Church Officially Redefines the Word "Translate"

[_sock puppet]

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

Yes, modern LDS usages have tried to diffuse the edges of the definition. But keep in mind, JSJr said there were gold plates with reformed Egyptian characters that he translated. There were the Caractors sent off to Professor Anton for a 'translation'. There were the Chandler mummy papyri. There were the EAG, with character interpretations. The continual references to ancient Egyptian being or being the closest thing to the pure Adamic language. There was the Greek Psalter from Dr Caswall, and the Kinderhook Plates. JSJr and his scribes took classes in the Hebrew language. All this because JSJr, the only prophet, seer and revelator also dubbed 'translator', was not linguistically translating?

This new definition of 'translating' put forward by the LDS Church puts it squarely at odds with the historic record, and is a very recent example of why the LDS Church makes itself look disingenuous.

[_bcspace]

Doesn't appear to be any change at all in the presentation of what is meant by 'translate' in this case. We're still going from one language to another and it's never been claimed that it was something other than divine providence that made it happen.

[Guest]

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."

What the church says doesn't really matter. It's what Joseph meant and claimed that matters. While Joseph has used the word in different ways, it's not hard to see that he meant it in the usual way in regards to the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. It's just with the Book of Abraham we know he couldn't actually translate in the way he meant.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

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

In the April 1953 General Conference, Apostle Mark E. Petersen said:

I do not believe you have a testimony of the truth if you question the accuracy of the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Why would he say this unless he really believed that translate meant translate in the ordinary sense of the word? The context of this talk was to warn members of the church against false teachings. Feel free to read the whole talk to see if I am taking it out of context. By the way, the talk also includes this:

I do not believe we should give credence to the highly speculative theories about Book of Mormon geography.

I do not believe that there were two Hill Cumorahs, one in Central America and the other one up in New York, for the convenience of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so that the poor boy would not have to walk clear to Central America to get the gold plates.

So here we have Mark Petersen, an ordained prophet, seer, and revelator speaking from the pulpit in General Conference expressing disbelief in the LGT, two Cumorah's, and anything but a literal translation. When did later apostles overrule these ideas?

I've given you an example of a conference talk supporting the idea that translate means translate in the ordinary sense of the word. Do you have a competing example? Even if you have one, how do we know if Petersen is the one who got it wrong or your guy?

[_moksha]

Seer - Someone eligible for a Driver's License, if through the use of corrective lens, they have at least 20-30 vision on the Utah State Driving Exam.

[_Tobin]

So here we have Mark Petersen, an ordained prophet, seer, and revelator speaking from the pulpit in General Conference expressing disbelief in the LGT, two Cumorah's, and anything but a literal translation. When did later apostles overrule these ideas?

Yawn!!! I'll let mentalgymnast answer, but last I checked Mark Peterson was just a man and fallible. I don't care what he said was true or not. Unless he had good reasons for what he is saying (which I fail to see here), I'm inclined to believe he is expressing his opinion which I disagree with. And when I say good reasons, I'd expect something more than he was a Grand Poobah.

[_ludwigm]

Something to add... (my old translated things)

see my threads:
telestial - as far as it is translated ... 1
D&C 78 - as far as it is translated ... 2
1 Cor 15 - as far as it is translated ... 3
everything - as far as it is translated ... 4
Elias - as far as it is translated ... 5
D&C 110:12 - as far as it is translated ... 6

... to be continued

[_Spanner]

So by this new definition, the attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates should not be any embarrassment for the church. If he had lived, and finished his work on the Kinderhook plates, the result would be a perfectly acceptable piece of scripture, regardless of the plates being forgeries.

If it was revelation rather than translation that produced scripture, then the source of inspiration should not matter. The gold plates are totally redundant, the rock was sufficient.

This approach is completely consistent with David Bokovoy's conception of scripture. Things are getting interesting.

[_MisterTabernacle]

Here I think we see the difficulty with the JSP project. Indended as a scholarly look at Joseph Smith and early Mormon history, JSP must nonetheless reject basic definitions and terminology used by "so-called scholars" in order to ensure consistency with the broader church messaging.

Doing so undermines the project's attempt to be historically faithful and legitimate within the broader academic community. At the same time, regular members who fall prey to wicked curiosity and peruse JSP will find more than enough to undermine chapel-based faith.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. But this middle road almost seems worse than either of those paths.

[_Bazooka]

Here I think we see the difficulty with the JSP project. Indended as a scholarly look at Joseph Smith and early Mormon history, JSP must nonetheless reject basic definitions and terminology used by "so-called scholars" in order to ensure consistency with the broader church messaging.

Doing so undermines the project's attempt to be historically faithful and legitimate within the broader academic community. At the same time, regular members who fall prey to wicked curiosity and peruse JSP will find more than enough to undermine chapel-based faith.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. But this middle road almost seems worse than either of those paths.

I think another issue is that Joseph himself defined the word 'translate' in the same way as we commonly understand its meaning today. He thought, and he informed others, that he was reading the plates and the papyrus and translating the graphics into English. Now the Church wants to remove the graphics, the plates and the papyrus from the process other than simple props used by God to trick Joseph into saying what God wanted him to say regardless of what the graphics actually meant.