Whoever wrote the Gospel Topics Essay would have been well advised to start with President Holland's 1966 Master's Thesis.
In 1966, President Jeffrey Holland wrote a Masters Thesis titled "An Analysis of Selected Changes in Major Editions of the Book of Mormon -- 1830-1920"
In his thesis, Holland wrote a footnote and added an Appendix regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon. In so doing, he provided a more accurate and thoughtful discussion of the topic than the scholars who composed the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation (the GTE).
[See an analysis of that GTE here: https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html.]
Holland's thesis is available online here:
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5799&context=etd
On page 14, Holland quoted from History of the Church. The passage is now in Joseph Smith-History. Original in blue, my comments in red.
by this timely aid I was enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania, and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them
Here Joseph explicitly describes copying the characters and translating them "by means of the Urim and Thummim." The GTE never quotes this. It doesn't even mention that Joseph copied and translated the characters from the plates.
which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife's father in the month of December and the February following. 12
Holland's note 12 gives further explanation:
12 Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book company, 1902), I, p. 18. At this point it should be noted that the "how" of translation has been one of the most discussed but least understood areas of Book of Mormon scholarship. In a letter to John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, the Prophet Joseph said:
the characters on the unsealed part were small and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction and much skill in the art of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called "Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record, by the gift and power of God.
---Joseph Smith, Jr., "Wentworth Letter, " Millennial Star. IX, p. 118.
It should be no big deal to see the full quotation from the Wentworth Letter here. Back in 1966, the Wentworth Letter was well known; it was the source of the Articles of Faith, after all.
However, few modern-day Latter-day Saints are familiar with this quotation from the Wentworth letter. The GTE omits it completely.
The GTE provides excerpts from Joseph Smith-History 1:33-34 that completely ignore the Urim and Thummim in verse 35. The GTE's footnote actually cites the Wentworth letter that it does not even quote. One of my favorite aspects of the GTE is how the footnote gives this citation without a link: "Joseph Smith, “Church History,” Times and Seasons 3 (March 1, 1842): 706–7." How is any casual reader--especially one among the majority of Latter-day Saints who don't know English--going to know where to look up that reference?
Few if any readers would know that the Wentworth Letter, including the passage Holland quotes here, is easily available in the Joseph Smith Papers, here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/1. This "oversight" is one of many indications that the authors of the GTE did not want readers to learn anything about what Joseph and Oliver actually taught.
This would seem to be the only authoritative statement ever made by the Prophet on the subject of how he translated the sacred record.
Notice that what Holland deemed "the only authoritative statement ever made by" Joseph Smith is completely absent from the GTE.
We cannot tell whether, when he wrote his thesis, Holland was aware of the Elders' Journal answer that Joseph gave to the question of how the Book of Mormon came about.
Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the Book of Mormon?
Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the Book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me and told me where they were and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates and thus came the Book of Mormon.
(Elders’ Journal I.3:42 ¶20–43 ¶1)
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/11
Needless to say, the GTE neither quotes nor cites the Elders' Journal statement..
Any discussion of the mechanics involved, the appearance or disappearance of words, or the specific function of the Urim and Thummim would have to fall into the realm of speculation. (See appendix A of this thesis for a discussion of this problem.)
Holland's insight here remains valid today. We have lots of speculation, much of it based on the claims made by David Whitmer (which are addressed in Holland's Appendix A), as well as the work of Royal Skousen, who claims Joseph and Oliver were "deliberately misleading."
Incredibly, most prominent LDS scholars today agree with Royal Skousen.
And they teach that to their students at BYU, CES, etc.
_____
In Appendix A, "The Translation of the Book of Mormon," Holland inserted two relevant articles on the topic, one by B.H. Roberts and one by the Deseret News, both dated 1906. After 120 years, these articles are still more informative and useful than the current GTE.
The articles are below in blue, with my comments in red.
Because the Roberts quotation is so long and has been discussed so often, I'm reversing the order and putting the Deseret News article first.
Appendix A
translation OF THE BOOK OF mormon[1]
The Deseret News has stated, in sufficient plainness, its position in regard to the translation of the Book of Mormon by the Prophet Joseph Smith. But it appears that some of our readers who discuss this question fail to remember what we have said on the subject.
Even in 1906 the editors found that readers had failed to remember what they had said. 120 years later, it is not surprising that modern readers do not know what was said back then. But modern Latter-day Saints do not even know what Joseph and Oliver formally wrote.
What the Deseret News said in 1906 is more historically accurate and less speculative than the modern Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation (GTE). Latter-day Saints would be better served by this 1906 editorial than by the GTE.
We have received communications containing inquiries as to whether the leaders of the Church have authorized or endorsed the theories that have been advanced concerning the matter, or either of them. We have to answer in the negative.
The only authoritative statement concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon is that it was done “by the gift and power of God through the means of the Urim and Thummim.”
That statement alone is worth more than the entire GTE, which of course never includes that quotation or any of the other statements from Joseph and Oliver that refer to the Urim and Thummim.
This is actually a direct quotation from Orson Pratt's 1840 pamphlet, but it accurately reflects what Joseph and Oliver always said, as well as D&C 10:1.
Pratt used the phrases in another place in his pamphlet where he described Moroni: "He continued the history until the four hundred and twentieth year of the Christian era, when, (by the commandment of God,) he hid up the records in the hill Cumorah, where they remained concealed, until by the ministry of an angel they were discovered to Mr Smith, who, by the gift and power of God, translated them into the English language, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, as stated in the foregoing."
The Prophet Joseph Smith never deviated from that statement nor so far as we are aware made any other explanation concerning it.
Again, we cannot tell whether the author was aware of Joseph's explanation in the Elders' Journal which corroborates Deseret News editorial.
On the title page to the Book of Mormon there is a literal translation of the statement concerning the plates, in which this occurs:
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 the way of Gentile; the interpretation thereof by the gift of God.
The testimony of the three witnesses on this point is: “And we know that they 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.” The statements that have been made by different persons as to the manner in which the meaning of the characters upon the plates was made known to Joseph the Seer were given upon their own responsibility and according to their understanding of the matter.
This is a key point. The others spoke for themselves, not for Joseph (or Oliver). No one other than Joseph and Oliver ever translated (or even attempted to translate) the plates.
But there is nothing in the writings of the Prophet Joseph, further than what we have quoted on which to base those assertions and opinions.
Exactly.
This raises the obvious question why the GTE quotes numerous sources other than Joseph and Oliver. The historians are not unaware of what Joseph and Oliver wrote. The only rational explanation for omitting their teachings is that the historians do not want Latter-day Saints to even know what Joseph and Oliver taught, lest Latter-day Saints reject the SITH theories of the scholars.
When a person learns a language in the usual manner and makes a translation of any part of it into English he will convey the meaning in such expressions as are usual with him. Another person translating the same matter would in most instances do similar work, and while the meaning of the words would be about the same in both translations, there would be peculiarities of diction special to each. Give an example in Greek or Latin to half a dozen boys, who have been properly instructed, and their translations into English will all be in some respects different, while the meaning will be almost identical.
This point could be debated, given the number of different translations of the Bible with variant meanings, but we all get the gist.
Now, taking it for granted, that the meaning of the characters engraved on the metallic plates was understood by Joseph Smith “by the gift and power of God,” instead of the process in the ordinary way of learning a language, he would, when giving the interpretation, use such English phraseology as he was accustomed to hear and speak.
Exactly. This observation corroborates D&C 1:24, which says "after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."
A literal translation, word for word, of any language into another, would, generally speaking, appear almost nonsensical, because of the differences in the construction of sentences.
This is true, generally speaking, although Joseph did say the Title Page was a literal translation from the last leaf of the [abridged] plates. That may account for the unusual grammar in the Title Page. By implication, the rest of the translation was not literal.
Therefore a word for word translation without a proper arrangement according to syntax and idiomatic changes necessary to convey the meaning to the English reader, would be out of the question and thus it is clear that the Prophet Joseph, obtaining the signification of the characters upon the plates, gave the interpretation in such language as was at his command.
Yes, this is, or should be, clear. This is one reason why annotating the latter-day scriptures with nonbiblical sources available to Joseph Smith (such as Jonathan Edwards) is useful to corroborate what Joseph and Oliver said all along.
In reproducing the quotations from those portions of the Jewish prophecies that were used by the Nephite writers, he would naturally take the Biblical form in common use, except in such cases, which are quite numerous, when mistakes occur in the common English translation, and the correct form was then given. The difference between the modus operandi of the translation in the case of learning a language and that of this instance, is that one comes by the slow process of the schools, and the other by the immediate impressions of the gift and power of God.
Persons who have enjoyed the gift of tongues, or of the interpretation of tongues, or of prophecy, while knowing the fact of the exercise of the gift, would find it very difficult to explain to another, who had not been so favored, how and in what manner the inspiration operated upon his mind and soul and enabled him to perceive and state that which was revealed to him. So in regard to the gift of translation bestowed upon the Prophet Joseph and the effect produced upon his mind and brain by gazing into the Urim and Thummim or the Seerstone which he possessed.
Two things to note here. First, no one other than the translator knows how translation works. Even those of us who have translated speech or writing into another language know there are multiple ways to express the thoughts and meaning of the original language into the target language.
Second, the reference to "the Urim and Thummim or the Seerstone which he possessed" is itself susceptible to at least two interpretations. The author was either (i) referring to two different objects with two different terms, or (ii) using the term "Seerstone" to explain the Urim and Thummim. The former interpretation is more plausible because of the difference between a plural and singular noun. But the article had just emphasized that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by means of the Urim and Thummim. Thus, the article seems to allude to other translations Joseph accomplished with the "gift of translation" by using his Seerstone.
Individuals who are to bring everything down to their notions and standards of evidence and understanding may sneer at all these so-called super-natural gifts and claims but that does not matter. When a person has seen a vision or obtained a revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost, he knows what he has experienced if unable to demonstrate in what manner it was obtained.
This is another key point. Explanations from David Whitmer, Martin Harris and others who never actually translated are necessarily speculative.
The Prophet Joseph simply declared that he obtained the ancient records of the Nephites by the personal ministration of an angel who when a man on earth was Moroni, who hid it in the way commanded of the Lord; and that he, Joseph, translated the work by the gift and power of god through the Urim and Thummim also delivered to him.
Here, where the editorial refers to the Book of Mormon, it does not mention any Seerstone, but only the Urim and Thummim. Joseph (and Oliver) were consistent whenever this topic arose. See, e.g., Oliver's Letter IV. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/69
We think that the endeavors that are made to describe the process of which no description is given by proper authority, very much a waste of time and that it is not at all profitable.
This was and is good advice. And yet the question persists because so many people prefer what David Whitmer and others said instead of what Joseph and Oliver said.
Joseph's explanation that he copied the characters and translated them shows that he was actually translating the characters (engravings) on the plates, just as the Lord commanded him. D&C 10:41.
Speculation based on what others said, especially when the speculation not only ignores what Joseph and Oliver unambiguously declared but directly contradicts their claims, is not only not profitable, it is dishonest history.
That's yet another reason why the GTE should be re-written.
It should be remembered by all readers that on the very title page of the book it is declared: “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.” And toward the close of the record Moroni, speaking of the coming forth of the plates in the latter days, gives this exhortation:
and when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask god the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true, and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things—B. of M., page 621.
_____
[The following is the excerpt from a B. H. Roberts article]
In one communication, a president
of an association, an aid in a M. I. A. Stake Board, and a bishop's
counselor, join in
saying:
We are not able to
harmonize the theory of translation presented in our Manual [Senior Manual,
1905-6] with the testimony of the Three Witnesses, especially Harris and
Whitmer. We are not able either to harmonize the theory of the Manual with the
following passages of scripture regarding the interpreters: Ether 3: 22-25;
Mosiah 8: 13-18; Mosiah 28: 11-15; D&C, Section 130: 8-10.
Unfortunately neither Roberts nor Holland quoted the "theory of the Manual" so we have to infer what it said from the context.
To answer the matter in the above
quotation, it is necessary to ask: What is the Manual theory of translating the
Nephite record? It is a theory based upon the only statement made by the
Prophet Joseph Smith on the subject, viz., "Through the medium of Urim and
Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God;" (Wentworth’s
letter, Millennial Star, vol. 9, page 118.) and the Lord's own
description of the manner of translating in general by means of Urim and
Thummim, contained in his revelation to Oliver Cowdery in the D&C, sections
viii and ix.
That is the only theory the Manual has upon the subject. The foregoing quotation from the prophet is all he has said with reference to the manner of the translation,
To the above sources Roberts could have added the Elders' Journal and what is now Joseph Smith-History, as well as Oliver Cowdery's writings, all of which corroborate the Wentworth letter and D&C 8-10. Like the Wentworth letter, all of these are missing from the GTE.
and we could wish that all other persons, necessarily less informed upon the subject than the prophet himself, had been content to leave the matter where he left it.
This is an important insight. Modern LDS historians have rejected what Joseph and Oliver said solely because of what "other persons, necessarily less informed" said decades later.
In this, however; they did not follow his wise example; but must needs undertake to describe the manner of the translation; and, from such description has arisen the idea that the Urim and Thummim did all, in the work of the translation, the prophet, nothing; except to read to his amanuensis what he saw reflected in the seer-stone or Urim and Thummim, which the instruments, and not the prophet, had translated.
Modern LDS historians take this one step further. They claim Joseph did not even use the Urim and Thummim, but instead the "peep stone" described in Mormonism Unvailed, the anti-Mormon book from 1834 that Joseph denounced. That is the basis for Royal Skousen's assertion that Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled everyone.
The men responsible for those statements, on which said theory
rests, are David Whitmer and Martin Harris. The former says:
A piece of something
resembling parchment did appear, (i.e., in Urim and Thummim), and on that
appeared the writing, one character at a time would appear, and under it was
the translation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to
Brother Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and then it was written
down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct; then it would
disappear and another character with the translation would appear. Thus the
Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any
power of man. (Address to all Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer,
page 12.)
We have no statement at first hand
from Martin Harris at all, only the statement of another, Edward Stevenson, as to
what he heard Martin say was the manner of translation. This was as follows:
"By aid of the seer stone,
sentences would appear, and were read by the prophet, and written by Martin,
and when finished he would say "written," and if correctly written
that sentence would disappear, and another appear in its place; but if not
written correctly, it remained until corrected so that the translation was just
as it was engraven on the plates precisely in the language then used. (Millennial
Star, vol. 24, page 86-87.)
These statements have led to the assumption of the theory, I repeat, that the Urim and Thummim did the translating, not Joseph the Seer.
It remains amazing that Roberts pointed this out in 1906 and yet 120 years later, our LDS historians teach that these dubious, late statements are more accurate than what Joseph and Oliver explicitly taught.
Accordingly, it is held that the translation was a mechanical, arbitrary, transliteration; a word for word bringing over from the Nephite language into the English language, a literal interpretation of the record.
The modern SITH theory does not assume a literal interpretation. Instead, the MIST (the mysterious incognito supernatural translator) put the words on the stone in the hat for Joseph to read.
The prophet, therefore, it is urged, was in no way responsible
for the language of the translation, it was not his, but the divine
instrument's, and if there are errors of grammar, or faults of diction, (modern
words for which in the nature of things there could be no exact equivalents in
an ancient language) New England localisms, modern phrases from the English
translation of Hebrew scripture, and other sources -- all these must have been
in the original Nephite record, say the advocates of this theory, and are
arbitrarily brought over into the English language.
The modern SITH theorists attribute the language in the text to the King James Version and grammar somehow derived from Early Modern English. Others point out that colonial drift and sources readily available to Joseph readily explain the language Joseph used. That Joseph did not consider the original text to be divinely dictated is shown by his numerous later revisions.
This theory of translation led
opponents of the Book of Mormon and some who were not opponents of it, but
sincere investigators of its claims -- to suggest certain difficulties involved
in such a theory of translation.
First. The impossibility of such a
thing as a word-for-word bringing over from one language into another. Such a
procedure could only result in producing an unintelligible jargon -- a fact
well known by those who are at all acquainted with translation.
This is why no one claims a literal translation.
Second. The fact that the language
of the English translation of the Nephite record is in the English idiom, and
diction of the period and locality when and where the translation took place,
and is evidently but little influenced by any attempt to follow the idiom of an
ancient language.
More recent research shows that instead, there is ancient structure in the translated text, such as chiasms and other parallel structures.
Third. The fact that such errors in
grammar and diction as occur in the translation are just such errors as might
reasonably be looked for in the work of one unlearned in the English language.
This is all evidence that Joseph translated the plates, just as he and Oliver said.
From this data the following argument proceeds: It is impossible that the alleged translation, whether by divine or human media, could be a word-for-word bringing over from the Nephite language into the English; and if the translation is not such a word-for-word bringing over affair, then it cannot be claimed that the Nephite original is responsible for verbal inaccuracies and grammatical errors. If the Book of Mormon is a real translation instead of a word-for-word bringing over from one language into another, and it is insisted that the divine instrument, Urim and Thummim, did all, and the prophet nothing -- at least nothing more than to read off the translation made by Urim and Thummim -- then the divine instrument is responsible for such errors in grammar and diction as did occur.
Yes, this is a basic argument against SITH.
But this is to assign responsibility for errors in language to a divine instrumentality, which amounts to assigning such errors to God. But that is unthinkable, not to say blasphemous. Also, if it be contended that the language of the Book of Mormon, word for word, and letter for letter, was given to the prophet by direct inspiration of God, acting upon his mind, then again God is made responsible for the language errors in the Book of Mormon -- a thing unthinkable.
This is why the SITH scholars say there are no errors when read through the lens of Early Modern English, and to the extent there are errors, they are the fault of the scribes. However, Joseph Smith himself revised the text twice, indicating he thought it could be improved.
Rather than ascribe these errors to
Deity, either through direct or indirect means, men will reject the claims of
the Book of Mormon; and, since the verbal errors in the Book of Mormon are such
as one ignorant of the English language would make, the temptation is strong,
in the minds of those not yet converted to its truth, to assign to the Book of
Mormon an altogether human origin.
These arguments reject Joseph's explanation; i.e., that he translated the plates. But SITH also rejects Joseph's explanation.
In the presence of these considerations, it is but natural to ask, "Is there no way by which such a conclusion may be avoided?" Most assuredly.
This is a key point. We should simply "set aside" SITH.
Set aside the theory based
upon the statements made by David Whitmer and Martin Harris, (mark you, I
say the theory based on these statements, not necessarily the
statements themselves) and accept the more reasonable theory based upon what
the Lord has said upon the subject in sections viii and ix of the D&C,
where, in describing how Oliver Cowdery might translate by means of Urim and
Thummim, the Lord said:
"I will tell
you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost which shall come upon
you, and it shall dwell in your heart."
Then, Oliver only having partially
succeeded, and that to a very limited extent, in his effort to translate, the
Lord, in explaining his failure, said:
"Behold, you
have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it [i.e., the power to
translate] unto you, when you took no thought, save it was to ask me; but,
behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must
ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall
burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right; but if it be not
right, you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought,
that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong."
This is the Lord's description of how Oliver Cowdery could have translated with the aid of Urim and Thummim (see context of the revelation quoted), and it is undoubtedly the manner in which Joseph Smith did translate the Book of Mormon through the medium of Urim and Thummim. This description of the translation destroys the theory that Urim and Thummim did everything, and the seer nothing; that the work of translating was merely a mechanical process of looking at a supplied interpretation, in English, and reading it off to an amanuensis.
Despite this rational, evidence-based argument, the faithful LDS SITH scholars instead claim Joseph didn't really translate anything.
This description in the D&C implies great mental effort; of working out the translation in the mind, and securing the witness of the Spirit that the translation is correct. In all this, Urim and Thummim are helpful. They are an aid doubtless to concentration of mind. They may have held at the time just the characters to be translated at the moment, and excluded all others; the translation thought out in the seer's mind may also have been reflected in the interpreters and held there until recorded by the amanuensis, all of which would be incalculably helpful. But since the translation is thought out in the mind of the seer, it must be thought out in such thought-signs as are at his command, expressed in such speech-forms as he is master of; for, man thinks, and can only think coherently, in language; and, necessarily, in such language as he knows.
Exactly. This is how Joseph and Oliver described it, and extrinsic evidence corroborates what they always said.
If his knowledge of the language in which he thinks and speaks is
imperfect, his diction and grammar will be defective. That errors of grammar
and faults in diction do exist in the Book of Mormon (and more especially and
abundantly in the first edition) must be conceded; and what is more, while some
of the errors may be referred to inefficient proof-reading, such as is to be
expected in a country printing establishment, yet such is the nature of the
errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the
book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient
proofreading, or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the
"typos," or the unfriendliness of the publishing house.
[Note: The following two sentences from
the original were omitted: “The errors are constitutional in their character;
they are of the web and woof of the style, and not such errors as may be
classed as typographical. Indeed the first edition of the Book of Mormon is
singularly free from typographical errors.”]
In the presence of these facts, only one solution to the difficulties presents itself, and that is the solution suggested in the Manual, viz., that the translator is responsible for the verbal and grammatical errors, in the translation; as it is said of the original Nephite record, so let us say of the translation of that record, "If there be faults, they are the faults of man;" not of God, either mediately or immediately.
Exactly.
Nor does this solution of the difficulties presented
cast any reflections upon Joseph the Seer. It was no fault of his that his
knowledge in the English language was so imperfect. His imperfect knowledge was
due entirely to his limited opportunity to acquire such knowledge; to
environment, not at all to neglect of opportunities or to mental laziness.
But it is objected that this theory
unsettles former conceptions of the part taken by Urim and Thummim, in the work
of translation. It upsets somewhat the marvelous that has been associated with
the translation of the Nephite record. "Shall we understand," writes
with some feeling one objector, "that Urim and Thummim are not what they
hitherto purported to be?" and cites somewhat indefinitely the testimony
of the Three Witnesses; refers, but not definitely, to the History of the
Church, and to a sermon by Brigham Young; also to the following passages in
the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants: Mosiah 28:11-15; Ether 3: 22-25;
Mosiah, 8:13-19; Doctrine and Covenants, section 130. We assure this writer and
other correspondents of the Era that there is no conflict between the
Manual theory of translation and these passages of scripture. The strongest
passage cited as suggesting a conflict is Mosiah 28:13-16, as follows:
And now he
translated them (i.e., the Jaredite records) by the means of those two stones
which were fastened into the two rims of a bow.
Now these things
were prepared from the beginning, and were handed down from generation to
generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages;
. . . .
And whosoever has
these things, is called seer, after the manner of old times.
Emphasizing and insisting upon a rigid construction of the words, "Now these things were handed down . . . for the purpose of interpreting languages," may seem to fix the power of interpretation in the divine instruments, not in the seer; but when these words are considered in connection with all that one may learn upon the subject, we know better than to insist upon a severely rigid construction.
Exactly.
It should be
observed in the opening sentence of the very passage quoted that these words
occur:
And now he (Mosiah)
translated them (the Jaredite records) by means of those two stones, which were
fastened to two rims of a bow.
In other words, Mosiah, the seer,
did the translating, aided by Urim and Thummim; it was not the Urim and Thummim
that did it, aided by Mosiah.
Moreover, the theory that the
interpreters did the translating, not the seer aided by them, is in conflict
with the Lord's description of translation by means of Urim and Thummim; and if
old conceptions respecting the part performed by Urim and Thummim are in
conflict with God's description of translation, then the sooner we are rid of
such Conceptions the better.
"We are not able," say
some of these objectors, "to harmonize the theory of translation,
presented in our Manual, with the testimony of the Three Witnesses." The
testimony of the Three Witnesses respecting the translation of the record,
mentioned in the foregoing, is simply this:
We also know that they have been
translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto
us.
This goes no further than the
Prophet's description, already quoted. The only thing Oliver Cowdery ever said,
outside of the official testimony of the Three Witnesses, was:
I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of
Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith,
as he translated by the gift and power of God, by the means of Urim and
Thummim.
Actually, Oliver also wrote Letter I, which is the note to Joseph Smith-History, which corroborates this statement as well.
This is all that he has said on the
subject, and that is in harmony, it will be observed with what the Prophet
Joseph Smith said, and at no point contradicts the view of translation set
forth in the Manual.
There remains, however, the statement of Whitmer and Harris, and it is claimed that the Manual theory of translation cannot be harmonized with what they have said. If that were true, and the Manual theory is more in harmony with what God has said upon the subject than what they have said, then all the worse for their theory -- "yea, let God be true but every man a liar!" And, by the way, in passing, I want to ask those who stand up so stoutly for the vindication of what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have chanced to say on the subject of translation -- What about the Lord's description of the same thing in the Doctrine and Covenants? Are they not interested in vindicating that description?
The GTE and modern scholars ignore what is said in the Doctrine and Covenants. They not only don't vindicate it, but they don't even inform their students and readers about it.
I care very little, comparatively, for what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have said about the subject. I care everything for what the Lord has said about it.
Our modern SITH scholars, as shown in the GTE, take the exact opposite view.
Whence did the two witnesses in question obtain such knowledge as
they had about the manner of translation? Undoubtedly, from the Prophet Joseph;
for they claim no revelation from the Lord upon the subject. And this knowledge
they did not announce until in the later years of their lives; nothing was said
about it, by them, until long after the death of the Prophet. They doubtless
have given their recollection of what the Prophet had told them about the
manner of translating; but experience and observation both teach us that there
may be a wide difference between what is really said to men, and their
recollection of it -- their impressions about it; especially when that
recollection or impression is not formulated into written statement until long
years afterwards.
It is not even clear that their statements were based on their recollection of what Joseph told them because their stories varied over time and appear to be more apologetic than factual in nature; i.e., they sought to refute the Solomon Spalding theory that Joseph dictated a text from behind a screen (or "vail.")
At the same time, it is proper to say, as the Manual suggests, that there is no necessary conflict between the statements of these two Witnesses and the Manual theory of translation. They say the Nephite characters, to be translated, appeared in Urim and Thummim. We say that may be true, or the Prophet may have looked through the interpreters -- since they were transparent stones - - and thus have seen the characters. They say the interpretation appeared in English, under the Nephite characters in Urim and Thummim; we say, if so, then that interpretation, after being wrought out in the Prophet's mind, was reflected into Urim and Thummim and held visible there until written. The English interpretation was a reflex from the Prophet's mind. (And may it not be that the peculiar quality of the Urim and Thummim was to reflect thought, especially God-given or inspired thought, as other substances reflect objects?) All this is possible, and is not in conflict with what either the Prophet or Oliver Cowdery said upon the subject; nor in conflict with the Lord's description of translation.
This is all speculation, of course, but not irrational.
But to insist that the translation of the Book of Mormon was an arbitrary piece of mechanical work, wrought out by transparent stones rather than in the inspired mind of the Prophet, is in conflict with the Lord's description of translation, and all the reasonable conclusions that may be drawn from the known facts in the case.
Exactly.
This
theory -- the Manual theory -- accepted, accounting for errors in grammar and
faulty diction, as pointed out in chapter vii, Part I of Manual, and in chapter
xlvii of the Manual, Part III, is easy.
It is asked, however, "Shall
we understand that Urim and Thummim are not what they have hitherto purported
to be?" By no means; if by "purported to be," is meant what the
seers, Mosiah of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith said of them. The former
said of them that "he translated by means of them" -- i.e., they were
an aid to him in translating. Joseph the seer said that "through the
medium" of Urim and Thummim, he translated the Nephite record -- i.e.,
they were an aid to him in the work of translation. But if by "purported
to be" is meant that the Urim and Thummim did the mental work of
translating -- that the instrument did everything, and the Prophet nothing,
except to read off what the instrument interpreted -- then the sooner that
theory is abandoned the better; there is nothing in the word of God, or right
reason, to warrant it; it is utterly untenable, and affords no rational
explanation of the difficulties arising from the existence of verbal and
grammatical errors in the translation of the Nephite record.
Not only was that SITH theory not abandoned in 1906, but our modern SITH scholars have elevated it to prominence in the GTE and other materials, to the point where most modern Latter-day Saints would be surprised to learn what Joseph and Oliver actually taught.
But the question is asked, "Why bring these matters up at all?" "I seriously question the expediency of any theory, beyond the facts that are definitely known and attested, to explain the details of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon," says one Era correspondent. So say we all.
Maybe in 1906 he could write "so say we all," but in 2026, most Latter-day Saints have been taught the opposite.
I wish Messrs. Whitmer and Harris, and those who have worked out theories based upon their statements, had left the whole matter where the Prophet Joseph left it; but this they failed to do.
Exactly.
Then opponents took up the question, and insisted that the theory of
translation, hitherto commonly accepted, requires us to charge all the faults
in diction and errors in grammar to the Lord; and also urge that we have no
right, under this theory of translation, to change a single word of the
translation, and some Latter-day Saints take the same view.
The correspondent last quoted also says: "It is enough for me to know that the Book of Mormon was translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, by the gift and power of God, through the means of the Urim and Thummim." The present writer might join in that simple, bigoted refrain, and say "for me, too."
This is a common sentiment among many Latter-day Saints today, and it's not irrational or unreasonable. But it also does not resonate with most people outside the Church, nor with many inside the Church.
But what of those for whom it is not enough? What of the many young men in the Church who hear the objections urged by the opponents of the Book of Mormon, based upon the hitherto popular conception of the manner in which the translation was accomplished -- what of them?
Exactly!
What of the earnest inquirers, in the world, whose knowledge of languages, and of translation, teaches them that the hitherto popular conception of the translation of the Book of Mormon is an absurdity, not to say an impossibility -- what of them?
Exactly!
What of the elders in the mission field who are constantly coming in contact with these questions involved in the manner of translating the Book of Mormon, and are asking -- as they have been asking for years -- for some rational explanation of these matters -- what of them?
Exactly!
It is not enough, in the presence of the controversies that have
arisen out of Messrs. Whitmer and Harris's unfortunate partial explanations, to
say that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and
that is enough for one to know.
That statement should be repeated and emphasized whenever this topic arises.
It is not a question involving merely the wisdom or unwisdom of setting up a "theory" of the manner in which the translation of the Book of Mormon was accomplished. A "theory" already existed, based upon the statements of Messrs. Whitmer and Harris, which, as generally understood, was untenable. This had to be corrected; and the truth, so far as possible, ascertained and expounded.
Instead of ascertaining and expounding the truth based on what Joseph and Oliver said, our modern LDS SITH scholars have promoted the SITH theory based on the statements of Whitmer and Harris (and others).
It was not the desire to create a new theory respecting the translation of the Book of Mormon that prompted the writer of the Manual to advance such explanations as are there made. Indeed, the theory set forth in the Manual did not originate with him.
Good point.
The difficulties involved in the hitherto commonly accepted theory of
translation have long been recognized by Book of Mormon students; and often
have been the subject of conversation between this writer and Elder George
Reynolds, President Anthon H. Lund, members of the Manual committee, and
others; and this writer by no means regards himself as the originator of what
is sometimes called the new theory of the Book of Mormon translation.
Meantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape.
Exactly.
It is given to the world as a revelation from God.
Some SITH scholars will say this contradicts everything else in this article because it means the text was revealed word-for-word, but that assertion ignores the congruent interpretation that Joseph's inspired translation, although articulated using his own vocabulary and grammar, was nevertheless a revelation.
It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph.
Exactly.
Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know.
Here is another problem with the GTE. By depriving readers of the teachings of Joseph and Oliver about the translation of the Book of Mormon, they asserted "a lofty air of superiority" and decided that "ordinary" Latter-day Saints should not even know that Joseph and Oliver taught.
The Book of Mormon is presented to the
world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their
fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of
its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently
investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given. This is
what, in an unpretentious way, is attempted in the Manual. The position there
taken is intended to be not destructive, but constructive; not iconoclastic,
but conservative; not negative, but positive; and the writer is of opinion that
time will vindicate the correctness of the views therein set forth.
Exactly.
[1] B.
H. Roberts, “Translation of the Book of Mormon,” Improvement Era, Vol.
9, No. 6 (April, 1906), pp. 425-436
[2]
The Deseret News, August 18, 1906.
