© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Human descriptions of the Book of Mormon translation process are always subjective, to one degree or another, because of the limitations of human observation, thought, memory, expression, motive, and reporting. This even affected Joseph and Oliver.
I didn’t see the following referenced in this article, even though it is directly on point and a serious piece of scholarship, since the analysis tries to make sense of conflicting accounts and reach a determination of what might have been likely:
https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-update-of-the-pre-print-of-a-discussion-of-the-book-of-mormon-witnesses-by-royal-skousen/
A few more points.
First, the verb translate doesn’t have just one meaning. In fact, it probably has two meanings in AoF8: today’s default meaning and ‘retransmission’. In light of this, Joseph Smith’s use of translate in relation to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon could very well be a non-default meaning.
Second, no one should come up with a position on the Book of Mormon’s biblical material based on looking at a small subset of the 17,200+ words that qualify as modified King James quotations. All of the 36 sections, which we identified and laid out in KJQ (2019), must be considered by a serious researcher.
Third, you believe that Joseph Smith was a translator of the Book of Mormon in today’s default sense and that the dictation language was how he spoke (see Infinite Goodness, 313). There is a lot of nonbiblical Elizabethan language in the Book of Mormon, including vocabulary and syntax and syntactic patterns. Furthermore, many so-called 19c phrases arose during the early modern period (and before). For instance, “infinite goodness” itself first appears no later than the late 1400s (see my March 2020 Interpreter paper, which you neglected to mention in your book; I traced the historical usage of the phrase because Grant Hardy had it in a 2018 BYU Studies paper, also not mentioned). This means that you believe that Joseph spoke 1590s (Elizabethan) English in 1820s America. But we know from various things he wrote between 1829 and 1832 that his written language was like 1820s American English usage. Your belief is that Joseph simply spoke and wrote differently (ibid.). In this case, it would have to be vastly different – indeed, 200+ years different. A priori, this is quite unlikely. Moreover, Joseph wasn’t trained in scribal diglossia, which would have been needed for him to set aside his ultra-archaic spoken language and write so very differently. Therefore your view of Book of Mormon English and translation must be rejected on rational grounds.
This is a good example of adopting a highly unlikely position without apparently thinking through details and ramifications, all the while leading people to believe that the position adopted is likely.
Hi Brother Neville …
This year as we’re been studying the BoM as part of CFme … I’m doing a closer reading … also, I’ve been reading your book “By Means of the U & T” and listening to your podcasts about plates and translation process ..
Question? … do you have some thoughts as to where “Words of Mormon” was in/on the plates? … Did Mormon put a “Words of Mormon” plate in his “Plates of Mormon” or did Mormon add a “Words of Mormon” plate at the end of the small plates of Nephi? And were the Small Plates kept separate from the Plates of Mormon or were the Small Plates somehow attached to the Plates of Mormon AND included in the Hill Cumorah box?
I read Don Bradley’s comments in “The Lost 116 pgs…” 108-110. On pg 108 Bradley suggests that Mormon, “…spliced the intrusive small plates into his record..” Then later in the same paragraph Bradley says, “… he included the small plates with his record…” But his use of the words ‘spliced” and “included” aren’t used by Mormon…. Mormon actually says, “…I shall take these plates… and PUT them with the remainder of my record…”
If Mormon “spliced” the small plates into the plates of Mormon, I presume JSmith & OC would have encountered this “spliced” section during the translation… which doesn’t seem correct. To me it makes more sense that Mormon kept the Small Plates of Nephi separate with WoM plate added at the end of the Small Plates.
“Splicing” also doesn’t sound right to me since the “small” plates were translated LAST in Fayette.
Also it seems that the WoM plate would have been attached to the small plates because there would be no need for WoM if the 116 pgs weren’t lost.
Another curious note. My chapter heading for Words of Mormon in my printed BoM says, “he inserts the plates of Nephi into his abridgement”… but I notice that the on-line scripture heading has been updated to, “He puts (not inserts) the small plates with the other plates” So the church scripture committee seems unsure about what the word “put” means.
Any insight or response on where the WoM plate was, would be greatly appreciated ..
Thanks, Blair Lucas
949.378.7826
Hi Blair. Thanks for the questions. I posted an article on this at this link:
https://www.mobom.org/words-of-mormon-analysis
If they don’t allow active links in these comments, go to mobom.org and click on the “Church history issues” tab. This is the last article listed under “Origin of the Book of Mormon (translation).”
Don Bradley’s speculation in his book is plausible but it doesn’t make sense to me. At any rate, IIRC, he now agrees with the two sets of plates scenario, whereby Joseph didn’t get the plates of Nephi until after he arrived in Fayette.
That’s also an interesting observation about the chapter headings that I hadn’t noticed before. Thanks for pointing that out.
Here’s a summary of the two sets of plates narrative:
The Title Page (the last leaf of the plates) describes the contents of the plates. It refers to two abridgments but does not mention any original plates (apart from Moroni “sealing” the record with his own writing). From the Title Page, we can infer that the “small” plates of Nephi, which were original plates and not abridgments, were not included in the plates Moroni sealed and deposited in the stone box.
We can also see from D&C 9 that Oliver was told to finish “this record,” meaning the abridged plates Joseph was translating in Harmony, and then there would be “other records” Oliver would assist to translate. D&C 10 explains what those “other records” were; i.e., the plates of Nephi. But Joseph and Oliver didn’t have the plates of Nephi in Harmony. They didn’t get those until the messenger brought them to Fayette from the repository in Cumorah.
Thanks Brother Neville … I read the short mobom article you referenced … apparently it also makes sense to you that the WoMormon “plate” was attached to the small plates…. in your podcasts/ interviews you generally include the other material (in the article) in your concise explanations … especially the part about the “Brother Nephi” encounter on the road, on his way to Cumorah…. if you were to include the last point about the WoM plate being attached to the Small Plates in your future interviews, I’m sure that would spark some interesting conversation… 🙂
Hope you don’t mind if have an add’l observation/ question. I’ve heard you explain in more than one of your interview podcasts your view regarding a translation in the “normal” sense of the word and a “literal” translation. You use as evidence [just paraphrasing going off my memory] JS statement regarding the title page of the BoM … that JS says the title page was a “literal translation… so JS knew the difference between a “literal translation” and the kind of translation JS was engaging in with the rest of the BoM … [I’m at work so I don’t have the direct JS quote] but I see JS statement 180 degrees opposite of what I think you’re trying to communicate …
My take on the JS statement that the Title page not being a “modern composition…. but is a literal translation” is: I think people must have been asking/ or suggesting to JS that the Title page was a modern composition…. not part of the translation process. To me JS statement means [speaking for JS]… “No … the Title Page is not a modern composition, the Title page is a literal translation …. just like the rest of the BoM” To me JS puts the origination of the Title Page AND the rest of the BoM in the same category, not different translation categories …
That’s my “multiple working hypothesis” … not for contention purposes……
Your comments?
Also, I’m currently reading “By Means of the U&T” thank you for all the web link which have allowed me to look up the original documents. And I have completely eliminated the SITH from my discussion with family and other members
Any comments on the Title Page would be greatly appreciated by me
thanks, Blair Lucas 949.378.7826
I like your point about the WofM plate being attached to the small plates. That is consistent with Moroni adding the Title Page at the end of the abridged plates.
Your idea of inferring JS meant the Title Page was a literal translation just like the rest of the text is a reasonable alternative working hypothesis.
In my view, the “misunderstanding” or “error” to which Joseph referred was specific to the Title Page because it was what he used in the copyright notice. People might naturally think Joseph composed the Title Page as part of the copyright application. It seems to me that if the entire text was a literal translation, the biblical passages (Isaiah, Matthew, Malachi) would not read identical to the King James translation. But that’s just me.
🙂
Your question prompted me to provide a list of all the sources for the “literal translation” passage, along with a couple of related observations by Jonathan Edwards. I put them on the LetterVII.com blog.
https://www.lettervii.com/2024/05/a-literal-translation.html
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments/suggestions.
Hi Brother Neville … thanks for all those references regarding the “literal translation. I read them all.
I got sidetracked. For last couple of weeks I’ve been studying Clifford Jones article in the Interpreter:
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/that-which-you-have-translated-which-you-have-retained/
It’s fits in with my previous questions about the “Words of Mormon” plate. Jones makes a compelling argument that “Words of Mormon” is actually the original Mosiah chapter 2… and that the orginal Mosiah chapter 1 was part of the 116 lost pages.
I’d appreciated you comments on his fine article if possible.
Jones also does have quite a number of references indicating his belief that the Small plates were with the Plates of Mormon or even attached to the plates of Mormon and retrieved by JS on Sep 21, 1927.
But putting this aside I don’t think any of his other conclusions hinge on whether the small plates were “with” the plates of Mormon or whether the small plates were delivered later to JS in Fayette.
But I’m leaning towards Jones explanation that the “words of Mormon” plate was NOT attached by Mormon at the end of of the Small Plates… but I’d appreciate your insights on Jones’ conclusions.
Also what is the IIRC … you used this term in your previous reply. I presume the IIRC is the official church scripture-review committee? or?
Thanks for all your insights in your books and podcasts.
I’m continuing my reading of your book, “By Means of the U&T”
Blair Lucas
Hi Blair. IIRC is “if I recall correctly.”
🙂
I’ve read the Jones article. He makes a plausible case for another of multiple working hypotheses. I’ll respond in more detail when I get the time. Preliminary comments. In my opinion, Oliver was not the scribe for the Book of Mosiah for all the reasons I’ve discussed previously. Therefore he was simply copying what had been written by Martin Harris and/or Emma. That would explain why he drew the two lines; i.e., when he finished copying Omni (which he presumably wrote as the original scribe in Fayette), he drew the lines to designate that he was beginning to copy what Martin/Emma had originally written in Harmony. This is why he initially copied III and then crossed out II, and could also be why he wrote the 2 at the top of Words of Mormon. (Here, I infer that the original chapter 2 did not begin with Words of Mormon, however.) I also agree that the alternative meaning of “about to” fits, but there’s no reason to consult Early Modern English because Jonathan Edwards, among others, used the phrase in that sense.
The reply by Jonathan Neville to this comment by Blair Lucas doesn’t relate directly to Neville’s article being discussed here. It does, however, relate directly to my article, “That Which You Have Translated, Which You Have Retained.” I’ve responded to his comment under my article where others interested in my article can benefit from the discussion. You can read my response here: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/comments-page/?id=41908. This response addresses only his assertion concerning the term ‘about to.’ I will address his other assertion in a later response.
As I explained before, I’ve put my responses to this comment by Jonathan Neville under my article “That Which You Have Translated, Which You Have Retained,” so others interested in my article can benefit from the discussion. I responded earlier to his assertion concerning the term ‘about to.’ Today, I added a response to his other assertions. You can read both of my responses here: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/comments-page/?id=41908.
Jonathan Neville quotes Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, the first and second Elders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Kraus does not. Maybe the latter doesn’t know the Church is built on a foundation of Apostles and Prophets, not observers.
It is hard to reconcile the almost incomprehensible effort and sacrifice that went into producing, preserving, protecting, and physically transmitting from generation to generation, the metal plates over a period of 1,000 years (“And after this manner we keep the records, for it is according to the commandments of our fathers.”), the subsequent burial by the last author and retrieval by the translator, along with the “interpretors” (“Doubtless a great mystery is contained within these plates, and these interpreters were doubtless prepared for the purpose of unfolding all such mysteries to the children of men.”), the superhuman effort required of Joseph to protect and possess the plates while in his custody——nay, not hard to reconcile—–impossible to reconcile these facts with a narrative that then dismisses the necessity of the physical plates to bring forth the record because all that was really needed was a peep-stone from a well, and the content would be transmitted mystically to the glowing stone. If only Nephi and Mormon and Moroni had known! I can imagine them when they realized that their precious record to which their lives were devoted (along with an unknowable number of record-keepers reviewed by Mormon in his compilation duties) was really only a prop with the sole purpose of being shown as testimony to the BofM witnesses! Why were the record and interpreters returned to Joseph after the loss of the manuscript if all he needed was a peep- stone? I believe Joseph used the word “translate” correctly. I believe Oliver used the word “translate” correctly. I believe the record-keepers toiled and sacrificed and scratched engravings on real metal plates to preserve a record because it was always intended to be, and became in actual fact, the source of the “translation” we now have as the Book if Mormon.
As supporter and admirer of Jonathon E. Neville’s work, I have a hypothesis to expand upon on Jonathon Neville’s Stone in the Hat (SITH) refutation. This hypothesis might provide some reconciliation between the Translation and transmission academic divide. I postulate that Joseph put the actual Urim and or Thummim into the Hat, made of beaver skin to obey the Commandment of God not to show the Nephite Interpreters. We don’t know how the Nephite Interpreters worked. But it is worth considering, if the Interpreters were within proximity of the Plates the translation process could still work. Consider modern WIFI technology as a possible concept of the link between the Plates and the Interpreters. The communication method from the Interpreters and the Plates, perhaps did not require direct line of sight to work, but more proximity. Respectfully. RLB
We address the idea of understanding the interpreters as technology in our next book, Confound the Wise: Restoring Translation to the Restoration.
I don’t think I have talked to anyone who has a belief in the BOM that the interpreters weren’t a form of technology, that premise isn’t much of a research question. The real question is what are the parameters by which they worked, and how could at least some of them be explained?
I have actually propounded a similar premise on the BOM Archeological FB page a year or so ago. At least one witness to events or there at the time indicates that the interpreters were placed in the hat. I have investigated hat sizes during that era and a large one had an interior brim diameter (not really diameter as not completely circular) of 8 1/2 inches with the interior having dimensions widening even further to the top of the hat. The spectacles were described as being 8 inches wide so they would have fit in their entirety. It is also possible that each stone could be removed from the spectacles and one stone placed in the hat. The stones were not originally in a metal spectacle setting, this was done by the Nephites. The spectacle metal was described as silver in color, the only metal so described that would not have tarnished to black is platinum, and it was only mined in Mesoamerica (or anywhere) during the Nephite time period, not Jaredite. This would explain why the other witnesses honestly asserted that there was a stone in the hat. They just were mistaken as to which one (I know, some did describe it as the brown seer stone so the premise is that they saw it, so doesn’t completely eliminate the conflicting information).