When we question the Book of
Mormon, we in reality are questioning the translation process of Joseph Smith
and the Spirit that guided him in the process. Further, we are questioning
Mormon’s abridgements, or those of his son, Moroni (Ether), or the plain
writing of Nephi, Jacob, and Amaleki. All of which appears to be doing a
disservice to the entire scriptural record and the Spirit that guided the
entire work.
Take, as an example John L.
Sorenson’s comment in his book, An
Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (p294) when he writes:
“But isn’t it obvious that the “cow” of the Book of Mormon was our familiar
bovine, straight out without all this hedging? No, it is not at all obvious.
First, we are trying to find out what the Book of Mormon really means by the
words we have in English translation; we are not trying to either to simplify
or to complicate the matter, but only to be correct. In the effort to learn the
truth nothing can be assumed obvious. Second, there is a lack of reliable
evidence—historical, archaeological, zoological, or linguistic—that Old World
cows were present in the Americas in pre-Columbian times. The same is true of
some of the other creatures mentioned in the Nephite record, where modern
readers may feel they are already familiar with the animals on the basis of the
translated names. In these cases we have to find another way to read the text
in order to make sense of it.”
First of all, let’s make it
clear that this is not a matter of squelching Sorenson’s creativity—it is a
matter of accepting what has been done and is revered by millions of people as
a divinely inspired work. To state questions about its authenticity, or
accuracy, without any reliable reason other than one’s own personal beliefs and
the fact, of course, that certain ideas are not conducive to one’s avidly
stated location of the Land of Promise (Mesoamerica), it seems unconscionable
to make such unsubstantiated comments merely to further one’s own personal agenda.
Mesoamerica runs east and west while Mormon describes the Land of
Promise running north and south;
however, Sorenson clouds the issue without a shred of evidence by claiming that Mormon didn’t use the
same compass as we do, and coined the concept of “Nephite North” meaning they
had different directions than we do in order to use his Mesoamerican model
Secondly, because Sorenson is an
avid supporter and believer in Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise, even going
so far as to change the entire compass pointings of Mormon’s clearly stated
directions for the record to fit his incorrectly shaped Land of Promise, and
changing numerous other scriptural references that do not agree with
Mesoamerica. Now, Sorenson wants to tell us that Joseph Smith, a farmer all his
life, and son of a farmer, that he does not know what a cow is, or that the
Spirit acknowledged his use of the word “cow” when it was wrong.
Such attitude toward the
scriptural record appears unjustifiably pretentious on the part of a scholar.
Third, if we shift the location
away from Mesoamerica, in many cases, his desire to change the record is
unnecessary and completely without justification under any circumstances. In
fact, when metallurgy was not found in Mesoamerica before 900 A.D., though he
claims 600 A.D. (still long after the Nephites), Sorenson merely stated that
someday research will find that metallurgy did, after all, exist there. Yet,
when it comes to other matters, he wants to change the record to remove the
embarrassingly absent animals or other facts that point away from Mesoamerica.
Mazama Americana, or Red Brocket deer, is considered by
Mesoamericanists as the answer to the translation of other animals, such as the
goat or horse. Since the Spanish came to America as horsemen, using the horse
to subdue the Aztec, Mayan and Inca, it is difficult to think they mistook a
simple deer, which is similar to the deer of Spain, as a horse
Continuing with his train of
thought on “cow” and other animals, Sorenson states (p294) “So what might the Nephite
term translated by Joseph Smith as cow actually have signified? He then goes on
to talk about Cortez and the Spanish who “observed herds of docile deer that
some scholars think were semi-domesticated,” and concluded with the thought,
“Perhaps they were “cows.” He then goes on to tell us that the Mazahua Indians
of El Salvador at the time of the conquest were described as a “pastoral
people” who “owned and cared for” herds of deer. He then (p295) discussed that
“only recently have scientists demonstrated that a full pastoral tradition
based on domesticated llamas existed in pre-Columbian Peru for thousand of
years.” He then suggests “Or we might consider the llama or alpaca—American
cameloids—as cows.
They carried loads and provided food and fiber for the
people in Ecuador, Peru, Boliva and beyond, though they are not attested by
zoologists for Mesoamerica in recent times.”
So let us take a moment to see
how Joseph translated the words Sorenson is questioning:
According to David Whitmer, one
of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, where most of the translation
took place in his home, he testified: “I will now give you a
description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph
Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing
it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the
spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would
appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear,
and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off
the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was
written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it
would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.
Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by
any power of man.” (Page 11 of his book An
Address to All Believers in Christ, Part First, Chapter 1. Also, Interview given to Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881,
reprinted in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Journal of History, vol. 8, (1910),
pp. 299-300.
In fact, there were numerous witnesses
to the translation of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith. They all tell
essentially the same story: Joseph put a stone (often called a seer stone) in a
hat, then burying his face in the darkened hat words appeared on the stone
which he dictated to the scribe. The gold plates were either always covered in
a cloth, where no one including Joseph could see them or they were not even in
the room at the time Joseph was translating.
Now, consider, that Joseph Smith
is translating and comes to the word in reformed Egyptian that he sees as
“cow,” he reads out “cow” to Oliver Cowdery. The Spirit acknowledges the
correctness of this, the word disappears and another appears on the seer stone.
Tell, me where is the mis-translation?
Top: Deer; Middle: Cow; Bottom Left: Llama; Bottom Right: Alpaca. Is
there anyone other than Sorenson who thinks a farmer is going to get these
animals wrong, especially the cow and deer which he would have seen hundreds of
times during his lifetime to that point. Of course, llama and alpaca he never
would have seen, heard about, or knew anything about such animals for they were
not introduced into North America for decades after the Book of Mormon was published and and
Joseph’s death
The problem, as it always does,
lies with the theorist who wants so desperately to disqualify, or call into
question, the simple language of the scriptural record as being or meaning
something other than what is written.
As to the actual translation,
Martin Harris tells a similar story to David Whitmer. Harris, after all, was
the actual scribe, who testified:
“Martin Harris related
an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the
translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the
mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer
stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and
Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the
translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and
were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say
"Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and
another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until
corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely
in the language then used.”(Comprehensive History of the Church, and also in
B. H. Roberts’ Defense of the Faith and the Saints, p 257).
It seems to me, that
Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Joseph Smith and the Spirit simply know more
about this process than Sorenson, yet Sorenson is forever questioning,
altering, changing and trying to call into question, what has been written with
the Spirit’s full acknowledgement of every word, phrase, and statement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment