BoM Translation: Scholarly or Revelatory

[blazerb]

One of the stories presented in the face-to-face that struck me as curious is the account of JS switching from a scholarly process for translating the BoM to a revelatory process. You can hear it starting at about minute 48:30. For the historians out there, is there any evidence that JS tried to translate the BoM using anything like what we would call "translation"?

I don't believe there is. If that is the case, what is the purpose of this change to the narrative? It seems odd to me. Maybe they are trying to make the whole thing feel more real.

[jfro18]

There's no evidence for any change in writing the BoM whatsoever. The problem is that history has forced the church to change from a scholarly (Joseph looking at the plates as it's dictated) to a revelatory (rock in a hat) process.

The reason apologists *need* this to be true is to explain all of the anachronisms, KJV errors, and why Joseph never used the "gold plates" as we've always been taught he did.

Basically after the 116 pages were "lost," there is a statement that Joseph switched from using the "interpreters" to the stone in the hat. There's really no evidence he ever had interpreters, but even assuming that being the case, both are direct translations which is why they swing between scholarly and revelatory.

But now that we know Joseph never used the gold plates to write the BoM, apologists need to show that Joseph received it solely through revelation on the seer stone. Because otherwise how would Joseph 'translate' something he didn't even have with him?

The "tight vs loose" translation issue is a huge problem for the church - they need both a tight and loose translation to fit the different problems, but they can't have both... which is why apologists constantly change between the two.

I did a page on tight vs loose translation at https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/tight-loose and then if you want to read more on the translation stuff using Hagoth's amazing annotated essay, that is at https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/ldsessay-translation

[Palerider]

I'm pretty sure that Kate Holbrook was inferring that Martin Harris's taking the copied characters to Professor Anton was an effort to get scholarly help in translating the entire book, which it absolutely was not. Martin was only looking for a confirmation that the characters were Egyptian.

She then made the statement that "they" the scholars wouldn't help Joseph translate so he had to rely on revelation, which is a crock.

As I recall Charles Anton asked for the plates to be brought to him and he would try to translate them. He was told they were sealed and he stated, "I cannot read a sealed book" thus fulfilling prophecy according to the church's account.

So however the church is trying to re-write this story, it isn't working.....

[hiding in plain sight]

The church's attempt at a strong argument about the BOM hinges upon their attempt to prove that Joseph could NOT have written the BOM.

1) He wasn't educated.
2) He didn't have time.
3) He had no source materials.
4) He couldn't write a coherent letter.
5) The BOM is so complex.

They are strongly arguing that it would be impossible for Joseph to be part of the process for all of these reasons and so it is divinely created. "By the gift and power of God". No other answer.

Here is the most recent attempt at this argument.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

All of these arguments depend upon a tight translation. Joseph literally was just receiving dictation directly from God. He wasn't involved in any of it.

But there you have the problem. God would be responsible for all of this:

1) 19th century theology showing up in the BOM sermons.
2) 2nd or 3rd century plagiarisms from the NT translations showing up.
3) KJV translation errors showing up.
4) Anachronisms galore, that could never have existed in BOM times.
5) False doctrine (literal hell).

You have to rely upon a lose translation process to get the 19th century and plagiarisms into the BOM and assume that Joseph WAS part of the process.

But if he (JS) was part of the process, then you can't argue for the speed of translation without using resource materials by an uneducated farm boy who really had no exposure to all of the marvelous and complex things showing up in the BOM.

Whew!

What were we talking about again?

[Hagoth]

But now that we know Joseph never used the gold plates to write the BoM, apologists need to show that Joseph received it solely through revelation on the seer stone. Because otherwise how would Joseph 'translate' something he didn't even have with him?

And they also need to keep the scholarly translation part to explain why he needed plates in the first place. What a mess.

[Hagoth]

As I recall Charles Anton asked for the plates to be brought to him and he would try to translate them. He was told they were sealed and he stated, "I cannot read a sealed book" thus fulfilling prophecy according to the church's account.

And Anthon, in both his own version and Harris' version saw nothing that looked like Egyptian writing. Even the official version admits that it was a hodgepodge of "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic (which post-dates Lehi by centuries)," and Anthon said it looked like someone had copied a bunch of random characters out of a sampler page of ancient languages

I'm sure we have discussed this before but I nearly fell out of my seat when I saw that the "I cannot read a sealed book" statement was added in later in different ink and handwriting."

Sealed Book.JPG (27.65 KiB) Viewed 4508 times

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... st-1834/11

[Arcturus]

I'm sure we have discussed this before but I nearly fell out of my seat when I saw that the "I cannot read a sealed book" statement was added in later in different ink and handwriting."

What are the implications of this Hagoth? What does this statement provide for the story if it is added ex post?

[Palerider]

As I recall Charles Anton asked for the plates to be brought to him and he would try to translate them. He was told they were sealed and he stated, "I cannot read a sealed book" thus fulfilling prophecy according to the church's account.

And Anthon, in both his own version and Harris' version saw nothing that looked like Egyptian writing. Even the official version admits that it was a hodgepodge of "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic (which post-dates Lehi by centuries)," and Anthon said it looked like someone had copied a bunch of random characters out of a sampler page of ancient languages

I'm sure we have discussed this before but I nearly fell out of my seat when I saw that the "I cannot read a sealed book" statement was added in later in different ink and handwriting."

Sealed Book.JPG

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... st-1834/11

Whoa, Hagoth!

I never knew that part was retrofitted. It just never stops does it....

[Hagoth]

I'm sure we have discussed this before but I nearly fell out of my seat when I saw that the "I cannot read a sealed book" statement was added in later in different ink and handwriting."

What are the implications of this Hagoth? What does this statement provide for the story if it is added ex post?

The way I see it, Harris' visit to Anthon was a total bust. He went there to prove to himself that Joseph was telling the truth about having ancient writings before he forked over the cash. Anthon pretty much shut him down, but Harris so desperately wanted to believe that he tried his best to turn it into a positive-ish trip. Either that or Joseph smoothed it over later and convinced Harris that it was a fulfillment of prophesy.

Anthon wrote two accounts in which he claims he spotted the fake right away and tried to warn Harris. If you read the undoctored original account it's not very faith promoting, in my opinion, but by retrofitting a fulfillment of prophesy into it, it can be made to sound a lot better. That allows frame it in a way that it was not that Anthon couldn't read the characters because they were gibberish, he couldn't read them because it was prophesied that he would be an a-hole and demand to see the book even though God said no one could see it. But really, this prophesy makes no sense. When Anthon was told part of it was sealed woudn't he have said, "ok, bring me the part that isn't sealed," rather than throwing a toddler tantrum that he couldn't see all of it?

Harris came away with nothing. He even had to come up with a story about Anthon tearing up his confirmation about the true nature of the characters, when Anthon really told him they were jibberish. How do we know this? Anthon claimed he told Harris they were a random jumble of characters copied from other languages, and Harris' testimony agreed; they were Egyptian, Assyriac, Arabic, whatever. Even in Harris' version the writing wasn't Hebrew language written with Egyptian characters as Joseph claimed. At the same time Harris claims that, "Professor Anthony stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian." Quite a bizarre statement, considering that a) Anthon next told him that the writing wasn't Egyptian, and b) Anthon had never seen correctly translated Egyptian.

Finally, who knows what Harris actually said and did? He did not write this history. It was recorded in third-person sometime between 1839-1843 in the history (presumably dictated by Joseph Smith) in thehandwriting of James Mulholland.

The footnotes of this page in the Joseph Smith Papers do not comment on who added the sealed book statement.

[Arcturus]

The way I see it, Harris' visit to Anthon was a total bust. He went there to prove to himself that Joseph was telling the truth about having ancient writings before he forked over the cash. Anthon pretty much shut him down, but Harris so desperately wanted to believe that he tried his best to turn it into a positive-ish trip. Either that or Joseph smoothed it over later and convinced Harris that it was a fulfillment of prophesy.

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing Hagoth.