https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/special-feature-212
I encourage anyone interested to attend and hear this for yourself.
I’ve been studying Brother Skousen’s book. I’ve often expressed my respect and admiration for Brother Skousen’s work on the Book of Mormon. I rely on it all the time for understanding the details of the Original Manuscript and the Printer’s Manuscript. However, I think his Early Modern English theory is misguided and has unfortunate repercussions.
I’m discussing it on this blog because as near as I can tell, all the M2C intellectuals agree with Brother Skousen’s views of the translation, at least in part. It fits the M2C narrative that Joseph was an ignorant speculator who misled the Church with the New York Cumorah, his claim that he translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim, etc.
For today, let’s consider one overview passage from p. 6 of the new book:
All of this quoting from the King James Bible is problematic, but only if we assume that the Book of Mormon translation literally represents what was on the plates. Yet the evidence in The Nature of the Original Language (parts 3 and 4) argues that the Book of Mormon translation is tied to Early Modern English, and even the themes of the Book of Mormon are connected to the Protestant Reformation, dating from the same time period. What this means is that the Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of what was on the plates, not a literal one. Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith. Nonetheless, the text was revealed to Joseph Smith by means of his translation instrument, and he read it off word for word to his scribe. To our modern-day, skeptical minds, this is indeed “a marvelous work and a wonder.”
Let’s break this down sentence by sentence, with my comments in red.
_____
All of this quoting from the King James Bible is problematic, but only if we assume that the Book of Mormon translation literally represents what was on the plates.
It is standard M2C doctrine that Joseph did not provide a literal translation of what was on the plates. That’s how Brother Sorenson comes up with tapirs instead of horses. M2Cers teach that “towers” in the text are actually “massive stone pyramids” because otherwise, the Mayan pyramids do not appear in the text.
The M2Cers teach that the text actually describes volcanoes and other features of Mayan culture and geography. Brant Gardner claims that the Book of Mormon text is evidence of what Joseph dictated, but is not evidence of what was on the original plates.
It’s true that Joseph said the Title Page was a literal translation of the last leaf of the plates, but the intellectuals don’t believe Joseph could have known that since (according to them) he didn’t even use the plates. I learned that beauty at BYU Education Week a few years ago.
Yet the evidence in The Nature of the Original Language (parts 3 and 4) argues that the Book of Mormon translation is tied to Early Modern English, and even the themes of the Book of Mormon are connected to the Protestant Reformation, dating from the same time period.
This is a two-part claim. Brother Skousen’s Early Modern English (EME) theory is based on the assumption that the only evidence we have of how Joseph Smith actually spoke in 1829–the only verbatim recording of what he dictated–is not evidence of how he spoke in 1829.
Let’s read that again.
Brother Skousen’s Early Modern English (EME) theory is based on the assumption that the only evidence we have of how Joseph Smith actually spoke in 1829–the only verbatim recording of what he dictated–is not evidence of how he spoke in 1829.
That strikes me as exactly backwards.
The EME theory simply assumes that Joseph could not have spoken the way he spoke when he dictated the text. Based on? Based on a detailed analysis of published material from around 1829. I won’t get into the detail here, but I assume most readers can tell the difference between speech patterns of rural farmers vs. language patterns in published material. And everyone who speaks English has inherited grammar, syntax and terminology much older than themselves.
For example, have you ever heard someone say “ain’t” when speaking? People don’t write it, but they say it. That contraction dates back to at least the 1600s; 400 years later, people still say it, although it’s considered “improper” and “nonstandard” so it is not used in print, except in fiction to portray a character’s background, education, etc.
The second claim relates to the themes of the Book of Mormon. Here, Brother Skousen dates the themes to the Protestant Reformation. He rejects even the possibility that these same themes are perennial and were issues for the Nephite prophets who wrote about them.
What this means is that the Book of Mormon is a creative and cultural translation of what was on the plates, not a literal one.
The phrase “creative and cultural translation” is a euphemism for a composition instead of a translation. Set aside the language issue; if the very themes in the Book of Mormon originated in the Protestant Reformation, we are left with, at most, a few ancient names from the plates, and maybe some war tactics, although if the religious themes date to the Reformation, it’s difficult to imagine why the war tactics would not also date from that era.
Based on the linguistic evidence, the translation must have involved serious intervention from the English-language translator, who was not Joseph Smith.
Here is the bottom line: although Joseph Smith claimed he translated the plates, in reality, according to Brother Skousen and many other LDS intellectuals (including most of the Church History department) he did not actually translate the plates.
Instead, Joseph merely transmitted someone else’s translation. He wasted his time studying and translating the characters during those months after he got the plates. He misled the world by claiming he translated the plates, and by saying the Title Page was a literal translation, because he didn’t really translate anything.
Nonetheless, the text was revealed to Joseph Smith by means of his translation instrument, and he read it off word for word to his scribe.
The “translation instrument” is a euphemism for the seer or peep stone in a hat, which functioned as a supernatural teleprompter for the unknown actual translator, if it was a translation at all.
To our modern-day, skeptical minds, this is indeed “a marvelous work and a wonder.”
Wouldn’t this new narrative strike even Joseph and Oliver as unbelievable? They explained from the beginning that Joseph translated the plates using the Urim and Thummim. Now our intellectuals are telling us Joseph and Oliver were wrong.
In this case, our modern-day, skeptical minds ought to question Brother Skousen’s theory, not the origins of the text as explained by Joseph and Oliver.
This is a brief introduction to the EME problem. We’ll have more posts in upcoming days.
Source: About Central America
3 thoughts on “Royal Skousen, translation and M2C”
It seems like some educators are trying to outdo each absurd ‘fiction rather than fact’ theory which is being foisted on the Church as a necessary new narrative to keep the Church relevant and current! How anyone can begin to refute the words of the prophets is beyond imagination! When some, especially in influential positions, begin to question the words of the prophets and blatantly decide what will be acceptable, everyone in the Church pays a price…this can include distress knowing this is false teaching, heartache watching confused family and friends exit the Church, loss of faith in our leaders who seem to go along with narrative supporting this junk and even indignation that our tithes and offerings being used to pay those who refute the words of the prophets!
If I were given to conspiracy theories, I would almost believe these people are trying to bring the church down from within.
I recently started reading History of the Church Volume 1 (or Period 1), starting with the nearly 100-page introduction that covers a brief summary of the history of Christianity from the time of Christ through the apostasy. Just today I read about the various councils gathered essentially to define (or re-define) doctrine, and the creeds generated by those councils contain some of the most mind-numbing, self-contradictory, I-don’t-really-know-what-I’m-talking-about-so-I’ll-make-it-confusing-to-sound-smart rhetoric ever put to paper. The author points out that, through this process of deciding and declaring doctrine through debate and mandate rather than revelation, the post-apostolic Christian church effectively abandoned their worship of God our Heavenly Father and instead began worshiping an indescribable, incomprehensible being of their own imagining, which is, in the end, no different at all from worshiping stone or gold idols.
What these so-called scholars are doing with our own history and scripture is exactly the same–they are the seeds of our own latter-day, church-wide apostasy. Just like in the early Christian era, it is not happening over night but rather slowly but surely by self-appointed experts whom we are supposed to trust because of their great wisdom and knowledge. The Book of Mormon has a few choice words for such individuals.
As for myself, I will continue to stand by the Prophet Joseph, his modern successor President Nelson, and the word of God whether revealed or translated. I am a linguist myself, and I have absolutely no illusion whatsoever about what “translation” means, and I trust the Lord meant it when he said it–Joseph TRANSLATED the plates, with divine help.
Comments are closed.