Book of Mormon Translation

Brad Wilcox is a BYU Religion professor. He has long been an LDS motivational speaker in a similar vein to John Bytheway. He is a good speaker. I recall some things in his speeches that I believe were misleading but important for dramatic effect. As a storyteller myself, I understand that the best stories have altered the dry truth to better fit the format.

I like Brother Wilcox and Brother Bytheway. I do not consider them in the same category as Richard Bushman.

I believe that the PofGP is important in understanding the translation of the BofM. In the PofGP we have the (possibly incomplete) original source documents and they do not match up with the translation performed by JS. This does not mean that the PofGP is not historically accurate. It might be that there was a document with these words written and lost shortly after in the time of Abraham. There is also some reason to believe that JS saw the individuals and events that are described in the BoM through vision. There is precedent for God showing both history and future events to prophets in visions (think Nephi witnessing the birth, ministry, and death of Jesus before it happened). Maybe the papyri had nothing to do with Abraham but it was useful as a catalyst to spur JS into receiving direct revelation on the great patriarch. Maybe the “golden plates” had a similar purpose and function.

I believe there is also evidence that, whatever the translation process, there are multiple BoM elements from the culture and time period of JS. How much of JS ended up on the page? Where does Joseph’s words stop and God’s words begin?

I agree that this is a new narrative for the church. We had thought that the BoM (minus some gramatical mistakes and clerical errors) was a word for word translation as supplied by God through the Urim and Thumim. I believe that this narrative is evolving.

Where does Joseph’s words stop and God’s words begin?

I don’t think that a distinction can be made, though we like to try.

I think it winds up looking like a stone paved pathway. God’s words/message is the pathway itself, while Joseph’s words are the individual stones that make up the pathway. The placement of the individual stones can cause friction between the stones (when the words don’t match up) if they are placed poorly, but it is hard to tell which way the path will ultimately go by looking at a stone or two. From the outside, It is easy to judge that the stones don’t fit properly or that the design they create is not appealing, but it is harder to know the purpose of the placement or other divine parameters at work. A bystander looking at the path does not have the backstory or the experiences in how the path was created to provide additional context and understanding about and of the relationship between Joseph and God.

Another way of putting it is that I believe that God’s words become Joseph’s words through either the process of bringing the divine message into mortal terms and concepts AND/OR through connecting pieces of narrative received as divine understanding into a mortal spiritual/ethical paradigm. In this way, the words of Joseph (or of our church leaders/teachers) become a starting point for a divine interchange between our mortally constrained souls and the divine message (Potentially – it doesn’t always work as planned).

Whether the BoM originated in the ancient Americas or in the mind of JS, the result is the same. They are the words of men. We men (and women) can be God’s hands and feet. Can our words also be God’s words and carry God’s message?

I think that identifying God’s words and message in daily living really comes down to the perspective of the relationship between God and man that that person has. If that person is used to seeing the hand (and words) of God in everything, then that person will identify and voice those words more easily (whether they are actually the words of God is another story). If a person is used to NOT seeing the hand (and words) of God in anything and everything, then by definition, the words are not identified as godly (though it is possible that those words resounding through space are godly). I also think that there are degrees in between – like when your kids fight and fight you on the list of the chores for the day, and then offer to swap out a chore for a lesser chore – it ends up being not what you were going for, but better than you had, so you take it). I think there will be a few surprises regarding what was an important message from God vs what actually wasn’t.

Can MLK “I have a dream” speach be simultaniously the words of Dr. King and God’s word? In the same way that the BoM can be the words of JS (and/or ancient American writers) and also God’s word? How are they similar? How are they different?

My faith transition has taught me to assume that pretty much any communication is a product of both mortal and divine interaction. It winds up looking like the yin-yang symbol in a hazy way – there is an clear element of both aspects intertwined. I guess that I would say that the white aspect of the symbol is automatically divine, while the black aspect is automatically mortal. We believe that God is with us, so we see small percentages of the white aspect in our black aspect lives. Because God’s purpose is to improve (and deal with us), there is some of the black aspect in the white aspect side. To me, in some hazy way, the Atonement ties together the two sides and takes out the sting of being mortal (to a certain degree in this life). I guess at the end of the day, I expect everything to have mortal and divine components and have learned not to condemn the mortal side for being mortal (not divine enough), and allow that everything may have a divine meaning or message involved (potentially).

Nibbler, you make some good points. I recently read a FB post by David Bokovoy where he put forward the view that the BOM has great value as scripture even though he does not view it as historical. The key point he made is that we have used the BOM as a tool to prove the legitimacy of everything. If you prayed about the BOM and received a testimony, Joseph was a prophet, we have the keys, the current prophet speaks with God and you should do your hometeaching. It’s a double edged sword tho and when people deconstruct, they often reach the opposite conclusion, the BOM is not true (a translation of a historical record), Joseph wasn’t a prophet, etc. I like Greg Prince’s statement that we still aren’t sure what it is, but let’s focus on what it does.

I agree that if you take a very broad view of scripture, the BOM can fit in (but you may also include a lot of other stones in the process). I view it as the sacred stories of my people. I am at peace with not having it be a historical translation and having it be inspired sacred story (scripture).

There is still a part of me that wants to unravel the mystery and figure out how the mechanics of producing it worked. That was the spirit of my actual post. I’m fascinated by the different theories. My theory satisfies my read of the data and answers my questions. If anyone wants to hear my narrative on how it was translated, here it is.

1. Joseph had an encounter with the divine and felt called to bring forth the BOM (this was the original First Vision experience that was much more mystical and foggy than we have in our narrative now). 2. Joseph feared no one would believe him or take him seriously, he used his training in magick and showmanship to create buzz with the story and props of gold plates that were probably made out of tin. 3. That certainly generated buzz and got out of hand and he had to actually focus and produce the book. 4. The way he had communed with spirit and focused his mind was through the process of scrying (looking at the stone). 5. Through this process he was able to channel and tune into a narrative that he produced that answered burning religious questions of the time, questions in his family and put them all in the time frame of ancient America, which was of great interest to people at the time. 6. The fruits have been very good, it has been a narrative that has moved people for 200 years and stays relevant today, even though many of the questions addressed were more relevant to the 19th century.

Yesterday in testimony meeting a speaker bore testimony of how the state of the art printing press became available for the first time in the region for the printing of the BoM and then (once it had served its purpose) was quietly disassembled and sold to a buyer in another region. I assume that this story is not historically accurate – but it serves as an example of the types of “God’s hand is evident” occurrences people crave.

Actually, that is pretty accurate historically. The press Grandin bought was state of the art for small printing presses of the day (in that it was metal, not wood), and he used it to print a local newspaper as well. To have such a press in a small town was a bit unusual, but the use of the Erie Canal, the “super highway” of it’s day, made it possible. A short couple years after printing the BoM Grandin decided the printing business wasn’t his cup of tea and sold the business. He was a printer for a total of about 4 years.

I get what you’re saying here though, and the reason I know what I know is because I have heard similar “God’s hand” narratives and investigated for myself (easier because I don’t live so far away from there and I like history). Could God have set his hand and willed the Erie Canal which made it possible for the press to have come to Palmyra thus more easily facilitating the printing of the BoM? I suppose so. The legacy of the canal is still obvious today – if you look across that part of upstate New York from Buffalo to Albany (basically the current route of the NYS thruway, which essentially follows the canal route) the largest cities in the state other than NYC developed because they were along the Erie Canal. There was a competing plan to build in the southern part of the state, and politics won out on behalf of the more northern canal. Had the southern backers won we’d know more about places like Binghamton and Elmira than Syracuse and Rochester. Could the canal plan and Grandin have been all just politics, coincidence and luck? In my book that’s just as likely as the “God’s hand” idea. I have also heard it supposed that had the printing press not been available in Palmyra, Joseph would have had to travel many miles to get the book printed. Granted the other printing presses in the Rochester area may not have been as state of the art as Grandin’s it was still possible to have printed the book in Rochester without having had to travel great distances. It was convenient for Joseph to shop locally, but he didn’t seem all that much concerned with travel because after he contracted with Grandin he went back to Harmony, well over 100 miles away, to finish the manuscript.

Cadence:

That is a lot of speculation for me. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

Yep, me too. Perhaps it was God’s plan, perhaps it was politics, perhaps it was a mix, perhaps it was dumb luck, perhaps….

And that’s your history lesson for today.

Thank you for pointing out that resource Felix. I am now revising my theory with this new information. There appears to be evidence for a combination of both mystical and tangible experiences with the gold plates (though the purely tangible experiences often do come in the sort of “heft the weight” situations).

Interesting.

I also find it interesting that in the article you linked to the author diminishes the value of the mystical type theories in favor of a more literal translation of an actual dead language on an actual artifact. I understand that such mystical type theories are just the sort of thing that apologists have turned to with the BofA.