Robin Scott Jensen
The Interview: In the latest episode of LDS Perspectives Podcast, guest interviewer Stephen Smoot visits with Latter-day Saint Church historian Robin Jensen about the newly released Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts. Robin explains that this latest volume is part of the overall strategy of the Joseph Smith Papers Project to help scholars around the world study Latter-day Saint history. “We test our success, not in how many volumes we are selling” he declares. “But in how well they are being used. … If they are listed in the bibliographies of books, then we find that a success.” Scrutinizing Joseph and his teachings is highly encouraged and is now easier than ever before thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers project.
The interview dives into the question, “What is the relationship between the Book of Abraham and the papyri.” The relationship is difficult to define due to complexities and ambiguities in the available documents. Dealing with the challenges requires faith, but such faith does not require ignoring such challenges. Robin clarifies:
Let me be clear, sometimes people say it is a matter of faith as a way of sweeping under the rug, some of the complexities, I think we should definitely address the complexities because they are there. One of the things I appreciate about the volume is … that I have come to understand Joseph Smith as a translator better through it.
As we get to know Joseph better, Robin notes that our previous understanding of the Prophet’s translation efforts may need to be upgraded: “There may be some correctives in the process.” That is, our previous assumptions about how the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham were “translated,” may need to be revised.
It is possible that Joseph Smith’s “translations” involved more revelation and less traditional translating than previously suspected. If so, the relationship between the dictated texts might not strictly resemble the literal meanings of the engravings on the gold plates or the Egyptian hieroglyphics on the papyri. Joseph may not have even been aware of the discrepancies.
Robin states unapologetically: “It could be that Joseph Smith assumed that he was translating from the papyri when he was not, in fact translating from the papyri.” How could that be? “After mentioning the 1838 account from Warren Parrish, who wrote that Joseph received “the translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics … by direct inspiration of Heaven,” Robin further explains: “Joseph Smith received revelation for the text of the Book of Abraham. He may have through that revelation, made assumptions about where that text came from.” And those assumptions may have attributed a greater connection between the revelation and the papyri than was justified.
Later in the podcast the subject of seer stones arises. Robin confesses: “For me and my upbringing, seer stones are weird. To approach God, my first inclination is not to pick up a rock. That’s not how I was raised, but for Joseph Smith it was and the Lord was going to work through that.”
Don’t miss the remarkable discussion of Joseph Smith and translation in this week’s episode of LDS Perspectives Podcast.
About Our Guest: Robin Scott Jensen is an associate managing historian and the project archivist for the Joseph Smith Papers and coedited the first three volumes in the Revelations and Translations series (published 2009, 2011, and 2015, respectively). He specializes in document and transcription analysis. He is also a member of the Church History Department Editorial Board. In 2005 he earned an MA degree in American history from Brigham Young University, and in 2009 he earned a second MA in library and information science with an archival concentration from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. He is now pursuing a PhD in history at the University of Utah. He completed training at the Institute for the Editing of Historical Documents in 2007. He has published several articles and edited documents and has presented papers at various scholarly conferences.
Transcript: For a transcript of this podcast when it is made available, go to http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2018/11/07/book-of-abraham/.
This podcast is cross-posted with permission of LDS Perspectives Podcast.
If pure revelation straight from the Lord came to Joseph Smith in relation to the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon; if Joseph Smith was not translating literal characters, then why did he bother writing out a dictionary of the characters, along with their translation? Why did he even spend $2,700 for the mummies and papyri? He could have simply been inspired by the promptings received when Michael Chandler came visiting with his mummies, leading to the Book of Abraham. And why did he make so many statements to witnesses that he was literally “translating” the characters? The problem with church scholarship is that they want it both ways. Whenever they can come across something tangible to support the faith, they put it up on a pedestal and announce it proudly. Sadly, those tangible evidences are rare, few and far between. Whenever objectively-obtained evidence crops up (sadly, often and abundantly) that destroys the faith narrative, they simply state, “So what? Joseph received his information straight from the Lord anyway? Come on guys, do you have a testimony or do you not?”
I have not listened to the podcast. My comments come strictly from the Introduction given above, which I must “assume” to be accurate:
“It is possible that Joseph Smith’s “translations” involved more revelation and less traditional translating than previously suspected.” Where on earth did this statement come from? Joseph never did any “traditional” translating whatsoever; he didn’t know any reformed or regular Egyptian to translate into English. Who “previously suspected” that he ever translated in a traditional way? I never heard of anyone that thought so outside of critics until now.
“If so, the relationship between the dictated texts might not strictly resemble the literal meanings of the engravings on the gold plates or the Egyptian hieroglyphics on the papyri. Joseph may not have even been aware of the discrepancies.” This is a huge revisionist claim that contradicts the teachings of many modern prophets and apostles.
Jensen is here saying that Joseph was given the plates so that he could translate and dictate something else other than what they said. The illogic is confounding to me. When someone has the Spirit of the Lord upon them in great intensity, and is given the translation by the interaction of that Spirit and their mind and the physical object (seer stone or Interpreters), they are not being misled or making incorrect assumptions; they are having pure truth enter their minds and hearts. Too much “scholarship” in this conclusion and too little attention paid to the workings of the Spirit as explained in the early sections of the D&C.
“Robin states unapologetically: “It could be that Joseph Smith assumed that he was translating from the papyri when he was not, in fact translating from the papyri.” Another major revisionist claim that runs contrary to the teachings of the Church. I don’t care for scholars replacing the teachings of the prophets and apostles on this matter. We don’t have to agree with these editors’ scholarship, when others of like training and stature completely disagree with them. I will stick with Nibley and Muhlstein and Rhodes.
“He may have through that revelation, made assumptions about where that text came from.” And those assumptions may have attributed a greater connection between the revelation and the papyri than was justified.”
I don’t believe that a person receiving revelation–the truth of how things really are, were, and are to come, including revealed translations–can make assumptions; I think they can only be given pure truth, light, and knowledge.
33 years ago a man read to me a few sentences from his French language Book of Mormon and asked me what verses they were. I knew nothing of French and knew none of the meaning of any of the words he read. But the Holy Spirit instantly made known to me that he had just read Moroni 10:3-5 (which he confirmed). No assumptions or guesswork or even studying it out in my mind. It was given to me. Same with people who have received the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues. It is given to them and they don’t assume anything; its called revelation. The Holy Spirit works by truth and light, not letting prophets assume incorrect things that they then wrongly tell the world.
I hope this information from this scholar does not gain traction.
I enjoyed Robin’s comments and the impressive volume produced by him and his co-editor. I’m curious regarding whether he or Brian Hauglid were aware or addressed William Schryver’s research on the Kirtland Egyptian papers at https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-meaning-of-the-kirtland-egyptian-papers-part-i, which was presented at a FAIR Mormon conference.
The promised transcript is not yet available at http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2018/11/07/book-of-abraham/ .