First, you are assuming that Joseph Smith would hold to any one specific view of translation. Assume, just for the sake of argument, that his story is true; that he did indeed translate the BoM from the plates.
If we take him at his word, he did exactly that. I donât think any of us dispute the fact that he
said he translated the BOM from the plates.
His very inexperience with the modes of translation would explain things. For instance, a strict word for word translation might explain the âIt came to passâ stuffâbut if Joseph didnât quite know the rules for this marker of past tense, it would be reasonable to figure that he simply plugged âit came to passâ whenever he came to it. As for chiasmsâŚgiven that the entire idea of chiasmus wasnât recognized outside of some very rarified scholastic circles at the time JS did this, the fact that there are any chiasms at all is pretty suggestive, never mind the very strong and consistent usage of them. Letâs face it: chiasms are a very eastern sort of literary device, not often found, if at all, in western literature.
I agree here; the German word
todtensuch has no meaning here, but roughly translated, it means
longing for death. That said, none of the accounts that I know of Smithâs âtranslationâ have him doing anything more than reading what was on the stones in his hat:
David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses who attested to having seen the gold plates said: âI will now give you a description of the manner in which the BOM was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principle scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear and then another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus, the BOM was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any man.â (An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer, 1887)
In the July 1993 Ensign, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said âHe (Martin Harris) also stated that the Prophet translated a portion of the BOM with a seerstone in his possession. The stone was placed in a hat that was used for that purpose, and with the aid of this seerstone the Prophet would read sentence by sentence as Martin wrote, and if he made any mistake the sentence would remain before the Prophet until corrected, when another sentence would appear.â
No, by these standards, what Smith produced wasnât a âtranslationâ in the formal sense whatsoever because the Urim and Thummim did all the work for him. But we also know that the new image of letter, letters, or phrase wouldnât show until the previous one was correct, and therefore, all of the misspellings, errors, and problems in the BOM must be the fault of God.
In fact, while it is possible to lose chiasms in translation, it doesnât often happen that chiasms are found where there were none in the first place. Chiasms, as well, are not affected much by the âidea for ideaâ rather than âword for wordâ translation style, because chaisms are all about ideas, not words.
Your point about chiasms might be valid, in other wordsâŚif the chiasms in the BoM were not so obvious, well designed and complexâŚextremely deliberate, in other words. It is, in fact, a great deal less likely that JS would understand and deliberately use such an intricate literary device than that he would use 'adieu."
Unfortunately, chiasmus in the BOM isnât proof of any divinity because when we look in the D&C, we find it there, too. Therefore, we know that it was part of his normal pattern. Since Smith, by his own admission, studied the Bible from the age of 12 onward, we know that he had 12 or 13 years to become familiar with its structure.
If you use that as being proof that the BOM is of God, the evidence must also include Mae West (âWell, itâs not the men in your life that counts, itâs the life in your men.â), John F. Kennedy (âMankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.â), Frederick Douglass (âYou have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man.â), Croesus (âIn peace sons bury their fathers, but in war fathers bury their sons.â) or even BillClinton (âPeople the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.â).
Do your arguments for the BOM ever make sense?
<<<<<< Is this the true spirit of catholicism nowâŚseeing people mock another religion and having a good time doing it?
I just had to top Paul, even though he already knew about the comparison.
