The 5 ways Joseph translated

[_Drifting]

Here is the most recent official explanation of how the Book of Mormon came about.
You will note that:
Only one method of translation is acknowledged.
The method described does not match the official pictures used by the Church to show how the translation was done.
The phrase to describe the implements that Joseph used is 'Urim & Thummim' - which I believe has been shown to be a term added in after the event.

What follows is the story of how Joseph received, translated, and published the record now titled the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. The Savior Himself testified that the book is true (see D&C 17:6).

1.
In 1820 a 14-year-old boy named Joseph Smith lived near Palmyra, New York. Though young, he was concerned about his standing before God and confused by the claims of various Christian religions that sought converts by discounting the claims of the others. Motivated by his study of the Bible, Joseph decided to seek wisdom by asking God, who “giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not” (James 1:5). He went into the woods near his home to pray.

2.
As Joseph knelt and prayed, a brilliant pillar of light fell upon him. In it he saw two Personages. Heavenly Father spoke and said, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (Joseph Smith—History 1:17). The Lord told Joseph not to join any of the churches because none of them were true, but he was promised “that the fullness of the Gospel should at some future time be made known unto [him].”1

3.
Three years passed, during which Joseph Smith shared his experience with others—and was persecuted for it. He reported: “Though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and … I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it” (Joseph Smith—History 1:25).

4.
On September 21, 1823, Joseph was praying when light filled his attic bedroom and an angel named Moroni appeared. Moroni told Joseph about some writings by ancient prophets. The record, engraved on golden plates, was buried in a nearby hill. Joseph was informed he was to translate the record.

5.
Finally, on September 22, 1827, Joseph was entrusted with the plates, lifting them from a stone box buried under a large stone on a hill near Palmyra, New York.

6.
As was common in rural areas in those days, Joseph Smith was largely uneducated. To assist him with the translation, God provided for him an ancient translation instrument called the Urim and Thummim. He was also blessed by the help of scribes who wrote what he dictated as he translated. Among these scribes were his wife, Emma; Martin Harris, a prosperous farmer; and Oliver Cowdery, a schoolteacher. The bulk of the translation work was finished less than three months after Oliver began serving as scribe.

Emma described what it was like to serve as Joseph’s scribe: “No man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when [I was] acting as his scribe, [Joseph] would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him.”2

Joseph explained the significance of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon: “By the power of God I translated the Book of Mormon from hieroglyphics, the knowledge of which was lost to the world, in which wonderful event I stood alone, an unlearned youth, to combat the worldly wisdom and multiplied ignorance of eighteen centuries, with a new revelation.”3

7.
During the 18 months he had the plates, Joseph wasn’t the only one to see or handle them. Three men—Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris—formally testified that the angel Moroni showed them the golden plates and that they knew the plates had “been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us.” Eight other men also testified that they had seen and handled the golden plates.4

8.
By August 1829, Joseph had contracted with publisher Egbert B. Grandin of Palmyra, New York, to print the volume. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm to pay for the book’s printing, and on March 26, 1830, the Book of Mormon was available for purchase.

9.
On April 6, 1830, about 60 people assembled in a log home in Fayette, New York. There, as directed by the Lord Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith formally organized the Savior’s Church, restored as it was originally organized and led by apostles and prophets, authorized to speak for God. Later revelation to Joseph Smith gave the Church its name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see D&C 115:4).

*from the Ensign Oct 2011*

So why doesn't the Church explain all of the methods of translation?
Why doesn't the Church acknowledge what David Whitmer (one of the guys the Church accepts as a witness to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon) documented about how it was done?

Intellectually and historically this official explanation is at best disingenous and misleading.
The pictures the Church uses are deliberately misleading, else they would match the content of this article.
This article further highlights that the Church is guilty of hiding its history.
This highlights that the Church does think the method of translation is potentially troubling for the faithful.

With this article the Church fails to live up to the standard of behaviour it expects of its members and that it claims God expects - 'We believe in being honest, true...'

[_sanjara]

According to all known accounts, the head in hat was only a secondary or third method, not the main method.

You're probably referring to the face in the hat method in relation to other types of revelation Joseph Smith received. But the face in the hat does seem to be the main method used for translating the Book of Mormon.

You need to provide evidence and statistics showing how you came to the above conclusion. Have you done a careful historical study of all the known methods? Can you statistically demonstrate that the face in the hat method comes in second or third to other methods? Just because you say the face in the hat method is secondary or tertiary doesn't make it so. That's just special pleading.

[_zeezrom]

You need to provide evidence and statistics showing how you came to the above conclusion. Have you done a careful historical study of all the known methods? Can you statistically demonstrate that the face in the hat method comes in second or third to other methods? Just because you say the face in the hat method is secondary or tertiary doesn't make it so. That's just special pleading.

I know you weren't asking me but I thought I should comment on this. We need to consider Bayes' theorem when thinking about the probable methods Joseph used. Let's look at the end product: the book itself.

Believer and critic alike, we all agree there are many copied words from the Bible in the Book of Mormon. It would be very difficult, cumbersome, inefficient to copy words from the Bible by sticking your face in a hat and reading words off a hologram/rock. On the other hand, it is very efficient to open a KJV Bible and copy from it or refer to it while writing.

[_malkie]

You need to provide evidence and statistics showing how you came to the above conclusion. Have you done a careful historical study of all the known methods? Can you statistically demonstrate that the face in the hat method comes in second or third to other methods? Just because you say the face in the hat method is secondary or tertiary doesn't make it so. That's just special pleading.

I know you weren't asking me but I thought I should comment on this. We need to consider Bayes' theorem when thinking about the probable methods Joseph used. Let's look at the end product: the book itself.

Believer and critic alike, we all agree there are many copied words from the Bible in the Book of Mormon. It would be very difficult, cumbersome, inefficient to copy words from the Bible by sticking your face in a hat and reading words off a hologram/rock. On the other hand, it is very efficient to open a KJV Bible and copy from it or refer to it while writing.

I cannot disagree with your statement about the relative ease of copying from the KJV.

What I would like to know is this: given the descriptions of how Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon, how would he know when it was time to copy rather than read the words off the rock?

Imagine this, if you will.

Words appear on the rock, and Joseph Smith recognises them as the start of a KJV passage, so he goes for the more efficient/easier method.

1. How does he know how much to copy, if he has just read the first few words off the rock? What if the Book of Mormon plates had included 15 KJV pages, but Joseph Smith copied only the first page?

2. There are errors in the KJV (not controversial, I think.) How does he know that, having read words 1-10 off the rock, he can copy words 11-20 from the KJV. After all, the corrected word 15 might have been there waiting on the rock for him if he had only persevered, and now he has perpetuated an error.

3. How does he pick up again after copying from the KJV? Or do we just leave that to the HG?

I don't recall reading any explanation of how the KJV passages got to be in the Book of Mormon that would guard against problems that could be introduced by these uncertainties.

edited for clarity (I hope)

[_Equality]

But what's knew with anti-mormons and liberals.

Yes, I'm the mentally disabled one here. That's clear.

[Guest]

But what's knew with anti-mormons and liberals.

Yes, I'm the mentally disabled one here. That's clear.

Look at this post:

Are you mentally disabled....? Must be since you're an anti-mormon and state such a clear lie as the above statement.

If you actually had a brain and used it, you would have read the REST OF MY POST (instead of only seeing the word "lie"), the content AND the link which entirely debunks the anti-mormon claim WITH THE EVIDENCE contrary to your LIE....

But what's knew with anti-mormons and liberals. You see only what you want to see, not the actual truth and facts. I gave the EVIDENCE in my post, and in the link which supported my post. I didn't simply call you idiots liars, I gave the evidence of it! FIGGING LIARS!!! :(

It just exudes a certain scholarly level-headedness. I hope ldsfaqs keeps it up. I'm excited by the prospect of more and more people googleing 'Mormonism' and finding their way to the message boards where the words of disciples of Jesus Christ, like ldsfaqs, are on full display.

[_Fence Sitter]

I cannot disagree with your statement about the relative ease of copying from the KJV.

What I would like to know is this: given the descriptions of how Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon, how would he know when it was time to copy rather than read the words off the rock?

Imagine this, if you will.

Words appear on the rock, and Joseph Smith recognises them as the start of a KJV passage, so he goes for the more efficient/easier method.

1. How does he know how much to copy, if he has just read the first few words off the rock? What if the Book of Mormon plates had included 15 KJV pages, but Joseph Smith copied only the first page?

2. There are errors in the KJV (not controversial, I think.) How does he know that, having read words 1-10 off the rock, he can copy words 11-20 from the KJV. After all, the corrected word 15 might have been there waiting on the rock for him if he had only persevered, and now he has perpetuated an error.

3. How does he pick up again after copying from the KJV? Or do we just leave that to the HG?

I don't recall reading any explanation of how the KJV passages got to be in the Book of Mormon that would guard against problems that could be introduced by these uncertainties.

edited for clarity (I hope)

Your question poses a problem in that it adds an element neither side would agree on.

Those that claim he copied of the KJV and made up the rest do not believe the rock was more than a rock, so he picks up where he wants. You question would not make sense for these people.

Believer's do not think he copied from the KJV but to answer your question is is necessary to add in that element. Let's assume he actually was translating using the rock and also assume he copied surreptitiously from the KJV by memory or scarps of paper in the hat, which I believe no contemporary accounts claim, then the answer is to your question is simple. God would not allow him to proceed with the rock unless what was written was accurate. The minute that he started dictating something God did not want in the Book of Mormon he would know.

D&C 9:5-10: "And, behold, it is because that you [Oliver Cowdery] did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you. ... Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me. Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.

And this.

Martin Harris was one of the scribes Joseph Smith used to record the writing on the plates. This enabled him to give a first-hand account of how Smith performed this translation. Harris noted,

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say 'written;' and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used" (CHC 1:29).

[_ldsfaqs]

According to all known accounts, the head in hat was only a secondary or third method, not the main method.

You're probably referring to the face in the hat method in relation to other types of revelation Joseph Smith received. But the face in the hat does seem to be the main method used for translating the Book of Mormon.

You need to provide evidence and statistics showing how you came to the above conclusion. Have you done a careful historical study of all the known methods? Can you statistically demonstrate that the face in the hat method comes in second or third to other methods? Just because you say the face in the hat method is secondary or tertiary doesn't make it so. That's just special pleading.

If you looked at the "link" I provided, you would see a listing of all known accounts of the method of translation. My simple observation in reading every account shows which are the dominant methods. Head in hat was clearly only a secondary or third method per the all known accounts.

[_sanjara]

If you looked at the "link" I provided, you would see a listing of all known accounts of the method of translation. My simple observation in reading every account shows which are the dominant methods. Head in hat was clearly only a secondary or third method per the all known accounts.

You're simple observation did not make a distinction between the Book of Mormon in particular and revelation in general.

[_why me]

*from the Ensign Oct 2011*

So why doesn't the Church explain all of the methods of translation?
Why doesn't the Church acknowledge what David Whitmer (one of the guys the Church accepts as a witness to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon) documented about how it was done?

Intellectually and historically this official explanation is at best disingenous and misleading.
The pictures the Church uses are deliberately misleading, else they would match the content of this article.
This article further highlights that the Church is guilty of hiding its history.
This highlights that the Church does think the method of translation is potentially troubling for the faithful.

With this article the Church fails to live up to the standard of behaviour it expects of its members and that it claims God expects - 'We believe in being honest, true...'

Since we have various interpretations of the translation method, what becomes important is the testimonies of the scribes. And those testimonies are rather powerful. Emma was certainly convinced as was Oliver. And in the end, there testimony is what is important.