Church Officially Redefines the Word "Translate"

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

Regards,
MG

Here's the link again:

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

Type in "translate".

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

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.

Regards,
MG

MG, maybe people like you, who are invested in online apologetics, see it as merely a confirmation of past talks, but I would bet the majority of my active relatives and friends would see this as a major shift in how they pictured Joseph Smith producing scripture. Though I do not believe it would affect their testimonies, unless they spent time examining the actual translation process. I would be willing to bet that many of these same people are unaware that the plates were not even in the room at times when Joseph Smith was doing what ever he was supposed to be doing.

Additionally what is the point of time and time again showing an inaccurate portrayal of Joseph Smith looking at the plates themselves if not to imply he was studying the writings on the plates themselves? Why report the story of Chandler confirming Joseph Smith interpretation of the the papyri if not to imply he could actually read them? Remember Chandler compared Joseph Smith's interpretation to others he had gathered before. What is that if it is not a translation? Why push a missing scroll theory in the latest essay if those portions had noting to do with the Book of Abraham? Why argue that the translations on the Facsimiles bear some resemblance to Egyptian translations if he did not actually translate them?

Think about how many times growing up you encounter members talking about Joseph Smith facility with languages.

[_DarkHelmet]

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.

Non-mormons and church critics agree with you 100%, but that attitude is not acceptable for a TBM.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

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.

It didn't appear obvious to Mark Petersen in the 1950's.

[_mentalgymnast]

It didn't appear obvious to Mark Petersen in the 1950's.

Does he seem to be the kind of person that would see it as "obvious"? Would his training (he worked in the publishing business for sixty years) dictate that what appears obvious to some would have been obvious to him?

Regards,
MG

[_Tobin]

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.

He was looking at the U&T Nevo for the Book of Abraham. Same as he was when working on the Bible and Book of Mormon. He was using the SAME method. He then later tried (and failed) to understand where the English came from for the Book of Abraham. He made the mistake of thinking it came from the Egyptian characters on the papyrus. He was mistaken because he couldn't read them at all.

[_Fence Sitter]

If Joseph Smith did not translate in the traditional sense why seal a large portion of the gold plates?

If translate meant something different in 1820's why not reproduce the lost 116 pages, after all everyone would understand that translate did not mean word for word?

[_Jaybear]

If Joseph Smith did not translate in the traditional sense why seal a large portion of the gold plates?

If translate meant something different in 1820's why not reproduce the lost 116 pages, after all everyone would understand that translate did not mean word for word?

...and why then did he send Martin to NY?

From LDS.ORG

“I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

It didn't appear obvious to Mark Petersen in the 1950's.

Does he seem to be the kind of person that would see it as "obvious"? Would his training (he worked in the publishing business for sixty years) dictate that what appears obvious to some would have been obvious to him?

Regards,
MG

If Mark Petersen is truly an ordained prophet, seer, and revelator and one of the 15 men on earth to hold all the keys of the Priesthood, I'd expect him to have a heightened sense of the truth. So, yes. If it's "obvious" that translate means "to be revealed" in the context of the Book of Mormon, I'd expect Petersen to know that and not believe the opposite. But he didn't. Why? His background in the publishing business should not be a hindrance if he really was a prophet, seer, and revelator.

I don't expect anyone to be perfect, but if someone is claiming to be a prophet, seer, and revelator and one of the 15 holders of all the keys of the Priesthood, then they are the ones who set the high bar for themselves, not me. And if the 15 should not be expected to have a heightened sense of the truth, then they should not be treated as prophets, seers, and revelators.

In the context of the talk (here's the link, I think I forgot to include it earlier), he was warning that a contrary position to his was an apostate teaching. Here is a longer quote to give you the context of what he was saying:

And then there are the seeds that are sown by some of our teachers and preachers within our own organization, who like to advance some new doctrine, or some new interpretation, or some speculative theory, or advance something that is sensational, because to advance the sensational seems to feed their ego inasmuch as they become the center of a discussion.

Most of our teachers and preachers are wonderful. They teach the truth; they bring about conversions in the minds and hearts of those who listen to them. But there are these few teachers who sow seeds of doubt by speculative and unsound doctrines, and as they do so they "soften up," to use the army expression, some of their hearers who might later be taken over by the apostate teachers who come among them.

It is my full belief that whenever any of us accepts a position of any description in the Church, we accept along with it the responsibility of that office, whatsoever it may be. I believe that if a person accepts a position as a teacher in one of our organizations, or if he accepts the responsibility of preaching from the pulpit, such person accepts the responsibility which goes with that call. He becomes a representative of the Church in that position.

Every teacher and every preacher therefore is duty-bound, upon accepting such a call, to represent the official views and doctrines of the Church, and to teach those official doctrines in his class or from the pulpit, with the one thought in mind that conversion is to come about in the hearts of those who listen to him. I do not believe that conversion to the truth comes through the teaching of half-truths or untruths.

Our classrooms and our assembly rooms have been built at great expense with only one thought in mind, and that is that in them we may teach the truth so that we may convert those who come there, so that they in turn will live the gospel and work out their salvation in the earth.

After this, he lists about 30 or so specific things that he does or does not believe. The context is clear. He's not saying, "I'm speculating here and might be off base but this is how I think about it." He was giving a clear warning that these ideas, when taught, softened up people to later become apostates and said that teachers in the church should not teach these things because they were contrary to the official views and doctrines of the church.

[_Themis]

That's not translating in the ordinary sense of the word.

Yes and no. It is translating in the ordinary sense of writing down the meaning of text written in one language into another. Not ordinary in the sense of God/holy ghost actually doing the translating.