The Church (in the Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Association? in Priesthood quorums? I have not yet verified this detail) studied the history of the Church in 1906. The lesson concerning Book of Mormon translation raised questions in the minds of some members that precisely match those questions being investigated at the current moment: How did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon? Were the plates actually present on the table while he translated? What exactly appeared on the stone he used in the work of translation?
The following question was submitted to Joseph F. Smith from a group in St. George early in 1906; I do not have access to Pres. Smith’s response. The purpose of this brief post is not to try to answer the question — volumes have been and are being written on that — but only to note with fascination that exactly the same questions we debate now were discussed long ago. Similarly, the unsettled minds of some members over unanswered questions arose then as now, as does the teacher’s conclusion that “It is done, and I accept it.” Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.
We have reached the lesson in the manual wherein appears the statements of Martin Harris and David Whitmer as to the methods of the Prophet Joseph in making the translation of the Book of Mormon, Roberts’ explanation of this, and his statement as to the manner of the Prophet’s translating the work. The class seems unable to unite as to just what is the true manner of this translation. Some claim that the Prophet must have the Plates immediately under the Urim and Thummim, and that each Nephite Character must appear on this instrument, with the English translation under it. Others think that the Plates were not always immediately with the Prophet, that it was not necessary for them to be immediately under the Urim and Thummim, and that in the translation only the words in English appeared to Joseph. It does not seem to be made entirely clear, and some are seemingly inclined to doubt unless the matter is made clear to them. And for fear of advancing something that would be a stumbling block to the young men, or leaving them in a condition of uncertainty and unbelief, I feel it my duty as teacher of the class to submit the matter to you. As for myself I don’t care how it was done. For me it is done, and I accept it in full.
My daughter is currently staying with us as a COVID refugee from UC Berkeley. She is taking a class on translating from Japanese to English, so we discuss this at dinner. Translation can be really complicated. Some of it depends on how similar or dissimilar the two languages are. It is rarely done character by character.
It’s not translation, rather transcription, that I’m familiar with, and that can sometimes be done one character at a time, especially with styles like secretary hand. However, my view is that Joseph did not necessarily follow standard translation practices that we today would recognise, as he was not using purely his own knowledge and tools.
Good reminder. Fascinating!
November 19, 2020
I’ve studied the translation of the Book of Mormon and learned that Joseph Smith used a Seer Stone to translate! He put the Seer Stone in a hat and would place his face in the hat and the translation or words in English would appear, the hat was used to shut out light as to be able to see words better!
Yes, that is a technique he used during his early translation work; he apparently used other methods as the work progressed, according to eyewitnesses. You might be interested in the two most recent (and best!) scholarly works on Joseph Smith and translation (both of which look at his efforts beyond the Book of Mormon): Sam Brown’s Joseph Smith’s Translation, and a volume of essays edited by three scholars associated with the Joseph Smith Papers project, Producing Ancient Scripture. The story is far more complex, and the evidence varied enough, to justify the questions of 1906 (and of today’s students, as well).