Church Officially Redefines the Word "Translate"

[_Bazooka]

Besides the facsimiles, the KEP also pretty much lays to rest any discussion that the papyri did not involve a translation in the ordinary sense of the word. . . . Why would they label their work a "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" if they did not think they were translating in a conventional sense?

"In 1835, Joseph Smith acquired manuscripts written on Egyptian scrolls, along with several smaller papyrus documents and four Egyptian mummies. He dictated a translation of some of this material to scribe Warren Parrish. As with the Book of Mormon, Smith claimed no knowledge of the ancient language but, as Parrish noted, 'claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven.'" (link)

How many conventional translation efforts rely on "direct inspiration from Heaven" rather than a knowledge of the source language? Even if a "grammar and alphabet" is produced, such a methodology is definitely unorthodox.

Now here's the thing.
We understand the term to translate as being taking a word in language and rewriting it in different language but retaining the original meaning. Learned people do that based on years of dedicated training and study, we now do it using the app iTranslate, Joseph did it using the spirit. The fact remains that Joseph thought, and it was portrayed, as a process of looking at one word (character) and rewriting it in English with a word that held the same meaning as the original. Now, because the games up, the Church is trying to remove the plates and the papyrus from the active part of the story, and describe them as being incidental other than as triggers to get Joseph to listen to what God was supposedly telling him.

[Guest]

"In 1835, Joseph Smith acquired manuscripts written on Egyptian scrolls, along with several smaller papyrus documents and four Egyptian mummies. He dictated a translation of some of this material to scribe Warren Parrish. As with the Book of Mormon, Smith claimed no knowledge of the ancient language but, as Parrish noted, 'claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven.'"

How many conventional translation efforts rely on "direct inspiration from Heaven" rather than a knowledge of the source language? Even if a "grammar and alphabet" is produced, such a methodology is definitely unorthodox.

I note that the 'new' definitiion of 'translate' by lds.org is cleverly worded to mean anything or nothing in particular:

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 ...

This breaks down thus -

(1) To produce a new text through a revelatory, rather than scholarly, process, by the “gift and power of God.”

This includes the possibility that a new text is produced out of thin air, with nothing more needed than the voice of God in one's ear. No 'source text' or golden plates are a requirement, neither would any instrument be required as God's 'conduit'.

But then, the new definition continues...

(2) In the Book of Mormon, the ancient prophet Mosiah translated records into his own language using “interpreters,” or “two stones which was fastened ...

This is not the same as the first part, since this second part introduces another object as a translating conduit, and another source as the item to be translated.

So which is it? Do we need a source text to be translated, or not? Do we need a conduit to aid the translation, or not? Do we need one, both, neither or nothing at all?

This non-committal 'definition' is designed to confuse the issue and cover every possible option.

Also worth noting is the comment that you repeated above, with my addition in parenthesis:
"Smith claimed no knowledge of the ancient language but, as Parrish noted, 'claimed to receive it (i.e., the knowledge of the language) by direct inspiration from Heaven."

This statement can be interpreted to not necessarily support the idea that Smith received a revelation of content direct from God without source material (which would match the new meaning of 'translate' offered up by the Church), rather it can imply that Smith received the ability to translate in the scholarly sense, that knowledge being instantly imbued within him from God and then applied to a source text.

[_Fence Sitter]

Besides the facsimiles, the KEP also pretty much lays to rest any discussion that the papyri did not involve a translation in the ordinary sense of the word. . . . Why would they label their work a "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" if they did not think they were translating in a conventional sense?

"In 1835, Joseph Smith acquired manuscripts written on Egyptian scrolls, along with several smaller papyrus documents and four Egyptian mummies. He dictated a translation of some of this material to scribe Warren Parrish. As with the Book of Mormon, Smith claimed no knowledge of the ancient language but, as Parrish noted, 'claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven.'" (link)

How many conventional translation efforts rely on "direct inspiration from Heaven" rather than a knowledge of the source language? Even if a "grammar and alphabet" is produced, such a methodology is definitely unorthodox.

The point here is that the church has been representing what Joseph Smith did with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham as taking the words on a text in a foreign language and producing an English translation of those words. Up until now they have been representing him as a translator of those two documents. Now it seems they want the word translation, as it applies to Joseph Smith for the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, to also include revelation or inspiration. Clearly this is because the internet has exposed the actual processes and results employed by Joseph Smith to produce both the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. The problem here is that he was already known as a revelator, and he was already known to have produced other texts with out claiming they came from an original text, as is the case in the Book of Moses and D&C.

It's a shift Nevo, maybe not a big one, but clearly a move designed to provide a modern explanation to believing members, an explanation different from how members back then and until recently understood what Joseph Smith was doing.

Claiming these texts are revalatory opens a whole can of worms as to the actual purpose of creating a set of plates or why spend &2400 to purchase papyri that were not even necessary to the translation.

More and more it seems like the fall back position for the church is to take the position of "we simply do not know" the how & whys of what was going on in the early church. A very strange position for an organization claiming to be led by a prophet and to be restoring truth and knowledge.

[_Tator]

I note that the 'new' definitiion of 'translate' by lds.org is cleverly worded to mean anything or nothing in particular:

I agree it is another classic case of the church wanting Kate and Edith, too.

[_grindael]

Also worth noting is the comment that you repeated above, with my addition in parenthesis:

"Smith claimed no knowledge of the ancient language but, as Parrish noted, 'claimed to receive it (i.e., the knowledge of the language) by direct inspiration from Heaven."

This statement can be interpreted to not necessarily support the idea that Smith received a revelation of content direct from God without source material (which would match the new meaning of 'translate' offered up by the Church), rather it can imply that Smith received the ability to translate in the scholarly sense, that knowledge being instantly imbued within him from God and then applied to a source text.

Exactly my point, and there is evidence to back this up. For example, why write down Reformed Egyptian "caractors" if he was simply translating from thin air? Why continue to pull out these "caractors" and show them about as he did on many occasions? http://mormonitemusings.com/2013/08/30/ ... ld-plates/

[_grindael]

From my Essay,

Diedrich Willers, a Reverend in the Reformed Church wrote a letter in June of 1830 which included the most credible reports [78] about Joseph Smith and the history and origin of the Book of Mormon. [79] Willers was acquainted with the Whitmer family [80] and wrote that he spoke to Peter Whitmer, Sr. [81] who Willers said was “silent about Smith’s pretension.”[82] Willers then related what information he could gather about the new sect from those “credible reports”:

In the month of July [in 1829], Joseph Smith made his appearance in Seneca County, in the neighborhood of Waterloo, about six miles from my hometown. There a certain David Whitmer claimed to have seen an angel of the Lord, so Smith proceeded to his house, in order to complete the translation of the above work himself. According to the reports, only there could he work–where men who have had association with the other world also reside. This is the eleventh place where he had worked on the translation of his work and where men saw angels.

He asserted that the angel of the Lord appeared to him and made it known that in the neighborhood of Palmyra there were golden plates in the earth, upon which was described the doings of a Jewish prophet’s family, associated with many not yet fulfilled prophecies. The angel indicated that the Lord destined him to translate these things into English from the ancient language, that under these plates were hidden spectacles, without which he could not translate these plates, that by using these spectacles, he (Smith) would be in a position to read these ancient languages, which he had never studied, and that the Holy Ghost would reveal to him the translation in the English language. Therefore, he (Smith) proceeded to Manchester township, Ontario County, and found everything as described, the plates buried next to the spectacles in the earth, and soon he completed the translation of this work. [83]

[78] Diedrich Willers, The First Months of Mormonism: A Contemporary View by Rev. Diedrich WIllers, Edited and translated by D. Michael Quinn, New York History 54, July, 1873, p. 326. Online, here, accessed June 5, 2013.

[79] ibid.

[80] ibid, page 333.

[81] ibid, page 327.

[82] ibid.

[83] ibid, page 326.