Some assert that when Joseph Smith translated the golden plates into what is now the Book of Mormon, the seer stones he used literally showed him each word, just like Babelfish. Others hold to the idea that Joseph Smith had ideas come to his mind and these he expressed into his own words (similar to what many experience when giving priesthood blessings).
In the case of the latter, the possibility seems to exist that Joseph Smith could have inserted his own interpretations into the text. If this possibility is factual, does that mean the claims Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon are accurate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I simply offer the words from the title page of the Book of Mormon:
THE
BOOK OF MORMON
AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY
THE HAND OF MORMON
UPON PLATES
TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI
Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.
An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever— And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.
TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, JUN.
he DID translate the Book of Mormon. Don't you think that if Christ knew he was adlibbing it, that He wouldn't have stepped in causing him stupor of thought or taken away his privileges?
Christ knew that was an important piece of wondor that the people of the future, us, needed to continue in our progression towards Heavenly Father's plan. He would have never allowed Joseph Smith to incorrectly translate or write it.
I've read some of Joseph Smith's personal writing in the form of journal entries and letters to his wife, Emma. They read a lot like the Book of Mormon so I believe (independent of whether or not he "wrote" the book of Mormon) his voice can be heard through the narrative.
It's also interesting to compare and contrast changes in the writing style when covering chapters that overlap with the bible. For example see 2 Nephi / Isaiah or 3 Nephi Matthew.
Apparently I'm not the first person to discover this phenomenon. In his book "New Witnesses for God", noted scholar B. H. Roberts wrote:
When Joseph Smith saw that the Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi, or the words of the Savior, he took the English Bible and compared these passages as far as they paralleled each other, and finding that in substance, they were alike, he adopted our English translation; and hence, we have the sameness to which you refer.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that B. H. Roberts opinion should be taken as the only possible solution to the problem, but I present it as an alternative to some of the evidence that may suggest the Book of Mormon was not translated from the Golden Plates.
I don't want to comment too much on this topic, but Grant Palmer's Insider's View of Mormon Origins goes into quite some detail in relation to how much 'artistic license' Joseph's 'translation' contains.
Lacking any access to the golden plates, this argument wil unfortunately remain completely speculative.
I just want to be clear that I was not asking whether Joseph translated the plates or not, but rather what that translation consisted of.
Seeing the words on the seerstone is not incompatible with Joseph being responsible for the language.
The process of translation described to Oliver Cowdery in the Doctrine and Covenants seems to be a mix of personal effort and divine gift. Oliver was told he would have to work on it--to "study it out in his mind." Then, the Lord would guide him. This principle seems to apply to most revelation--that there's a mix of personal initiative and inspiration.
I don't doubt that Joseph's familiarity with the Bible influenced his word choices. (And of course, in saying that, I also assume that Joseph was the one who chose some of the words.) On the other hand, I can't suppose that Joseph came up with names such as Coriantumr or Nephi, or the names of beasts such as cureloms and cumoms, on his own based on the "impressions" of the Spirit. I'm pretty sure he had to have those given to him verbatim.
I suppose, then, that the translation of the Book of Mormon was much like other revelatory experiences: It involved varying degrees (probably from moment to moment) of pure revelation, and varying degrees of personal effort on Joseph's part.
So it might be reasonable to define this process as "writing" the Book of Mormon. But I would avoid using that term because it would tend to cause confusion. Most people who claim that Joseph "wrote" the Book of Mormon are saying the book was entirely of his own invention. If we started saying he "wrote" it when we mean something entirely different, we would not be communicating clearly and, through our lack of precision we would tend to support the Book of Mormon's detractors.
There was a huge discussion over at T&S a while ago about Blake Ostler's "Expansion Theory" of the BoM's translation process. Maybe he'll chime in on this discussion.
I guess we'll never really know what the process is like unless we have the opportunity to do such a translation ourselves. That said, I like to think that there may be a little wiggle room for expression much like in translating a lyric or poem. One has to find a way to express the lyricism in the target language without losing the intent of the original. Such a process almost amounts to an artistic collaboration of sorts rather than a dry translation.
Jack
Off topic--Where's Larry?
Post a Comment