Are the Scriptures implicit or explicit? – Part I

From a translation perspective, the only entirely tenable answer to questions about how the translation process of the Book of Mormon worked is the one made by Joseph Smith himself: “Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record, by the gift and power of God” (Richard Lloyd Anderson, “By the Gift and Power of God,” Ensign 7, no9, September 1977, pp79–85; Joseph Smith letter to John Wentworth, editor and proprietor of the Chicago Democrat, published at Nauvoo, May 1, 1842).
    However, no matter how one might feel about what Joseph Smith said or did, or someone else’s opinion, or current linguists and their views, the issue at hand is the accuracy and correctness of the Book of Mormon. It is always interesting that well-intentioned members who undertake a scholarly study of the scriptural record, and who have no disagreement with the doctrinal information, can find such variances in opinion of the geographical setting of the Land of Promise, the animals found there, and even the activities that took place there.

The fact is, the scriptural record is explicit—it is stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt. The writings are not implicit, that is they were not written in ambiguity, or is the language implied but not plainly expressed; with no qualification or question; unspoken undeclared. When Nephi said they found in the Land of Promise that “there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men” (1 Nephi 18:25), he was being clearly explicit, “leaving no room for confusion or doubt.”
    Yet, John L. Sorenson, when covering the animals Nephi found, states: “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,” later adding, “so what might the Nephite term translated by Joseph Smith as cow actually have signified?” (Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 1985, p294).
    Most people would say that Nephi and Joseph Smith both meant “cow,” or “horse,” or “elephant,” etc., which is what they wrote. Only an academic, who is confused by not having found remains of those animals in the location of their Land of Promise models, would think that the scriptural record was wrong, and that Nephi meant something entirely different, and that was all right with the Lord, the Spirit, and with Joseph Smith when he translated that inaccuracy into the modern record.
    Numerous other theorists in a blind attempt to explain away why no such animals have been found in their Land of Promise model areas, have mimicked Sorenson’s statements and thus, critics of the Church and the Book of Mormon have been given more fodder to attack the authenticity of the book Joseph Smith called “the most accurate book ever written.”
    The question for Sorenson might easily be, why wouldn’t Joseph Smith know what a cow was? After all, since Lehi lived “at” not “in” Jerusalem, it might be understood in that day and age, living in the countryside in an agrarian society, that Lehi and his sons were farmers, at least part of the time, and both Nephi then and Joseph Smith recently, also a farmer and son of a farmer, knew what a cow was. In fact, it is hard to believe that anyone who had dealt on a farm for any length of time would not know what a cow was and actually meant “cow” when they said “cow.”

Honestly, is there anyone who has been around farm animals that does not know what a cow is? What would prompt an intelligent individual to claim Joseph Smith meant something else than a cow when he said cow?

We should keep in mind that the Hebrew word for cow is “parah,” פָּרָה, pronounced “paw-raw,” and means cow or heifer (young cow). The word is used 26 times in the Old Testament and translated as “kine” 17 times (meaning “cow” or “cattle”), and is used as the plural of “cow.” It is used 7 times as “heifer,” meaning “young cow,” and “cow” twice. In each case where it is translated as “kine,” the passage is regarding cows in the plural; the two times it is used in the singular, the text states one cow, and in each case it is used as “heifer,” the text refers to a “young cow” without spot or blemish and never having worn a yoke, being sacrificed. So in all 26 occurrences, the word “parah” was translated correctly between “kine,” “heifer,” and “cow.”
    Wade E. Miller, an emeritus professor of Paleontology and Geology at BYU, adds his comments to this, stating: “One problem that exists with the Book of Mormon animals lies in naming. In listing cattle, oxen and cows, this could possibly mean one to three different kinds of animals.” That, of course, is inaccurate as shown above, since parah is correctly translated each time to mean “cow.” At the same time, Miller makes the mistake of assuming that “ox” is used in such matters, but it is not. “Ox” comes from the word “shor,” שׁוֹר, pronounced “shore,” and is found 77 times in the Old Testament, being translated as “ox” 65 times, “oxen” 8 times, bull or bulls twice, and cattle once, with an understanding that ox belongs to the term cattle, since they are castrated adult male cattle. Thus we see that Miller’s entire premise is inaccurate and misleading.
    However, he goes on to add: “Commonly people will name an unidentified animal in a newly settled region after a similar looking animal with which they are familiar…Joseph Smith may have simply followed the King James rendering of animal terms for some Book of Mormon animals, even if the association with some animals in the American land of promise may not have been precise” (Wade E. Miller, “Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives,” The Interpreter Foundation, April 21, 2014).
    First of all, there is absolutely no suggestion found anywhere, in the scriptural record or in Joseph’s private life as a farmer, that such was ever the case. Secondly, since both Nephi, the author, and Joseph Smith, the translator were farmers and knew both cattle (steers), oxen, and cows, it is unbelievable that an accredited academic scholar would take such a stance on the translating of one by the other of these two farmers, both living in agrarian societies, that they would not know the difference between regular farm animals.
    As for Miller’s claim of naming an unknown animal by calling it a known name, here are four animals that have been frequently been on the movie screens in recent years:

Would you call the upper left animal a “horse,” because actors are seen riding them in movies? Or would you call it a “tauntaun,” its recorded name. Upper right: Would you call it an “elephant,” or a “Bantha,” its given name; Lower left: would you call it a “dog,“ or a “Woola”? Lower right: call it a “war horse,” or a “thoat”? 

    Would you give these unknown animals an inaccurate name because you decide they looked like something such as an antelope, a rabbit and bat? Or use the names that came with them:

LtoR: the Markhor, the national animal of Pakistan; the Patagonia Mara, and the Madagascar Tarsier would be unknown to most American writers, but would that excuse them in giving other animal names to these creatures?

What explorers, especially not well educated men such as the Spanish conquistadors might have done is no reason to claim that Nephi and Joseph Smith did the same thing. After all, Nephi knew he was creating a spiritual record of an entire people to be read at some future time by a future people; and Joseph Smith knew he was translating that ancient record for the benefit of people today. It is highly unlikely either would have allowed for errors in their work.
    Jeff Lindsay, a Mesoamericanist, and Chemical Engineer from BYU, has stated regarding the translation of animals by Joseph Smith: “­­If Mormon wrote a word for "swine" to describe something that we might call a peccary or tapir today, then I believe the translation would give us the word "swine", especially if Joseph had no word in his vocabulary for peccary or tapir. The results were expressed in the language and vernacular of the translator, based on whatever the original author had written - blemishes and all. Now if it were essential for our salvation that we read about peccaries rather than swine, I suppose that God would have instructed Joseph in the matter and corrected the translation appropriately. But we are dealing with a translation, not direct English quotes from God” (Lindsay, “Plants and Animals in the Book of Mormon: Some Solutions to Apparent Problems,” LDS FAQ: Mormon Answers).
    Thus, according to Lindsay, God is not interested in truth and accuracy unless it deals directly with our salvation. That not only seems far afield from a God who cannot tolerate the least amount of sin or evil. Nor can we ignore Alma’s statement to his son, Helaman, spoken in a moment of prophesying: “for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (Alma 45:16). Not telling the truth or being deliberately misleading, hardly seems in keeping with the Lord’s interest in preserving the Book of Mormon for future generations.

Top: Both are swine; Bottom LtoR: Peccary and Javelina; all four are of the subfamily Suina; Far right: Tapir, of the family Tapiridae and genus Tapirus, a totally different animal

However, taking Lindsay’s analogy further, it should be noted that both swine and peccaries, as well as the javelina, are from the suborder Suina and actually each of these terms, swine, javelina or peccary would be accurate; but tapir would not.
(See the next post, “Are the Scriptures implicit or explicit? – Part II,” regarding the way the scriptural record was written and translated and its meaning to us today)