- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Honestly, I haven’t looked into this issue as deeply as some of the other things that come up on here. I know this really bothers some people, but for whatever reason, I am more interested in other topics. I will have to look into this issue a bit better. From memory, it seems that Richard Bushman touched on this. Both the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham seem to be more revelatory–translation seems to be a misnomer. Clearly, Joseph did not translate like a scholar would. I don’t think the word “translation” is an accurate word to describe the process Joseph used to bring forth either book–the process was much more revelatory than translational. mormonheretic wrote:Clearly, Joseph did not translate like a scholar would. I don’t think the word “translation” is an accurate word to describe the process Joseph used to bring forth either book–the process was much more revelatory than translational.
I know we keep coming back to this point. I really have to apologize for not being able to remember references for what I am about to say. I would guess an amalgamation of Quinn and Jan Shipps if I had to guess.
Anyway, “translation” was a much more loose idea in the context of Joseph Smith’s and the early church’s setting. Keep in mind that most people (Mormon or not) would have thought it perfectly normal to go see the village “seer” when they couldn’t find an important lost object. These people might use a dowsing rod, or a rock with a hole in it to “peep” through, or a polished metallic bowl of reflecting water, or something like that.
So we today, from our scientific and materialist world view, think of “translation” like a computer. A = B. X = Y. It’s a mechanical process of changing one language’s word into the other. But to someone like Joseph Smith (and those around him), it was just as reasonable to look at a magic rock and “see” the meaning via mystical powers. This was real to them and valid. Might as well, right? Nobody else has any clue how to translate these alien pictographs.
In a round about way, this is a defense of Jamison’s point. Joseph et al COULD look at some drawings (aka the facsimiles) and build a whole text out of them through the process of magical translation. This would be absurd to our contemporary understanding, but it was not to them. That is why it COULD be a translation, even though it isn’t a translation.
Even with this explanation, it still doesn’t apologize the traditional translation myth within Mormonism — for either the BoM or the BoA. They aren’t translations in the modern sense.
What are they? At best they are inspired revelation, channeled texts from God. Perhaps channeled memories from the prophets they claim have been authored by. I don’t know. That’s as far in that direction as I can see one stretching it while being honest with the information we have available.
I tend to think it was channeled from Joseph’s subconscious, and leave room for that to be divinely inspired in a loose, fuzzy sense.
I think most people, though they might be shocked at first, would eventually be able to accept an understanding that JS, being a product of his times and region, understood and practiced revelation (or channeling, or whatever we want to call it) in a way that was consistent with his situation, though it seems a little weird to the modern mind. That works for the BoM. I suppose it also works for the BoA, but is a little harder to swallow because of all the elaborate claims that were made about the papyri, their mode of translation, the associated ‘Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar’, etc. It all smells a lot like Zelph to me, figuratively speaking. And let’s not forget about poor old Professor Anthon, by the way.
Yes Doug, obviously at the time they DID believe the revelatory “translation” was indeed the same as a scholarly technical translation – thus the efforts to technically retrace to the beginning from the revelatory end. Today we know such efforts were in vain — actually I think a case can be made that it didn’t take long back in the day for them to also realize it just wasn’t going to work. You make some very good points Brian, I think it is very helpful to understand the people, place, and time that surrounded these events. “Translation” just didn’t mean the same thing to them as it does to us, in a complete sense of the word anyway. I think to “see” events could have a different meaning to them also. There are several places where the witnesses and other members talked about a “spiritual” sight. Even in the testimony of the three witnesses it says “…we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they
have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man.” When I was younger I always assumed this meant the angel who physically brought the plates into their clear daylight view was obviously of the power of God. Today after reading other accounts of “spiritual sight” and “the eyes of our understanding” I get the impression that “by the power of God” refers to the mode of the vision – which was not a base or earthly sight. Discussions of how, why, or if Joseph Smith translated the BoA, the BoM, or restored the temple ceremony and all that goes along with it are a serious impediment to me in trying to stay LDS. There are no logical explanations and the only defense is that the Spirit has witnessed and everything else doesn’t matter. The church today is the one I’m trying to participate in and is nothing like the one that JS organized. Some of the jargon and millenialist theology persists but it still comes down to a group of good decent people on a local level trying to do the best they can for each other in a Christian sense and a leadership in Salt Lake trying to herd cats in the right direction. If I were forced to make a up or down, black or white decision about these problems like Pres. Hinckley asserted, I’d leave. My choice for now is to see the church for what it is now and think as little as possible about JS and what he did or didn’t do and why he did or didn’t do it. Good point Brian. And if jamison was saying the same thing, than I apologize. That is NOT WHAT I heard him saying though. And I absolutely agree with Doug. If SLC and the apologetic would just admit that JS made a mistake about the origin of text, and start to be a bit more open and honest about the process I really think they might stop this whole “painting themselves in the corner” on this issue, ie if the apologetics, would stop insisting that Joseph “translated” the scrolls, and instead just adopt the position that he did not know how to decipher Eygtian and that he “channeled” some “spiritual truths” thinking he was translating scrolls,I for one, would have a much easier time with the issue. I think this is well said,
Brian Johnston wrote:.What are they? At best they are inspired revelation, channeled texts from God. Perhaps channeled memories from the prophets they claim have been authored by. I don’t know. That’s as far in that direction as I can see one stretching it while being honest with the information we have available.
I tend to think it was channeled from Joseph’s subconscious, and leave room for that to be divinely inspired in a loose, fuzzy sense.
I absolutely have no problem with that – at all.
Brian Johnston wrote:mormonheretic wrote:Clearly, Joseph did not translate like a scholar would. I don’t think the word “translation” is an accurate word to describe the process Joseph used to bring forth either book–the process was much more revelatory than translational.
…this explanation, it still doesn’t apologize the traditional translation myth within Mormonism — for either the BoM or the BoA. They aren’t translations in the modern sense…What are they?
At best they are inspired revelation, channeled texts from God. Perhaps channeled memories from the prophets they claim have been authored by.I don’t know. That’s as far in that direction as I can see one stretching it while being honest with the information we have available. I tend to think it was channeled from Joseph’s subconscious, and leave room for that to be divinely inspired in a loose, fuzzy sense.
The problem I have with the idea of “channeling” stories through the subconscious mind is that it seems like it would be hard to really tell the difference between any “inspired” information received this way and random thoughts, dreams, opinions, etc. that originated entirely from the mind of Joseph Smith. But JS presented this all as new revealed scripture as if it was all the word of God from beginning to end. Even if we ignore the origins and just look at the actual contents of the book I think it is still an embarrassment to the Church because it is talking about things like Kolob and how the “curse” of Cain was preserved through the flood.
Reading some of his journals in the “Joseph Smith Papers” one thing that stood out to me is how much Joseph Smith liked to show off these Egyptian records and mummies to everyone he could. It’s almost like he took a lot of flack about not having the gold plates and now he had some real physical artifacts he could show people to go along with his stories that he had the gift and power of God to translate ancient records and deliver new scriptures. It’s kind of interesting to see that what helped JS gain support in his own time is now one of the biggest thorns in the Church’s side.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:The problem I have with the idea of “channeling” stories through the subconscious mind is that it seems like it would be hard to really tell the difference between any “inspired” information received this way and random thoughts, dreams, opinions, etc. that originated entirely from the mind of Joseph Smith.
Yes, yes — it is difficult. The wheat and the chaff grow from the same source; you have to sift — or to be more precise you need to thresh and winnow.
…then if you plant wheat it will grow, if you plant chaff you get nothing. Wheat will nourish, chaff will clean you out…
Quote:The problem I have with the idea of “channeling” stories through the subconscious mind is that it seems like it would be hard to really tell the difference between any “inspired” information received this way and random thoughts, dreams, opinions, etc. that originated entirely from the mind of Joseph Smith.
Fwiw, that is part of what Brian is addressing, I think – since most “random thoughts, dreams, opinions” in former times was not distinguished from revelation – and I dare say that much, if not most, of our canonized scripture might be described accurately that way. Knowing that makes it MUCH easier for me to accept Joseph as a prophet, since his actions and approaches and paradigms in this regard match really well what I understand about “historic” prophetic actions and approaches and paradigms.
On another note – the flip side, if you will, I find it fascinating that many people who decry Joseph’s approach simultaneously decry the lack of a “thus saith the Lord” approach in current prophets. Just sayin’.
I’ve been following along with the different thoughts of how JS did his translation of the BoA and I’m still left with the question of what does it matter. Does it change anything? Does if have to be settled in order for us to function? Does the church as a whole and the leadership even care? Just wondering. GBSmith wrote:I’ve been following along with the different thoughts of how JS did his translation of the BoA and
I’m still left with the question of what does it matter. Does it change anything? Does if have to be settled in order for us to function? Does the church as a whole and the leadership even care?Just wondering. Sure it doesn’t really matter that much to members like some of us that already don’t feel like we need to believe in the majority of what the Church leaders say and view the Church as more of a social club than the ultimate source of truth and spiritual guidance. However, to any hardcore TBMs that still desperately want to hold on to all the Church’s major doctrines about prophets, revelation, the restoration, and one trueness it makes all the difference in the world because it makes it much harder to really believe in all these claims at the same time anymore. It wouldn’t be quite so bad if the Church wasn’t so dogmatic about insisting that their story is just the way it is and that anyone that thinks otherwise couldn’t be more wrong. For example,
Gordon B. Hinckleyhad the following to say about what the Church is supposed to be: Quote:“Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground.
It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.“
I’m sorry but if those are really the only two options here then I think they might as well get it over with and pack up shop; but because it’s too painful to really face the facts it looks like they have gone into full denial mode instead. I understand that some of this information has been around since 1967 and the Church is still going strong in spite of all this. However, to me this is not so much an indication that it doesn’t really matter to most Church members as much as a case of most active members simply not knowing about it yet and that many of the ones that do are still trying to ignore or deny the real implications of it.
The problem is that the internet makes it harder to hide from this information anymore; it is just sitting there waiting for more members to stumble onto (Luke 8:17). Once this story is exposed many members feel like victims as if the way the Church treated them is completely wrong and unfair. This is one of the main reasons why I think the Church should tone it down with some of their claims and try to morph into a kinder gentler Church if they are really serious about calling themselves Christians. It just doesn’t seem like a very nice thing to do to give members such a guilt-trip about all these heavy demands and expectations when the primary justification for all this is this highly questionable prophet mythology that depends so much on people ignoring all these contradictions between the evidence and what they say.
Ray wrote,
Quote:“Fwiw, that is part of what Brian is addressing, I think – since most “random thoughts, dreams, opinions” in former times was not distinguished from revelation – and I dare say that much, if not most, of our canonized scripture might be described accurately that way.Thanks for this thought. My black vs. white church upbringing would never have let me come up with this possibility on my own. When I read it, I just took a deep breath and enjoyed the new perspective!
f4h1
GBSmith I really like your question, and DA I really like you answer. Thank you both. When I first started watching the video on YouTube, I had just linked to other church sponsored videos from lds.org. I saw the video there and began to watch. At that point, I thought it was church sponsored. I fully expected it to show that JS had done exactly as I had been taught, and firmly believed! I was so excited, thinking now I can show people, not just tell them, that I know this church is true. As I watched I felt sick, and hollow inside. I once thought to stop watching, but the evidence was, in my belief, fair and without gross bias. That was the day my mormon world view started to crumble, I began to reexamine everything.
from DA’s post
Quote:“Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”Gordon B Hinckley
If being the one and only “true church” means the church is exactly what is claims to be, or it is a fraud. Then in my opinion its an easy call, IMO it is fraud!
f4h1
Good thing that it doesn’t have to be what some Church leadersclaim it to be, then. 
I think it’s important to be very careful of stereotyping “The Church” as what certain leaders see it as being. For each statement like the one by Pres. Hinckley quoted here, there are other Prophets and apostles who have said things that don’t match it. Seriously, if you can’t find a Mormon apostle who has said something that disagrees with any other comment by a Mormon apostle, you probably haven’t searched enough. (I don’t think it’s important to be able to quote competing apostles. Seriously. No, really, seriously. Knowing it’s possible is enough for me, since I really don’t like to waste time justifying one quote over another. I’m just not into that type of apologetics.)
it’s been said that defining IMMUTABLE Mormon doctrine is like nailing Jello to a wall. I agree –
and I like it that way.For your enjoyment:
“Mormonism at last defined”( http://i.imgur.com/KR55e.jpg )Old-Timer wrote:Good thing that it doesn’t have to be what
some Church leadersclaim it to be, then. it’s been said that defining IMMUTABLE Mormon doctrine is like nailing Jello to a wall. I agree –
and I like it that way.For your enjoyment:
“Mormonism at last defined”( http://i.imgur.com/KR55e.jpg )Nice one Ray,
😆 Where do you find this stuff?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.