Church Officially Redefines the Word "Translate"

[_Tobin]

Joseph Smith sometimes used words in distinctive ways. The glossary on the Joseph Smith Papers website helps modern readers of 19th-century Mormon texts understand the peculiarities of Mormon usage by defining terms "as they were used at the time." I don't see anything particularly sinister in this, but I guess others do.

Everything the LDS Church does is painted in the worst light by the critics. They haven't got the ability to be fair minded about anything related to Mormonism. I often think this is one of the greatest flaws most critics of Mormonism have. They can't help but seem to relish and take pleasure out of distorting and attacking it - no matter how innocuous and even worthwhile something may be.

[_malkie]

Joseph Smith sometimes used words in distinctive ways. The glossary on the Joseph Smith Papers website helps modern readers of 19th-century Mormon texts understand the peculiarities of Mormon usage by defining terms "as they were used at the time." I don't see anything particularly sinister in this, but I guess others do.

That's fine as long as the people now promulgating that meaning have always accepted that that was the meaning.

I mean, they are not changing from one meaning to another at this time for expediency, are they? They never claimed that 'translate' in that context meant what ordinary 20th/21stC people mean by translate, right?

[_Tim the Enchanter]

No, the Church hasn't redefined the word "translate."

The definition on the Joseph Smith Papers website describes what "translate" means in Joseph Smith's writings. It isn't proposing a universal definition.

Obviously, Joseph Smith's "translations" were not translations in the ordinary sense of the word. He was not trained in ancient languages. The scriptures he produced are revelatory texts, translated (lit. transferred) through "the gift and power of God."

When did it become obvious that Joseph Smith's translations were not translations in the ordinary sense of the word? This is a serious question. Growing up in the church, I never knew that when I heard the word "translate" in connection with Joseph Smith's works that the word was not being used according to the universal definition. The message was (1) the plates were written in Reformed Egyptian, (2) no one in the world knew Reformed Egyptian so (3) God gave Joseph the gift to translate Reformed Egyptian into English. If translate didn't mean translate in the ordinary meaning of the word, why did Mormon feel the need to belabor this point:

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

If translation didn't carry the ordinary meaning of the word, why would Mormon write this? If translate is indistinguishable from revelation for purposes of the Book of Mormon translation, it shouldn't have mattered whether the plates were written in reformed Egyptian or lolcat.

At best, the unique way the church defines translate leads to an incredible communication breakdown when missionaries tell investigators that the gold plates were translated. How is anyone outside of Mormonism supposed to know that when the missionaries tell them the gold plates were translated that the word is not being used in the ordinary sense?

[_Tim the Enchanter]

Also, since the early days of the church, the Book of Mormon has been translated into other languages. When it was translated into Hawaiian or French or any other language, translate carried the ordinary meaning. When did it become obvious that translate meant something different when Joseph Smith translated the plates?

Also, Mark Petersen said this in General Conference:

[quote="April 5, 1953]I do not believe you have a testimony of the truth if you question the accuracy of the translation of the Book of Mormon. [/quote]

This suggests that as recently as the 1950's, the church meant translate in the ordinary meaning of the word. Mark Petersen must be turning in his grave.

In April 1995, Robert Dellenbach opened his General Conference talk like this:

My dear brothers and sisters, do we realize the profound miracle that is the translation of the Book of Mormon? A miracle is "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., p. 742). Consistent with that definition, the translation of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith is indeed a modern-day miracle.

If only he would have defined the word translation instead of miracle!

[_mentalgymnast]

On LDS.org the church now links scripture searches to include the Joseph Smith papers project. During a recent search for D&C 10 I was forwarded to the D&C copy found in the JSP. It is in this chapter the the Mormon god tells Joseph that H=he has lost his ability to translate the Book of Mormon due to his losing the 116 pages. By clicking on the highlighted word "Translate" one is led to a new official definition of the word which redefines the word Translate into the following definition...

To produce a new text through a revelatory, rather than scholarly, process, by the “gift and power of God.” In the Book of Mormon, the ancient prophet Mosiah translated records into his own language using “interpreters,” or “two stones which was fastened ...

If you go to:

http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/

and type "translate" into the search bar...and then go through the multiplicity of references in which the word "translate" is used, it seems pretty generic. This "official" definition seems to be a clarification in regards to what has been spoken about rather generically for many decades. Tightening up the meaning of translation rather than loosening it. No pun intended...well, maybe a scooch in that direction.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

What the church needs to do is simply stop using the term "translate" and change it to "revealed" if that's the road the facts are leading them down. I am not trying to argue the integrity of changing the terminology 150 years into the game. However, from a strictly PR standpoint, redefining an established word in the English syntax is asinine and does not do the church any favors. As a PR genius, I would say LDS Inc's. long term survivability is better served by substituting a different verb for "translate" rather than redefining a word that 99% of society will not subscribe to or recognize.

If this "translate" definition change merits the church any kind of critical heat, we can expect FAIR to release a 20 page manifesto addressing the manner in a format not very far off base from my parody below by the fictional Prof. Parley F. Christiansen:

"In conclusion: Due to their frenzied rush to prove the church wrong, the critics have sloppily not given enough attention to the issue or looked at it from the correct context. You see, the ancient Gaelic culture used the word "Aertlaed." This meant to "Make understood." They didn't even have a word for "translate" in their vocabulary! Any type of "translation" or "revelation" was simply "Aertlaed". Let's not forget the 16th century Swahili word "Mongongo" which interchangeably meant "reveal" or "decipher" depending on the context. Clearly we can see that Gaelic and Swahili have very ambiguous ways of expressing "translate". (Just don't think too hard on this, and please forget that the roots of Gaelic and Swahili words do not even remotely carry over into the English language. It's not important to the context.) Therefore , it's not uncommon to think Joseph Smith did the same. (Please do not notice that my scholarly examples have nothing to do with 19th Century English. I am just throwing out a bunch of non-related examples to deflect from the issue and somehow rationalize that Church HQ's definition of "translate" and the rest of the world's, is not that different if you forget about the facts.) In the end, the only way to truly know if the Book of Mormon is true is by reading, praying, and getting confirmation from the Holy Ghost. (Thus completely negating my 20 page screed and ad-homin attack on those critics who disagree with the LDS defination of "translate").

(Professor Parley F. Chrisiansen is an Associate Professor of Geometery at Weber State University and sits on the board of the Davis County High School Math Olympiad. In his spare time, Professor Christiansen fancies himself an expert in World Religion, Linguistics, and Anthropolgy despite any formal training. We at FAIR feel that entitles him to be an expert on the subject. The fact that he is a Professor gives him enough cred for us to call this article "scholarly".)

[_DarkHelmet]

In other words translate means translate except when it doesn't mean translate then it mean translate...got it?

There's translate and then there's "translate".

It is interesting that when Joseph Smith's "translations" are compared against wordly scholar translations, his are completely inaccurate. That is probably why the church ditched the Joseph Smith method and uses scholarly translation methods when translating the Book of Mormon and D&C into different languages. Can you imagine what the non-English Mormon scriptures would look like if the church used the Joseph Smith method of "translation".

[_sock puppet]

On LDS.org the church now links scripture searches to include the Joseph Smith papers project. During a recent search for D&C 10 I was forwarded to the D&C copy found in the JSP. It is in this chapter the the Mormon god tells Joseph that H=he has lost his ability to translate the Book of Mormon due to his losing the 116 pages. By clicking on the highlighted word "Translate" one is led to a new official definition of the word which redefines the word Translate into the following definition...

To produce a new text through a revelatory, rather than scholarly, process, by the “gift and power of God.” In the Book of Mormon, the ancient prophet Mosiah translated records into his own language using “interpreters,” or “two stones which was fastened ...

See:http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-spring-1829-dc-10 click on highlighted word "Translate"

No longer are TBM's to view translate as transforming from one language into another word for word...now translate means to produce a new text through revelation...that should pretty much sew up that hole. Rather convenient.

I love how words lose their original meaning in Mormonism when the evidence doesn't support the definition of the word. And when that happens...just change the meaning of the word into something more squishy and malleable...there problem fixed.

Mormonism has become nothing more than a verbal version of 3 card Monte.

[_sock puppet]

For a religion to survive, it has to jettison all its falsifiable claims, leaving only the unfalsifiable ones for 'faith'.

[_mentalgymnast]

Can you imagine what the non-English Mormon scriptures would look like if the church used the Joseph Smith method of "translation".

Why are you opposed to translation looking different under different circumstances/conditions? Like I mentioned earlier (link to the LDS Conference Corpus), the word translate has been used rather generically without a great deal of detail/specificity when you go back and look at how the word has been used in context within conference talks over the decades.

Regards,
MG