We received an interesting comment from evidently a one-time
reader named “Bill,” who evidently thought he knew enough to comment on one of
our blog pages he must have stumbled on since his response is dated January 7,
2016, and the article he is responding to was dated Monday, October 4, 2010, “Words in
the Book of Mormon–Part I.”
It is always
interesting to find someone with very strong opinions who lacks knowledge of
the subject they so strongly want to comment upon. He wrote:
Comment: “Are you nuts? He translated the Book of
Mormon as it was on the plates. He didn't use New England slang. Your post
takes away from Joseph Smith being a prophet and God himself. I understand
MesoAmerica theory no longer has a leg to stand. Give up, the promised land was
here in this Nation, the United States. Go to Firmlds.org and Bookofmormonevidence.com
to get the Heartland model. You'll walk away from the MesoAmerica so fast your
head will spin.”
That this
might be of benefit to other readers, let us take these points one by one:
1.
Comment: “Are you nuts? He translated the
Book of Mormon as it was on the plates…”
Response: Perhaps whether I’m nuts or not
is debatable, but we need to keep in mind that translation, all translation
other than a few brief words, is never a word-for-word process, but a meaning
for meaning process.
As an example, if you were translating
from Spanish to English, would you translate “Zapatero a trus zapatos,” i.e, “Shoemaker, to your shoes,” which is
a word for word translation, but does not convey the meaning of “Stick to
talking about things you know,” which is its meaning. Or, “En boca
cerrada no entran moscas,” which translates to “flies don’t enter a closed mouth,” but such
a translation would not be understood. It’s true meaning is: “sometimes it’s
best to keep your mouth shut.” Or, “Ojo
que no ve, Corazon que no siente,” which translates to “Eye that doesn’t
see, heart that doesn’t feel,” but if you translated that, the meaning would be
lost for the statement means: “What you don’t know can’t hurt you.”
Or take the Russian word “toska,” which
can mean “boredom,” “nostalgia,” “yearning,” or “great spiritual anguish.” How
do you choose? Or the Czech word, “Litost,”
which simply does not have an English equivalent and translates to something
like, “a state of agony and torment created by the sudden sight of one’s own
misery.” Or the Scots word, “tartle,”
which more or less means what someone does when introducing a person when they
have forgotten their name.” And what about “Casser
les oreilles,” in French which translates to “breaking the ears,” (a loud
or harsh noise) or “C’est la fin des
haricots,” which translates to “the end of the beans” (that’s the last
straw), or “Donner sa langue au chat,” which
translates to “give your tongue to the cat,” (give it a rest), or “Les carottes
sont cuites,” which translates to “the carrots are cooked,” (meaning "the outcome cannot
be changed").
In a Spanish ESL class recently, the
phrase was given “a lo hecho, pecho,”
and asked what it means. The answers from life-time Spanish speaking adult
students ranged from: “What is done is done,” to “Take it like a man,” “face
the consequences and don’t regret it,” “If you make a mistake, stick up your
chest, raise the head and don’t lament,” “Bite the bullet,” etc. It is
interesting that the German word “blaumachen,”
(Blauer Montag) which translates
literally to “to make blue,” means our equivalent of “Blue Monday,” from
describing the day craftsmen had to wait around for their fabrics to dry after
being dyed indigo and had nothing to do in the meantime, thus Monday’s were
deemed as unproductive days. In fact, many linguists claim the English word
“fair,” cannot be correctly translated into another language at all.
If you were a regular reader here, you
would know from numerous articles on the matter such things as God speaks to
man in man’s own language: “for he speaketh unto men according to
their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3).
The point is, a translator cannot
translate beyond his own knowledge, i.e., not being an advanced Math major,
etc., I could not translate a book written by an Einstein in another language,
even if I knew that language since I could not understand the words and
meanings he had in mind. In addition, some words are such, that translation is
not possible for lack of knowledge or understanding on the subject, hence, when
translating Mormon’s description of the Nephite monetary system, Joseph Smith
could only use the words Mormon used—he could not transliterate (convert) them
into their English equivalent—as an example, how much in American money is a “limnah” of gold, or an “amnor” of silver? (Alma 11:5-19); nor
could he come up with the equivalent name of an animal the reader would know and
could only use Moroni’s words for two animals “which were useful unto man” like
“cureloms”
and “cumoms” (Ether 9:19); or exactly
what kind of metal is “ziff” (Mosiah
11:3)? And just what kind of plants or grains are “neas” and “sheum” (Mosiah
9:9), certainly Joseph Smith did not know how to transliterate these words and
had to use the original words from the record.
As for translating the words that were on
the plates, exactly how would he know Reformed Egyptian? He would not. Through the prompting of the spirit, he
translated the Reformed Egyptian characters from the plates into English, which
we read in our Book of Mormon. And what English did he use?
First of all, we
never equated Joseph Smith’s language to “New England slang.” Slang, as
defined, means: “a type of language
that consists of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal, are more
common in speech than writing, and are typically restricted to a particular
context or group of people.” Slang is also not considered “part of standard vocabulary.” Joseph
Smith did not use slang to my knowledge anymore than we find any slang words in
the scriptural record. What he used was the language with which he was
familiar, and that would have been the language of his locale—the New England
area. He also used language of “thee” and “thou” because he felt it was in
keeping with the scriptural tone. As an example, when I teach Sunday School or Priesthood classes, I use the language I know: English, as it is spoken in the Western United States (I have traveled to nearly every state in this country, and found that English is spoken quite different in various regions).
2.
Comment: “Your post takes away from
Joseph Smith being a prophet and God himself."
It is not
our blog that sets the parameters of God’s working through man, but God
himself. Many people, including members, seem to think that all Joseph Smith
did was sit back and the words appeared to him without any effort on his part. However, translation takes spiritual
effort, as well as mental and physical effort, in order to translate the sacred
records of the Book of Mormon. As God told Oliver: “You Cannot Write That Which Is
Sacred Save It Be Given You from Me” (D&C 9:9).
Oliver Cowdery thought that all he
needed to do in order to translate was to ask the Lord, but here he is told
that he must also ‘study it out’ in his mind as well as to ask the Lord whether
or not it is right. The Lord also gives Oliver a key so that he will know when
the translation is right: his bosom shall burn within him.” Elder John A.
Widtsoe wrote that Joseph Smith received revelation in different ways as he
matured in his calling. At first his communications with the heavens were
direct—visitations from God, His Son, and angels. Then he used the Urim and
Thummim as a medium. Finally, “he learned
to bring his mind into such harmony with divine forces that it became, as it
were, itself a Urim and Thummim to him; and God’s will was revealed without the
intervention of external aids” (Widtsoe, Joseph Smith, p. 267); however, he still had to direct
all his efforts toward that effort. As God said to Oliver Cowdery, who wanted to translate and
was given the chance and failed, that it took both physical and mental effort: “You must study it out in your mind; then you
must ask me if it be right” (D&C 9:8).
God,
himself, has set the standard as to how we receive inspiration in order to
carry out his Will. To follow that procedure and acknowledge that it is the
path to success in translation does not take away from either Joseph Smith or
God himself.
3.
Comment: “I understand MesoAmerica theory
no longer has a leg to stand. You'll walk away from the MesoAmerica so fast
your head will spin.”
Response:
Obviously, you know little about this blog or myself since the past six years
and nearly 2000 posts have shown to even the most cursory reader that we do not
support in any way the Mesoamerica Theory for the Land of Promise location as
written in the Book of Mormon. While I agree that Mesoamerica doesn’t have a
leg to stand on, it certainly has more than the Heartland or Great Lakes,
eastern U.S. theories.
4.
Comment: “Give up, the promised land was
here in this Nation, the United States.”
Response:
We have written repeatedly about the U.S. as the Nephite home written of in the
scriptural record and shown where not a single physical topographical location
matches the descriptions written about in the record Joseph Smith translated.
It is not that people haven’t made an effort to match areas, but their failures
are based upon the knowledge of the areas themselves and not people’s belief in
them.
From the Great Lakes area and Western
New York to the Plains of the Heartland, America is quite flat, with few hills
and no real mountains “whose height is great,” yet Samuel the Lamanite spoke of
the Land of Promise having mountains raised from valleys “whose height is
great”
As an
example, where are the mountains whose height is great? (Helaman 14:23). There
are no mountains in Heartland U.S. or Great Lakes models. Where is the island
Jacob speaks about? (2 Nephi 10:20). Where are the cureloms and cumoms?”
(Ether 9:19), two animals if in North America Joseph Smith, a farmer, surely
would have known about. And where are the two very important grains neas and sheum?” (Mosiah 9:9). Again, two grains of such importance that
Joseph Smith, a farmer, would have known about. We could go on, but the point
is the Heartland and eastern U.S. simply do not match the scriptural record!
5. Go to Firmlds.org and Bookofmormonevidence.com
to get the Heartland model.”
Parts of
this information are correct, i.e., the Land of Promise overall extends to the
entire Western Hemisphere, including the U.S., as many LDS Prophets and General
Authorities have said over the years; however, it is simply not the location of
the Jaredite, Nephite, Mulekite and Lamanite lands as written about in the Book
of Mormon. That Nephite and Lamanite adventurers and immigrants left in
Hagoth’s ships and sailed northward is without question (Alma 63:4-7).
And, no,
I will not walk away from Andean Peru as the home of the Nephtie nation since
it is where the Book of Mormon events took place and we have spent six years on
this blog and written four books to show in every scriptural record indication
an exact match between this location and the scriptural record statements. Perhaps it might be advantagous for you to know more about that to which you address your comments than you seem to know at present.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We all know from various sources.. that Joseph did not look upon the plates as the way to translate them. Most of the time they were in hiding someplace on the farm.. in the barn, in a barrel, under the hay, etc. We all know (I hope we all do) that Joseph in the beginning used a stone placed at the bottom of a hat and covering the light from entering the hat, could read the letters, words or whatever appeared on the stone as it lit up.
ReplyDeleteWe also know that at one time someone (I can not remember who) exchanged the stone that Joseph used with a different one.. and when Joseph tried to translate with it.. it did not work. I believe he exclaimed something to the effect that it was as dark as Egypt while looking into the hat. There is also the time when Joseph had an argument with Emma.. and tried to translate but couldn't. He then when and made up with Emma.. came back and the translation process began again.
From those who had access to the original document of the Book of Mormon noticed many different things about it. One was that the words written on the paper seemed to be grouped in numbers of 5 to 8. They realized that at this time the words that appeared on the stone could have been 5 to 8 words long and Joseph would read those.. and then the next set would appear. And they could tell this due to the fact that there seemed to be a different spacing between the words at that point where a new set of words would appear.
So there must be much more to this translation process than what Oliver had thought.. even though he was there for most of it.
All I can say is that I am happy that Joseph accomplished the Lord's will and the Book of Mormon came forth. I have found a new way of reading it.. and that is to listen to it be read. I have retained more for some reason as I could listen to chapter after chapter after chapter... and not have tired eyes. :-)
Good comment. I might add that another issue here is that Oliver Cowdery, like so many of us today, had his own ideas as to what was going on and how they were unfolding--when given the opportunity to translate, he neglected to rely upon the Lord's inspiration, but took off on his own, thinking he knew the right way to go (interpret) and found out he could not do so--it is the Lord that inspires us, not the other way around. Oliver learned that, but the question is, do we?
ReplyDelete