Skousen Fireside in Cedar City

[Guest]

Those people are nuts.

Of course the Book of Mormon was translated 150 years earlier! It's the Book of Mormon equivalent of Q! See? That explains all the linguistic discrepancies! The Lord must've chosen someone else to bring forth the Book of Mormon, but he must've failed in his endeavor, and the Lord re-buried the plates and was to wait for spirit Joseph to take his mortal tabernacle and become the new chosen one. You know... Bring balance to the Force!

Sheesh.

- VRDRC

It all makes sense to me now. It must have been the initial translator that took the plates from the real Cumorah (you know, the one where the battle actually happened and where the Nephites/Lamanites actually lived) and buried them in New York. All this time, the linguistic issues and lack of archaeological evidence were just tests of my faith. Heavenly Father, you really had me there. You really are a clever one.

[_just me]

So, Joseph Smith wasn't all that special after all. At least one other person was able to translate before him. Why are they not prophesied of in the scriptures?

[_Chap]

Noticed on MDD:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/582 ... ge__st__40

JNclone, on 07 July 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

And no suggestion was made during the talk of how this mystery is to be solved?

No. That's why it is a "mystery."

Skousen concludes that article by saying:

Quote
"These new findings argue that Joseph Smith was not the author of the English-language translation of the Book of Mormon. Not only was the text revealed to him word for word, but the words themselves sometimes had meanings that he and his scribes would not have known, which occasionally led to misinterpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a 19th-century text, nor is it Joseph Smith's. The English-language text was revealed through him, but it was not precisely in his language or ours."

Did no-one in the audience of Skousen's talk ask the obvious question - who, then DID produce the translation that was delivered to Joseph Smith?

No one asked that question. But I have. Royal and I have also discussed this question, and I have some ideas about its possible answer: that the work of translation was very likely delegated (consistent with our understanding of the economy of God) to those who produced the original work (Mormon, Moroni, Alma, etc.). To me, this makes complete sense. As regards these angelic ministrants, we are told:

Quote
Angels are personages who minister for the Lord in carrying out his work. Joseph Smith taught that all angels who minister to the earth are “Those who belong to it or have belonged to it.”

Robert F. Smith then comments:

Even though he was not explicit about it, I thought that Skousen was suggesting that God himself was the source of the translation. Particularly since he said that the complex non-English "if . . . and" conditional sentence constructions in the Book of Mormon was a "sign from God."

More from Schryver:

Bob:

Royal and I have talked about this quite a bit, and I am fairly confident that this is not what he thinks. My impression from him is that his thoughts on the issue are more or less similar to what I have described above: that the work of translation was delegated to what we would characterize as "ministering angels." That said, he would, I am certain, attach the word "speculative" to any thesis he might propose in relation to these questions.

In any event, I'll run the question by him, and then I'll make another post later this evening with his response, if he has one.

Robert F. Smith:

Interesting though that an angelic go-between might theoretically provide the actual very archaic words. In such a case, the effect would be the same as if God himself had provided the words not otherwise available to Joseph.

Schryver:

I fully agree that the implications tend toward the conclusion of divine intent.

But why that particular era in the evolution of the English language? Perhaps there is a connection to another event taking place at roughly the same time: the translation of the King James Version of the Bible. It has also been suggested by some that the King James translators were the recipients of divine inspiration.

Garbo's account seems to agree with all this to some extent - though there are some contradictions still.

There does not seem to be any continuation of the thread so far (apart from stuff about organ playing).

[_harmony]

Noticed on MDD:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/582 ... ge__st__40

JNclone, on 07 July 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

And no suggestion was made during the talk of how this mystery is to be solved?

No. That's why it is a "mystery."

Skousen concludes that article by saying:

Quote
"These new findings argue that Joseph Smith was not the author of the English-language translation of the Book of Mormon. Not only was the text revealed to him word for word, but the words themselves sometimes had meanings that he and his scribes would not have known, which occasionally led to misinterpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a 19th-century text, nor is it Joseph Smith's. The English-language text was revealed through him, but it was not precisely in his language or ours."

Did no-one in the audience of Skousen's talk ask the obvious question - who, then DID produce the translation that was delivered to Joseph Smith?

No one asked that question. But I have. Royal and I have also discussed this question, and I have some ideas about its possible answer: that the work of translation was very likely delegated (consistent with our understanding of the economy of God) to those who produced the original work (Mormon, Moroni, Alma, etc.). To me, this makes complete sense. As regards these angelic ministrants, we are told:

Quote
Angels are personages who minister for the Lord in carrying out his work. Joseph Smith taught that all angels who minister to the earth are “Those who belong to it or have belonged to it.”

Robert F. Smith then comments:

Even though he was not explicit about it, I thought that Skousen was suggesting that God himself was the source of the translation. Particularly since he said that the complex non-English "if . . . and" conditional sentence constructions in the Book of Mormon was a "sign from God."

More from Schryver:

Bob:

Royal and I have talked about this quite a bit, and I am fairly confident that this is not what he thinks. My impression from him is that his thoughts on the issue are more or less similar to what I have described above: that the work of translation was delegated to what we would characterize as "ministering angels." That said, he would, I am certain, attach the word "speculative" to any thesis he might propose in relation to these questions.

In any event, I'll run the question by him, and then I'll make another post later this evening with his response, if he has one.

Robert F. Smith:

Interesting though that an angelic go-between might theoretically provide the actual very archaic words. In such a case, the effect would be the same as if God himself had provided the words not otherwise available to Joseph.

Schryver:

I fully agree that the implications tend toward the conclusion of divine intent.

But why that particular era in the evolution of the English language? Perhaps there is a connection to another event taking place at roughly the same time: the translation of the King James Version of the Bible. It has also been suggested by some that the King James translators were the recipients of divine inspiration.

Garbo's account seems to agree with all this to some extent - though there are some contradictions still.

There does not seem to be any continuation of the thread so far (apart from stuff about organ playing).

Isn't this kind of speculation the sort of thing that gets people ex'ed for apostacy? Because this looks to me like it goes against the Restoration story. So Royal and Will may need to be looking to their hole cards.

[_Cicero]

Interesting

It would be one thing if Will were promulgating this theory, but Royal Skousen is another matter. As I said in an earlier post, I don't think any person alive or dead has spent more time analyzing the various remaining Book of Mormon manuscripts than Royal Skousen. He's been saying for a while now that he firmly believes that the Book of Mormon was a very literal translation (i.e, that Joseph actually saw words in the hat). This theory very conveniently addresses many of the obvious problems for any believer in a literal translation.

[_Drifting]

Interesting

It would be one thing if Will were promulgating this theory, but Royal Skousen is another matter. As I said in an earlier post, I don't think any person alive or dead has spent more time analyzing the various remaining Book of Mormon manuscripts than Royal Skousen. He's been saying for a while now that he firmly believes that the Book of Mormon was a very literal translation (i.e, that Joseph actually saw words in the hat). This theory very conveniently addresses many of the obvious problems for any believer in a literal translation.

Which would put the blame for the errors in grammer, text and doctrine firmly at the door of God. Hence the need to come up with some other scape goat - such as an unidentified third person who first did the translation (badly) which was passed on wholecloth to Joseph without correction.

This is beginning to sound like the Restoration equivalent of the grassy knoll...

[_Chap]

The thread on the MADboard seems to have gone silent, apart from an ironic note from cinepro referring to the notion that the various layers of translators and editors who produced the King James translation of the Bible could have been in receipt of divine inspiration:

If so, it's an interesting example of "revelation by committee":

I suspect that no-one over there feels like stepping any further into the jungle of dangerous ideas opened up by the suggestion that someone other than Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English a couple of centuries before his day, and that the seer stone was simply a kind of divine iPad from which Joseph Smith read off the pre-existing translation to his scribes.

[_Drifting]

The thread on the MADboard seems to have gone silent, apart from an ironic note from cinepro referring to the notion that the various layers of translators and editors who produced the King James translation of the Bible could have been in receipt of divine inspiration:

If so, it's an interesting example of "revelation by committee":

I suspect that no-one over there feels like stepping any further into the jungle of dangerous ideas opened up by the suggestion that someone other than Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English a couple of centuries before his day, and that the seer stone was simply a kind of divine iPad from which Joseph Smith read off the pre-existing translation to his scribes.

I quite like the idea of an iRock complete with iReformedEgyptian app...