bcspace wrote: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.
Sadly, we're not.
The Book of Abraham is not what is written on the papyrus that Joseph thought he was using. Therefore the Book of Abraham is not translating one language into another because Joseph wasn't given the source language in the first place, even though he himself believes he did. He (now, according to the apologetic) simply dictated the words that God thrust into his mind whilst he was staring at a completely unrelated piece of parchment. That's not translating one language into another, that's making words up out of thin air.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi
Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.
An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.
TRANSLATED, THE NON-SCHOLORLY KIND OF TRANSLATION, BY JOSEPH SMITH, JUN.
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace
"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick
“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka
Perhaps now is the time to create a Mormon Dictionary to allow people to research the actual Mormon meaning of specific words that we have come to think mean something other than what Mormonism needs wants them to mean.
Horse = a tapir like creature Hill Cumorah = several hills of unknown co-ordinates Translate = made up out of thin air
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Tim the Enchanter wrote: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.
I think it has been obvious for a long time. Joseph didn't learn Reformed Egyptian before he began "translating" the Book of Mormon. According to David Whitmer, he simply read English words off of his seer stone. When he "translated" the Bible he didn't learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; he worked with an English Bible. With regard to the Book of Abraham, Joseph evidently made some attempt to decipher the signs on the papyri, but clearly his rendition was not a scholarly translation. Basically, he was looking at Egyptian characters and intuiting their meaning (often deriving paragraphs from a single symbol). That's not translating in the ordinary sense of the word.
Tim the Enchanter wrote: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.
I think it has been obvious for a long time. Joseph didn't learn Reformed Egyptian before he began "translating" the Book of Mormon. According to David Whitmer, he simply read English words off of his seer stone. When he "translated" the Bible he didn't learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; he worked with an English Bible. With regard to the Book of Abraham, Joseph evidently made some attempt to decipher the signs on the papyri, but clearly his rendition was not a scholarly translation. Basically, he was looking at Egyptian characters and intuiting their meaning (often deriving paragraphs from a single symbol). That's not translating in the ordinary sense of the word.
Totally agree, but outside those interested in apologetics this is not how it is understood. Having nearly a hundred direct relatives in the church, I would guess that 90% of those that are active would understand "translate" in the ordinary sense. This new way of looking at the word translate as it applies to Joseph Smith is changing the definition within the church. The argument people like Spacecadet and others are putting forward, that 'translation' has a variety of interpretations, misses the entire issue. LDS themselves are the ones who have understood it in a traditional sense.
By the way, if his rendition of the Egyptian was not a scholarly translation, why is the church promoting the missing papyri theory in its latest essay?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
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?
No, I don't think you're taking it out of context. Two things.
1. He said, "I do not believe". He is stating his personal opinion. 2. He said, "question the accuracy of the translation". There isn't anything there that refers to the modus operandi of the actual process.
You're right in saying the Elder Peterson had his own ideas/interpretations/perceptions about some things. I remember reading some of his racist comments against blacks.
Fence Sitter wrote: This new way of looking at the word translate as it applies to Joseph Smith is changing the definition within the church.
It's not new. It's clarification/amplification of the process. In previous posts on this thread, as I've made available ALL the conference talks given over a number of decades, the meaning of the word translate has been rather generic with multiple ways of interpretation as one reads the talks.
It's not turtles all the way down. It's large talking eggs.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Nevo wrote:Basically, he was looking at Egyptian characters and intuiting their meaning (often deriving paragraphs from a single symbol). That's not translating in the ordinary sense of the word.
You've missed out the important bit. The meaning that he intuited was not the actual meaning of the Egyptian character that he was looking at, despite he himself believing that it was.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)