Yes.

Joseph Smith did spend a fair amount of time trying to learn to translate in the more technical sense. He hired a Hebrew instructor to teach him biblical Hebrew. He acquired a small collection of grammars and lexicons. He wasn't particularly good at it ...

I think I misunderstood your beef with Skousen. But, the sarcasm about LDS authorities makes me realize that I have no interest in continuing the discussion with you (not because of the general authorities issue but rather because you are simply hell bent on trying to score ideological points rather than trying to actually understand the history). So feel free to have the last word.

By the way I apologize if I was an irritant to you.  I am honestly frustrated with the issue (and many others actually).  I have alway found you fair, balanced and reasonable.  So I must have been obnoxious to cause your response.  Again I am sorry.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

By the way I apologize if I was an irritant to you.  I am honestly frustrated with the issue (and many others actually).  I have alway found you fair, balanced and reasonable.  So I must have been obnoxious to cause your response.  Again I am sorry.

It's nice to see some humanity in a critic. Your contributions give us an interesting perspective, but comments where sometimes multiple critiques are given which are equally a vailed reference to something, I don't know which comment holds the issue. The scoring of points does distract me and I can't always see the heart of the matter.

Perhaps to sum up what I basically wanted to say, to not cramp your style or creative juices, you could just do what you do, but adopt a habit to summarize your main point by adding a single sentenced closing statement, "basically what I'm saying is..." Not that I follow my own advice, even when I too use multiple bait hooks in a conversation.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

guess one could call it a vision.  Is that a revelation?

It has never occurred to me that someone might not label a vision (one sent by God and received through the Spirit) a revelation.  Could you provide your definition of “revelation” please, in detail so I can understand how you see it that way?