translation of languages

8/8/2019 Translation of Languages

1/37

ATRANSLATION OF LANGUAGES@

(EI I Cor 12:10)by

8Robert F. Smith

At best, translation is appropriation (at worst, following the Italian

adage, it is betrayal). I take Aappropriation@ to mean the phenomenon bywhich the various expressive means in the source are exploded and

recomposed in the target language: through it, we absorb and make our

own the expression as originally intended. If the initial expression is

captured, absorbed, Aappropriated,@ if it emerges to new life as it becomes

Aour@ expression, then, we may say, a successful translation has takenplace.

Giorgio Buccellati1

AThese commandments are of me, and were given unto to my servants in

their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to

understanding.@ [D&C 1:24] The revelations were not God=s diction,

dialect, or native language. They were couched in language suitable to

Joseph=s time. The idioms, the grammar, even the tone had to be

comprehensible to 1830s Americans.

Richard L. Bushman2

. . . the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto

men according to their language, unto their understanding.

II Nephi 31:3

1Buccellati, AOn Poetry B Theirs and Ours,@ in Abusch, Huehnergard, and Steinkeller, eds.,

Lingering Over Words (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 105. Published version of his 1978 AOSSymposium presentation.

2 Bushman,Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (N.Y.: Knopf, 2005), 174.


2/37

2

ATRANSLATION OF LANGUAGES@

( v v I Cor 12:10)by

8Robert F. Smith

3

2010

. . . the interpreter=s understanding of a text is shaped by his own questions

and pre-judgments. But the text, in turn, speaks back to the interpreter, so

that his initial questions and pre-judgments are reshaped. The term

Ahermeneutical circle@ may be misleading, for in the hermeneutical

movement between text and interpreter, genuine progress will be achieved

towards a fusion of two horizons, provided that there is both critical

reflection and also a humble listening to the text.

A. C. Thiselton4

I would like to take serious issue with a number of unfortunate claims contained in EdwardAshment=s recent AThe Book of Mormon B A Literal Translation?@Sunstone, 5/2 (Mar-Apr 1980),10-14. For, although his previous piece (on the facsimiles of the book of Abraham) was of the

highest quality, and, although I know Ed to be a well-trained and unusually careful scholar, there

can be no excuse for such a poorly or hastily conceived piece as that hereunder review. Had hedone his homework, he might have found a competent appraisal of a wider range of sources 5 in

James E. Lancaster=s A>By the Gift and Power of God=: The Method of Translation of the Book of

Mormon,@ in the RLDS Saint=s Herald, 109 (Nov 15, 1962), 798-802, 806, 817.6 With hispurview thus broadened, Ashment might have reached somewhat different conclusions on a

number of points.

Ashment first erred most grievously in his assessment of the testimonies of severaleyewitnesses:

3 This is essentially my June 1980 draft (with few alterations), as sent to Sunstone.

4Thiselton, v, in Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament

Theology, I (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 584.

5 Note also the major deficits of Ashment, A>A Record in the Language of My Father=: Evidence of

Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon,@ in Brent L. Metcalfe, ed.,New Approaches to theBook of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (SLC: Signature Books, 1993), 329-394 B hiscomments on Hebraisms reviewed by J. A. Tvedtnes in FARMS Review of Books, 6/1 (1994), 34-39.Well-integrated appraisals include R. Ll. Anderson, ABy the Gift and Power of God,@The Ensign, 7/9 (Sept1977), 79-85; and B. H. Roberts,A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints, I (1907), 275-311.

6 Now available in D. A. Vogel, ed., The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (SLC:Signature Books, 1990), 97-112.


3/37

TRANSLATION OF LANGUAGES 3

Emma Smith Bidamon was 74 years old when she answered the questions of her son

Joseph III and his entourage7

in February of 1879. The questions were specific and detailed, her

answers convincing and fresh B except on the very personal and emotional issue of polygyny.

She died shortly thereafter, in that same year, and was, therefore, neither 78 nor 79 years old when

giving this final testimony B as Ashment=s article and caption incorrectly suggest on page 11 B nor

does her testimony in any way call into question the validity of B. H. Roberts= theory of translation.

Moreover, already at age 65, Emma had, in her own hand, written a description of the translation

process in reply to a query from Mrs. George W. (Emma) Pilgrim:

Now the first that my husband translated was translated by the use of Urim and Thummim,

and that was the part that Martin Harris lost. After that he used a small stone, not exactlyblack, but was rather a dark color.8

Mrs. Pilgrim=s request for Emma=s testimony may have been prompted by an earlier statement by

Dr. William E. McLellen that Aafter the 116 pages were lost Joseph translated the rest of the Book

of Mormon with a stone.@9

Other eyewitness testimony is corroborative of the general details. For example, Emma=s

brother-in-law, Michael Morse, knew Joseph in Harmony, Pennsylvania, and saw him translatingon several occasions. He later recalled that Joseph would place

the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely coverhis face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating, word after word, while the

scribes B Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other, wrote it down.10

Still earlier, between 1833 and 1847, Joseph Knight, Sr., described in his diary the translation

equipment and process. Note hispersonal recollection of Joseph on the morning of September22, 1827:

7 Saints=Herald, 26 (Oct 1, 1879), 289-290.

8Emma Smith Bidamon letter to Emma Pilgrim, Nauvoo, March 27, 1870 (RLDS Archives P4

f20, reverse side); The Return, 4/12 (July 15, 1895), 2; F. Brodie,No Man Knows My History, 20, gives theyear as 1871, but the RLDS Archives classifies it as 1870, and I defer to that judgment.

9 The Return, 4/12, p. 2; cf. Saints=Herald, 19 (Aug 1, 1872), 473; McLellan was a member of the

first Council of the Twelve Apostles.

10W. W. Blair letter, May 22, 1879, Sandwich, Illinois, to Saints=Herald, 26 (June 15, 1879),

190-191.


4/37


. . . he seamed to think more of the glasses or the urim and thummem then [than] he Did of

the Plates, for, says he, AI can see any thing; they are Marvelus. Now they are writen in

Caracters and I want them translated.@11

Like many others, Knight mixed terminology or confused glasses and seer-stone while describingan actual translation method used by Joseph Smith:

Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkened his

Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he

would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentancewould Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so

we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol translated.12

Knight correctly observes that Joseph lost the privilege of translating for awhile,13 although David

Whitmer stated that this had happened twice: (1) once, in a moment of arrogance, Smith spoke

self-importantly about the plates, and the angel came and took both plates and spectacles in fullview of those in the room; later (2) Smith allowed Martin Harris to take 16 plates [116 pages]

home, and the plates and spectacles were taken away againB Smith using his egg-shapedseer-stone without the plates thereafter.

14Of course, Whitmer was not an eyewitness to the first

instance. Nor could he have observed Joseph translating with the spectacles on and the plates

open at the table B as he had several times described it B and he admitted as much to J. L.

Traughber, Jr., October 13, 1879:

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say

that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by

means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a ASeer Stone,@ which was placed in the

crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a

spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon whichwas a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so

Joseph said.15

11BYU Studies, 17:33.

12BYU Studies, 17:35, thus leaving us with the impression of the seer-stone as a crystallinevirtual-state transducer with a light-emitting diode (LED) display, i.e., a semi-conductor which emits

visible electromagnetic radiation in response to stimulating voltage, while the Aglasses@ were like dual

counterparts with liquid crystal display (LCD).

13BYU Studies, 17:35, and D&C '10:3, which must be dated to May 1829!!

14 Interview of Dec 15, 1885, AThe Book of Mormon,@The Chicago Times, Dec 17, 1885, p. 3, col.4; The Chicago Times, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 1; cf. The Chicago Tribune, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 4, and TheChicago Times, 20 (Aug 7, 1875), p. 1, cols. 3-4;Millennial Star, 48:36.

15 Saints=Herald, 26 (Nov 15, 1879), 341; 109 (Nov 15, 1962), 800; cf. E. B. Mullin and E. L.

Kelly in Saints=Herald, 27 (Mar 1, 1880), 76.


5/37


When she was 55 years of age, David Whitmer=s younger sister, Elizabeth Anne Whitmer

Cowdery (Oliver=s widow), presented William E. McLellan with her own eyewitness testimonyfrom the time when she was in her mid-teens:

Richmond, Ray Co., Mo. Feb 15th 1870

I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith=s

translating the book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at my Father=s house. And I

often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never

had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place

the director in his hat, and then place his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light, and then

[lacuna ] [remainder

of letter has been lost]16

David Whitmer said that Joseph later gave the seer-stone to Oliver, whose widow (Elizabeth

Anne) gave it to Phineas Young, who took it to Salt Lake City and the LDS Archives. The stonehas been displayed to selected groups over the years and presumably now resides in the LDS

Presidential Vault along with Oliver=s rod and other relics and documents of the early Church not

otherwise entrusted to the archivists of the Historical Department of the Church.17

David Whitmer=s public statements on the translation issue, however garbled by various

newspaper reporters, began when he was 69 B more than a decade before the account cited by

Ashment B again mitigating suggestions of doddering senility thus applied to both David and

Emma. As for aged and infirm Martin Harris, in his 1828 interviews with Episcopal Priest JohnClark of Palmyra, and with Professor Charles Anthon of New York City, Harris apparently said

nothing which would call into question the thrust of his later testimony on the mode of

translation.18

16 Copy only available in Dr. McLellan letter to AMy Dear Friends,@ from Independence, Mo., Feb

1870 (RLDS Archives, P13 f191) B disposition of original certificate unknown B with conjectural

restorations by me based on partially visible writing at point where bottom half of McLellan letter was lost

(at the fold).

17 Saints=Herald, 34 (Feb 5, 1887), 92b; The Return, 4/12 (July 15, 1895), 1; B. H. Roberts,

Comprehensive History of the Church, I:129, VI:230-231 and note; see also Anthon H. Lund Journal, July5, 1901, as cited inBYU Studies, 19:82 n. 17; A. Jenson,Historical Record, 623.

18See Edward Stevenson,Reminiscences of Joseph the Prophet(SLC, 1893), 29-33, including

Bishop Sanford Porter=s description in the same vein; John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way (N.Y./ Phila.,1842), 222-238 (Clark erroneously recalls the meeting as in 1827); A. Jenson,Historical Record,VI:216-217 (May 1887), provides a lightly altered version of Stevenson=s account of Harris= Sunday

morning lecture in SLC, Sept 4, 1870, first published inDeseret News, Nov 30, 1881, and in theMillennialStar, 44 (Feb 6, 1882), 86-87.


6/37


Joseph=s own father-in-law, Isaac Hale, provided yet another corroborative description of

the seer-stone-in-the-hat method for a local newspaper in early 1834,19

while his brother, William

B. Smith, referred to the stone as Athe Urim and Thummim.@20 A few years later, however,

William is said to have provided the following account of the spectacles in response to thequestions of J. W. Peterson and W. S. Pender:

We asked him what was meant by the expression, Atwo rims of a bow,@ which held the

former. He said a double silver bow was twisted into the shape of the figure eight, and thetwo stones were placed literally between the two rims of a bow. At one end was attached

a rod which was connected with the outer edge of the right shoulder of the breast-plate.

By pressing the head a little forward, the rod held the Urim and Thummim before the eyes

much like a pair of spectacles. A pocket was prepared in the breastplate on the left side,

immediately over the heart. When not in use the Urim and Thummim was placed in this

pocket, the rod being of just the right length to allow it to be so deposited. This instrumentcould, however, be detached from the breastplate and his brother said Joseph often wore it

detached when away from home, but always used it in connection with the breastplatewhen receiving official communications, and usually so when translating, as it permitted

him to have both hands free to hold the plates.

In answer to our question, William informed us that he had, himself, by Joseph=sdirection, put the Urim and Thummim before his eyes, but could see nothing, as he did not

have the gift of a Seer. He also informed us that the instruments were too wide for his

eyes, as also for Joseph=s, and must have been used by much larger men. The instrument

caused a strain on Joseph=s eyes, and he sometimes resorted to the plan of covering his eyes

with a hat to exclude the light in part.21

There is no lack of such detail in the primary and secondary sources (some of it of a confused and

internally contradictory nature), but too much to be included here.22

Eyewitness testimony, often

edited by others B as Lucy Mack Smith=s was by the Corays and others23

B and reports of

19Affidavit in Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834, p. 1, also published in Clark, Gleanings

by the Way, 242-245.

20William Smith, William Smith on Mormonism (Lamoni: Herald Steam Book and Job Office,

1883), 11-12, also published by F. W. Kirkham,A New Witness for Christ in America: The Book ofMormon, new and enlarged ed./ 3rd ed., II (SLC: Utah Printing Co., 1959), 417.

21July 4, 1891,interview, The Rod of Iron, I/3 (Feb 1924), 6-7.

22See Appendix for additional witness statements.

23 Lucy Mack Smith,Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors forMany Generations, eds. Howard & Martha Jane Coray, 1st ed. (Liverpool: S. W. Richards, 1853/ reprintArno Press, 1969/ reprint Provo: Grandin Book, 1995); Lucy Mack Smith,History of Joseph Smith, by HisMother, 2nd ed., ed. George A. Smith & Elias Smith (SLC: Improvement Era, 1902); 3rd ed., ed. PrestonNibley (SLC: Bookcraft, 1945/ reprints 1954-2000); two separate MSS were collated and published as

Lucy=s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith=s Family Memoir, ed. Lavina Fielding Anderson (SLC:Signature Books, 2001).


7/37


interviews before and after publication of the Book of Mormon 24 have too generally been

misconstrued to mean that someone was lying about the true nature of the translation. Joseph

himself must have been the ultimate source for many of these stories and descriptions. Yet, at the

October 25, 1831, Conference, he refused to discuss the question, saying that Ait was not expedient

for him@ to give Aall the particulars.@25

A little later he wrote privately that

the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating

the characters . . . .26

Even for his official history, Joseph allows simply that he translated the Book of Mormon bymeans of the Urim and Thummim, which his AWentworth Letter@ and the Book of Mormon

described as two transparent stones set in the rim of a silver bow or bows.27

Of course, the phrase AUrim and Thummim@ appears nowhere in early Mormon sources

before its use by William W. Phelps in January of 1833 in the Evening & Morning StarB whereAinterpreters@ or Aspectacles@ are also seen as ATeraphim@!!28 Oliver Cowdery was even lessexpansive,29 although S. W. Richards claimed in 1907 that Oliver had told him that Joseph had

held the Urim and Thummim over the hieroglyphics and that every word was visible correctly

spelled until copied thus.30

However, as Robert Hullinger and several others have noted,31

the phrase AUrim and

Thummim@ could be and was used to refer to both the glasses and the single seer-stone. The Book

of Mormon shows the same apparent confusion in terminology, and one ought to compare Joseph=s

Inspired Version of John 1:42, ACephas, which is, by interpretation, a seer, or a stone.@32

To judge

24 See F. W. Kirkham,A New Witness for Christ in America, 3rd ed., II:31-77, 98, 106, 112.

25 AFar West Record,@ p. 13; Roberts, ed.,History of the Church, I:220 note.

26 Joseph Smith Letterbook, Kirtland, 1831-32, p. 5.

27 Elders=Journal, I/3 (1838), 42-43; Times & Seasons, III (Mar 1, 1842), 707 = Roberts, ed.,

History of the Church, IV:537; Times & Seasons, III (May 2, 1842), 772 =History of the Church, I:19;Mosiah 28:13; cf. Lucy Mack Smith,Biographical Sketches , 1st ed., 101;Lucy=s Book, 379.

28 Evening & Morning Star, 1st ed., I/8 (Jan 1833), 58b = 2nd ed., 116b.

29 Letter of Sept 7, 1834, inLDS Messenger & Advocate , I (Oct 1834), 14, and Times & Seasons, II(Nov 1, 1840), 201; cf. Journal of Reuben Miller, Oct 21, 1848, quoted in The Ensign, 7/9 (Sept 1977), 80.

30Samuel W. Richards Statement, May 25, 1907, on his 1848 meeting with Cowdery, BYU

Special Collections, quoted in The Ensign, 7/9:80.

31Robert N. Hullinger,Mormon Answer to Skepticism (St. Louis, 1980), 12-13.

32 Cf. D&C 130:8-11; and Coptic Gospel According to Thomas, logion 19 (Codex II Labib


8/37


from the broad-spectrum terminology used in early Mormon sources, Joseph might just as well

have said ACephas, which is, by interpretation, a seer, or an Urim & Thummim@! After all, HeberC. Kimball reported that Brigham Young had possession of the Urim & Thummim,33 and Wilford

Woodruff claimed that Joseph had shown him the Urim & Thummim at a meeting with the Twelve

on December 27, 1841, in Nauvoo,34

while Brigham himself reports of that same meeting:

I met with the Twelve at Brother Joseph=s. He . . . explained to us the Urim and Thummim

which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters. . . . heshowed us his seer stone.35

This is not the place to go into the very sticky issue of divination techniques mentioned in

the Bible, e.g., arrows, liver, teraphim, ephod, purim, Urim, and Thummim.36

Suffice it to say

that, for the hendiadys Urim & Thummim, there is not even agreement among scholars on its

function, much less its meaning.37

In any case, Mormon sources expand rather than narrow theconceptual framework within which we must understand it as applied to the translation of the Book

of Mormon B and indeed to the book of Abraham!38 B so that it matters little whose word weaccept as to the actual mode of translation. All available descriptions can be explained as genericand processual: Joseph uses something akin to a teleprompter with psychofeedback.

The old word-for-word plenary dictation theory of the translation of the Book of Mormon(i.e., words coming directly from God, with no intermediate process), which is accepted in some

circles for both Bible andBook of Mormon even today, is not based on an objective appraisal ofthe evidence. For neither D&C 8 & 9 nor the Book of Mormon itself allow for such a mechanical

84:19-21).

33Journal of Discourses, 2:111; cf.JD, 16:156.

34W. Woodruff Journal, Dec 27, 1841.

35Millennial Star, 26:118.

36 Exodus 28:15-30, Leviticus 8:8, Numbers 27:21, Deuteronomy 33:8, I Samuel 14:41

(Thummim), 28:6 (Urim), Ezra 2:63; Ezekiel 21:26-28, Habakkuk 2:18-19; Judges 17:5, 18:14,17-18,20,

Hosea 3:4, Zechariah 10:2; Proverbs 16:33, 18:18, Psalm 22:18, Esther 3:7, 9:26, Mark 15:24, Acts 1:26;

Lamentations 4:1; S. Ahituv in C. Roth, ed., Encyclopaedia Judaica, 6:111-116, esp. 114; W. F. Albright,From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed., 311; Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (London ed.),146,174.

37E. Robertson, Vetus Testamentum, 14 (Jan 1964), 67-74; H. G. May,American Journal of

Semitic Languages & Literature, 52 (1936), 215-231; cf.BASOR, 67:37.

38Millennial Star, III (July 1, 1842), 45-47; cf.Journal of Discourses , 7:176;Journal of History,

1:299.


9/37


readout.39 Whatever translation method was employed, the result was certainly not a dynamic

metaphrase, nor couched solely in Joseph=s personal style B as the Larsen-Rencher-Layton

wordprint analyses now confirm40B and it need have been no more and no less literal than the type

of rendering familiar in the 1611 King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. As Austin Farrer put itin his The Glass of Vision, Scripture is in the first instance Athe response of human witnesses todivine events, not a miraculous divine dictation.@41 The two-way process which must have taken

place in Joseph=s case was best expressed in John Baille=s 1954 Bampton Lectures:

There can be no valid knowledge except of what is already there, either waiting or striving

to be known. The knowing mind is active in attending, selecting, and interpreting; but it

must attend to, select from, and interpret what is presented to it; and therefore it must bepassive as well as active.42

Oliver Cowdery learned early on, and to his chagrin, the truth of this two-way process. Certainlya process in which concepts of authors and editors were translated by Joseph into the scriptural

idiom of his day,43

without however quashing the individual peculiarities of style throughout theBook of Mormon. Today much less literal modes of translation are in vogue,

44and one finds the

Book of Mormon being rendered in the modern idiom of all major languages B something

Ashment knows well, having once been Coordinator of Church Translations.

The degree of formal correspondence employed by Joseph in his translating may only

become clear with the decipherment of the old , horizontal Anthon Transcript ACaractors.@ In the

39 I Nephi 16:28-29, II Nephi 26:13, 31:3, Enos 5, 10, Omni 20, Alma 37:40, Ether 3:23-24, 5:1,

Mormon 8:12; cf. also D&C 12:4-5; Saints=Herald, 29:68, 33:13;History of the Church, I:226.

40 W. A. Larsen, A. C. Rencher, and T. Layton, AMultiple Authorship in the Book of Mormon,@New Era, 9/10 (Nov 1979), 10-13; AWho Wrote the Book of Mormon? An Analysis of Wordprints,@BYUStudies, 20 (Spring 1980), 225-251; cf. M. Q. Rice, ALanguage and Style of the Book of Mormon,@master=s thesis (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska, 1937); G. L. Burgon, AAn Analysis of Style Variations in the

Book of Mormon,@ master=s thesis (BYU, 1958); D. E. Perry, AThe Relevance and Effectiveness of Four

Book of Mormon Prophets and Their Teachings,@ doctoral dissertation (BYU, 1974).

41 Farrer, Glass of Vision (London: Westminster, 1948), 37, cited in John Baille, The Idea ofRevelation in Recent Thought, Bampton Lectures in America, 1954, no. 7 (N.Y.: Columbia Univ., 1956),36; cf. II Timothy 3:16 and note in NAB on Ahuman language.@

42Baille,Idea of Revelation, 19; cf. p. 29.

43 Hugh Nibley, AThe Literary Style of the Book of Mormon,@Saints=Herald, 108 (Oct 9, 1961),968-969, 975; cf. Andrew Greeley, The Jesus Myth (Doubleday-Image, 1973), 82-83, AIn trying to describethis experience to others, he [Jesus] uses, modifies, and adjusts the religious symbols available to him.@

44Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, UBS Helps for

Translators VIII (Leiden: Brill, 1974).


10/37


meantime, Ashment appears to have gone too far and may have assumed too much in making of

Joseph such a thoroughgoing filter in his translating that a nearly illiterate dynamic equivalence of

the original text should have eliminated all evidence of stylistic differences within the text! To

my knowledge no one has reported finding such a leveling factor in style or syntax B except

Ashment.

Ashment=s most egregious error, however, appears to arise from his failure to distinguish

between the characteristics of formal scribal texts and the rustic informality of local, part-timerecording. One of the foremost authorities on decipherment of ancient Mediterranean and Near

Eastern texts, George E. Mendenhall, observes:

Canons of criticism based on regularities observed in the writing of professional scribes or

highly literate persons are largely irrelevant in inscriptions produced by minimally literate

persons.

* * * * *

Precision of form, spelling and grammar are always the functions of professional scribes,and a Acomparative grammar@ based upon the compulsive spelling rules of ancient scribes

can never cope with ancient reality, for, at any given time or place, the colloquial language

and writing must always have been more archaic than the professional, educated

language.45

For its part, the Book of Mormon all but eschews a professional scribal tradition, and

Moroni even apologizes for the obvious lack of polish (Mormon 8:12, 9:31-34, Ether 12:23-28).

To what degree Joseph=s translation reflects B one can only speculate. However, Joseph=s literary

shortcomings aside, it might be germane to note that, for Semitic and Egyptian texts, all is not so

neat or complete as Ashment indicates (on page 13).

Hebrew: The free sentence structure, including enjambments and run-ons, common coordinate

clauses, redundancies of expression, lack of concord in gender, number, and person (or pronounsand in conjugation of verbs), ambiguities in usage of the relative and its complements, etc., often

leave us with apparent chaos, and create a blurred (diffuse) boundary between main (protasis) and

subordinate clauses (apodosis - circumstantial) in Hebrew texts,46

and could explain many of the

peculiarities of the earliest forms of the Book of Mormon (Original and Printer=s MSS, and 1830

edition).47

45Mendenhall, Kadmos, 14 (1973), 51-52, 63; cf. H. Youtie in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine

Studies, 12 (1971), 239-261.

46R. J. Williams is loathe to use the term Asentence@ at all since one is hard put to define its limits in

Hebrew: see hisHebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd ed. (Univ. of Toronto, 1976), 4.

47See the Hebraisms listed in J. A. Tvedtnes,BYU Studies, 11 (Aug 1970), 50-60; cf. E. C.

Bramwell, AHebrew Idioms in the Small Plates of Nephi,@ master=s thesis (BYU, 1961); M. D. Pack,

APossible Lexical Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon [Words of Mormon - Moroni],@ master=s thesis (BYU,

1973); Brian Stubbs, ABook of Mormon Language,@ in Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism,


11/37


12/37


Finally, it must be emphasized that what are frequently assumed to be Hebraisms in the

Book of Mormon are nearly always good Egyptianisms.54

S. P. Brock has listed examples of

Egyptian demotic phraseology taken over into Greek,55

and went on to argue as follows:

Over forty years ago the Coptic scholar, Th. Lefort, reviewing Abel=s Grammairedu grec biblique, suggested that many of the Ahebraisms@ of biblical Greek were just asmuch Aegyptianisms@. Except for Vergote (in his article on Agrec biblique@ in the

Supplmentof theDictionnaire de la Bible) this suggestion has been totally ignored bySeptuagint scholars, although modern studies of people who are trilingual have shown thattheoretically this is a very real possibility. According to these studies it is evident that,

where a syntactic construction is common to two languages, a trilingual speaker will be

particularly liable to introduce, subconsciously, the same construction into the third

language, where it is not at home.56

There is every reason to believe that the Nephite elite had to be trilingual, and this is in line with

Frank Moore Cross view that,

A Canaanite scribe who was bilingual or trilingual, who could write in more than one writing

system, evidently was freer to let his imagination range, to contemplate the possibility of other,

simple alternatives to the writing systems he knew.57

54 So John Gee in FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5 (1993), 179. See also note46, above; this apart from KJVisms in Joseph=s translation.

55 Brock, AThe Phenomenon of the Septuagint,@ in The Witness of Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 1972),11-36; esp. 17 n. 2, citing G. Mussies, AEgyptianisms in a Late Ptolemaic Document,@Antidoron M. DavidOblatum = Papyrologia Lugduno-Batava, 17 (1968), 70-76.

56 Brock, AThe Phenomenon of the Septuagint,@33-34, citing Abel inLe Muson, 41 (1928),152-160.

57 Cross inBible Review, 8/6 (Dec 1992), 21.


13/37


14/37


JOSEPH=S SCRIBES

1. Emma Hale Smith [Bidamon]

2. Martin Harris

3. Oliver Cowdery

4. Christian Whitmer

5. John Whitmer

6. Samuel H. Smith

7. Reuben Hale

8. Joseph Smith, Jr.

[9. Alva Hale ?]

[10. David Whitmer ?]

Surviving portions of the Original Book of Mormon MS (O MS) evidence only the writing of

Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and Joseph Smith Jr., along with an unknown hand or hands B see

Dean C. Jessee inBYU Studies, X (Spring 1970), 259-278; Royal Skousen, ed., The OriginalManuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text(Provo: FARMS,2001), 11,13-14.


15/37


TESTIMONIES

David Whitmer

No man could read it, but God gave to an unlearned boy the gift to translate it.

I will give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon 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 principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph

to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with theinterpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and

power of God, and not by any power of man.58

In a letter ca. December 9, 1886, from Richmond, Missouri, David Whitmer speaks of Aa

revelation that was given through the >stone= and is true.@ . . .

A few months after Joseph had finished translating, he gave the >stone= to Oliver,and told me and all of us that he was through except to preach the gospel; and he did not use

the stone any more.59

Article based on interview with D. Whitmer:

With an unpoetical crowbar he removed the cover, when were revealed to his astonishedsight a number of golden plates, and a singular stone. The plates were each about 6x10

inches in size, and were held together by a brazen ring passing through a hole near the top,

so that the entire package could be opened like a book. On these plates were mystic

characters that no man could decipher. A learned philologist in New York city was

consulted but confessed his utter ignorance of the language embodied in the symbols. Buta stone had been found with the plates, shaped like a pair of ordinary spectacles, though

much larger, and at least half an inch in thickness, and perfectly opaque except to the

prophetic vision of Joseph Smith. On the tablets or plates were engraven the records of

the lost tribe of Nephites, and the stone was

THE URIM AND THUMMIM,

by which the seers of old had deciphered the mysteries of the universe. (col. 3)* * * *

58D. Whitmer,An Address to All Believers in Christ(Richmond, Mo., 1887), 12.

59D. Whitmer, Saints=Herald, 34 (Feb 5, 1887), 92b.


16/37


In the spring of 1829, even Harmony became too hot for Joseph, and he sent to New York

for succor. David Whitmer started out in a wagon, drove 160 miles to Harmony, took

Smith and Cowdery as passengers, and conveyed them thence to his father=s house, where

they remained in retirement until September, completing the translation. During all these

months David had free access to their room, and wasAN EYE-WITNESS TO THE METHOD OF PROCEDURE.

The plates were not before Joseph while he tranalated, but seem to have been removed by

the custodian angel. The method pursued was commonplace but nevertheless effective.

Having placed the Urim and Thummim in his hat, Joseph placed the hat over his face, and

with prophetic eyes read the invisible symbols syllable by syllable and word by word,

while Cowdery or Harris acted as recorders. ASo illiterate was Joseph at that time,@ said

Mr. Whitmer, Athat he didn=t even know that Jerusalem was a walled city, and he was

utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and

Thummim revealed, and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite

scribe put them together. The stone was the same used by the Jaredites at Babel. I have

frequently placed it to my eyes but could see nothing through it. I have seen Joseph,

however, place it to his eyes and instantly read signs 160 miles distant and tell exactly whatwas transpiring there. When I went to Harmony after him he told me the name of every

hotel at which I had stopped on the road, read the signs, and described various scenes

without having ever received any information from me.@ The unbelievers frequently

attempted to confound the faithful few by asking them if they supposed

ATHAT FOOL BOY@

could write anything, or that God would select such a wretch as a medium of

communicating His will. The ready answer was that God was not very particular as to the

instruments used to accomplish certain desired ends, and that devils as well as angels had

their place in His economy.

* * * *. . . Joseph Smith, the prophet, led by divine agencies, and found the casket containing the

sacred records, and the Urim and Thummim by which the Areformed Egyptian@hieroglyphics might be deciphered, and translated them in the presence of David Whitmer,

. . .60

Article based on Omaha Heraldinterview with D. Whitmer:

The first 116 pages when completed were by permission intrusted to the hands of

Martin Harris, who carried them home to his incredulous relatives in triumph, hoping by

the exhibition to convert his family and kinfolk from their uncompromising hostility to the

religious premises he had adoption. . . .

60 AThe Golden Tables,@The Chicago Times, 20 (Saturday Morning, August 7, 1875), p. 1, cols.

3-4.


17/37


They were never found and were never replaced, so that the Book of Mormon is today

minus just 116 pages of the original matter, which would increase the volume fully

one-fourth of its present size. This unpardonable carelessness evoked the stormiest kind

of chastisement from the Lord, who took from the prophet the Urim and Thummim and

otherwise expressed his condemnation. By fervent prayer and by otherwise humblinghimself, the prophet, however, again found favor, and was presented with a strange,

oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone, about the size of an egg, only more flat, which, it

was promised, should serve the same purpose as the missing Urim and Thummim (the

latter was a pair of transparent stones set in a bow-shaped frame and very much resembled

a pair of spectacles). With this stone all of the present Book of Mormon was translated.61

December 15, 1885, interview with D. Whitmer, summarized (??):

O. Cowdery had heard of Smith=s find of a golden treasure (ca. June 1829), traveled to see him, andheard of death threats against Smith unless he divided the treasure. Cowdery viewed the treasure,

was mystified, and invited David WhitmerB

who was also allowed to see it. There were goldenplates, 8" x 10" each, as thick as sheet tin, and all bound by three gold rings, a large portion of the

volume sealed, the loose pages engraved with hieroglyphics. Also with the plates was a pair of

spectacles set in silver bows. Cowdery and Whitmer were also shown the plates= receptacle onthe Hill Cumorah.

The translation commenced in the Whitmer home and a blanket was used only to prevent

visitors from seeing the workB the entire household (Oliver, Emma, et al.) viewed the work oftranslation firsthand: Thus, the blanket divided the room as a portiere for privacy only. The plates

were there. The translation took about 8 months. The scribes included Emma, Oliver, Christian

Whitmer, et al. (col. 3)

Prayer preceded each session of translation. The scribes sat at the table opposite Smith and

worked in shifts. Those not writing would sit casually about the room. Method: Smith wouldaffix the spectacles to his eyes, take the plates, and translate the characters one at a time. Each

character would appear to the seer in succession and the English translation just under it, when

viewed through glasses. Sometimes a single word, and frequently a whole sentence. Oliver and

David helped with the pronouncing of some biblical words.

Some offense of Joseph=s displeased the Lord (became a braggart of his status) and the

angel took the plates and spectacles away.

Harris took and then lost 16 plates, which were then recovered by the angel, but work was

suspended for a while. The plates were never restored to Joseph B nor the spectacles, but a

different Urim & Thummim B one oval or kidney-shaped B a seer=s stone, which he placed in his

hat, and, face in hat, he would see character and translation on the stone.

61 Omaha Herald, reprinted in the Chicago Inter-Ocean, Oct 17, 1886, and in the Saints=Herald,33 (Nov 13, 1886), 706; 109 (Nov 15, 1962), 799-800, the accuracy of which, however, was challenged by

D. Whitmer himself in Saints=Herald, 33 (Dec 4, 1886), 764-765.


18/37


The Lord withheld the sealed portion from translation in order to assess the effect of the

unsealed portion.

Smith, Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris were designated Apostles of the Lord aftertranslation, and were gathered to view the plates brought by an angel to a pasture (table on which

were the plates of gold, the brass plates of Laban, brought nearly to the feet of the witnesses).

(col. 4)

D. Whitmer maintained his apostleship as a direct call from heaven through an angel of the Lord B

even on his death-bed62

[however, he did not die that year]. (col. 5)

Article in Chicago Times, Oct 14, 1881:

David Whitmer said that one character could make from a single word to two lines of

manuscript.63

Interview by J. L. Traughber, Jr., with D. Whitmer, Oct 13, 1879:

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does

not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but

by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a ASeer Stone,@ which was placed in the

crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a

spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which

was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so

Joseph said.64

Earlier interview apparently edited and reprinted (summarized here):

Treasure found by J. Smith; D. Whitmer told by an awed O. Cowdery to come at once toview the treasure. Local yokels demanded a share of the treasure. The plates were 8" x 4", thick

as sheet tin and bound with three golden rings, a large portion well-sealed, and with hieroglyphicson loose pages; also a pair of spectacles set in silver bows. A blanket divided the room for

privacy. The spectacles were silver rimmed. Plates were deciphered at table, the volume open,

one scribe after another taking dictation (a quartet of scribes in shifts). O. Cowdery=s biblical

knowledge of immense aid in Smith=s stumbling over big words.

When Smith became arrogant and spoke self-importantly about the contents of the plates,the angel came and took them and the spectacles in full view of those in the room.

62 AThe Book of Mormon,@The Chicago Tribune, Dec 17, 1885, p. 3, cols. 3-5; cf.Millennial Star,48:36.

63George Reynolds,Myth of Manuscript Found, 83.

64 Saints=Herald, 26 (Nov 15, 1879), 341; 109 (Nov 15, 1962), 800; cf. E. B. Mullin & E. L. Kelly

in Saints=Herald, 27 (Mar 1, 1880), 76.


19/37


20/37


where we were and then the translation went on all right. He could do nothing save he was

humble and faithful.68

The D. Whitmer view according to T. W. Smith:

I personally heard him state in January of 1877 in his own house in Richmond, Ray

County, Mo . . . that he saw Joseph translate, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, timeand time again, . . written mainly by Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, as the translation

was being read by the aid of the Urim and Thummim of the characters on the plates by

Joseph Smith . . . .69

68Braden and Kelly Debate: Public Discussion, etc., at Kirtland, Ohio, Feb 12 - Mar 8, 1884 (St.

Louis: Christian Publishing Co., n. d./ Independence: Herald House, 1913), 186; cf. Saints=Herald, 29:68,33:13; also published in Lyndon W. Cook, ed.,David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem,

UT: Grandin Book, 1991), 86.

69 Fall River Heraldarticle reprinted in Saints=Herald, 26 (Apr 15, 1879), 128; cf. Saints=Herald,27 (Jan 1, 1880), 13; 27 (Feb 15, 1880), 67; it is claimed that O. Pratt and J. F. Smith reported the same

result of their January 1879 interview with Whitmer in theDeseret Evening News, and likewise by E. D.Briggs and R. Etzenhouser of their January 1884 interview printed in the Saints=Herald, and finally also bya reporter for the St. Louis Republican in July 1884.


21/37


Oliver Cowdery

History Letter, September 7, 1834:

These were days never to be forgotten B to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the

inspiration of heaven, . . . Day after day I continue uninterrupted to write from his

mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said,AInterpreters,@ the history or record, called AThe book of Mormon.@

70

Testimony at October 1848 Iowa Conference, recorded by Reuben Miller, Oct 21, 1848:

I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the

lips of the Prophet as he translated it by the gift and power of God by means of the Urim

and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, holy interpreters. I beheld with my eyes and

handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld theInterpreters.71

Samuel W. Richards= recollection, May 25, 1907, of his 1848 meeting with Cowdery:

He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by

means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as

Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the Atranslators@ over the

hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been

touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose oftranslating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver

omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the

Ainterpreter@ until it was copied correctly.72

70LDS Messenger & Advocate, I (Oct 1834), 14 = Times & Seasons, II (Nov 1, 1840), 201 =Joseph SmithBHistory, I:71* note (Pearl of Great Price).

71 Journal of Reuben Miller, Oct 21, 1848, in Ensign, 7/9 (Sept 1977), 80.

72S. W. Richards Statement, BYU Special Collections Library, and in Ensign, 7/9 (Sept 1977).


22/37


Martin Harris

Excerpt from letter of Nov 30, 1881 (SLC), by Edward Stevenson:

Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that

portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from

the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone,

by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for

convenience he then used the seer stone. Martin explained the translation as follows: 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, AWritten,@ and if correctly written, that 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. Martin said, after continued translation they would become

weary, and would go down to the river and exercise by throwing stones out on the river,

etc. While so doing on one occasion, Martin found a stone very much resembling the oneused for translating, and on resuming their labor of translation, Martin put in place the

stone that he had found. He said that the Prophet remained silent, unusually and intently

gazing in darkness, no traces of the usual sentences appearing. Much surprised, Joseph

exclaimed, AMartin! What is the matter? All is as dark as Egypt!@ Martin=s

countenance betrayed him, and the Prophet asked Martin why he had done so. Martinsaid, to stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those

sentences and was merely repeating them, etc.

Martin said further that the seer stone differed in appearance entirely from the

Urim and Thummim that was obtained with the plates, which were two clear stones set in

two rims, very much resembling spectacles, only they were much larger. Martin said

there were not many pages translated while he wrote, after which Oliver Cowdery and

others did the writing.73

Interview in Tiffany=s Monthly, 1859:

In the first place, he told me of this stone, and proposed to bind it on his eyes, and

run a race with me in the woods. A few days after this, I was at the house of his father in

Manchester, two miles south of Palmyra village, and was picking my teeth with a pin while

sitting on the bars. The pin caught in my teeth, and dropped from my fingers into the

shavings and straw. I jumped from the bars and looked for it. Joseph and Northrop

Sweet also did the same. We could not find it. I then took Joseph on surprise, and said to

him B I said, ATake your stone;@ I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with

him. He had it in his pocket. He took it and placed it in his hat B the old white hat B and

placed his face in his hat. I watched him closely to see that he did not look to one side; he

reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick, and there I saw the

73 Stevenson=s account of Harris= Sunday Morning lecture in Salt Lake City, Sept 4, 1870,

published inDeseret News, Nov 30, 1881 ??, and in theLDS Millennial Star, 44 (Feb 6, 1882), 86-87;secondary version in Andrew Jenson, ed.,Historical Record, VI:216-217 (May 1887).


23/37


pin, which he picked up and gave to me. I know he did not look out of the hat until after he

had picked up the pin.74

74Martin Harris interview in Tiffany=s Monthly, 1859, p. 165.


24/37


William B. Smith

In his own words:

In consequence of his vision, and his having the golden plates and refusing to show

them, a great persecution arose against the whole family, and he was compelled to remove

into Pennsylvania with the plates, where he translated them by means of the Urim and

Thummim, (which he obtained with the plates), and the power of God. The manner in

which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a

hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the

translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God. He was engaged in this

business as he had opportunity for about two years and a half. In the winter of 1829 and

thirty, the Book of Mormon, which is the translation of part of the plates he obtained, was

published. He then showed the plates to my father and my brothers Hyrum and Samuel,

who were witnesses to the truth of the book which was translated from them. I was

permitted to lift them as they laid in the pillow-case; but not to see them, as it was contrary

to the commands he had received. They weighed about sixty pounds according to the best

of my judgment.75

Interview with William by J. W. Peterson and W. S. Pender, July 4, 1891, in Osterdock, Iowa, and

for several days thereafter:

Among other things we inquired minutely about the Urim and Thummim and the

breastplate. We asked him what was meant by the expression, Atwo rims of a bow,@ which

held the former. He said a double silver bow was twisted into the shape of the figure eight,

and the two stones were placed literally between the two rims of a bow. At one end was

attached a rod which was connected with the outer edge of the right shoulder of the

breast-plate. By pressing the head a little forward, the rod held the Urim and Thummim

before the eyes much like a pair of spectacles. A pocket was prepared in the breastplate on

the left side, immediately over the heart. When not in use the Urim and Thummim was

placed in this pocket, the rod being of just the right length to allow it to be so deposited.

This instrument could, however, be detached from the breastplate and his brother said

Joseph often wore it detached when away from home, but always used it in connection with

the breastplate when receiving official communications, and usually so when translating,

as it permitted him to have both hands free to hold the plates.

In answer to our question, William informed us that he had, himself, by Joseph=s

direction, put the Urim and Thummim before his eyes, but could see nothing, as he did not

have the gift of a Seer. He also informed us that the instruments were too wide for his

eyes, as also for Joseph=s, and must have been used by much larger men. The instrument

caused a strain on Joseph=s eyes, and he sometimes resorted to the plan of covering his eyeswith a hat to exclude the light in part. William Smith imparted to us much information

75 William Smith, William Smith on Mormonism (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and JobOffice, 1883), 11-12; cf. his sermon at Deloit, Iowa, June 8, 1884, as reported in Saints=Herald, 31 (Oct 4,1884), 643-644.


25/37


regarding other things, but this is about all I remember with regard to the Urim and

Thummim. J. W. Peterson76

76 Peterson in The Rod of Iron, I/3 (Feb 1924), 6-7; Saints=Herald, 79 (Mar 9, 1932), 238, in J. W.A. Bailey=s misleading version of it; cf. Peterson=s accounts of the meeting inDeseret Evening News,Saturday, Jan 20, 1894, p. 11, cols. 3-4, andZion=s Ensign, 5/3 (Saturday, Jan 13, 1894), p. 6.


26/37


Emma Hale Smith Bidamon

Interview by her son, Joseph III, her husband (Major Bidamon), and others, during early 1879:

Q. What of the truth of Mormonism?

A. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by

divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote

day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his

hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

Q. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

A. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Q. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

A. If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

Q. Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?

A. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a

small linen table clotth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as

they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like

thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the

thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edge of a book.

Q. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write?

A. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work.

Q. Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the

others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some

book?

A. Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let

alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant

in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had

congnizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, Aa marvel and a wonder,@ as

much so as to any one else.Q. I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?

A. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to

look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be

necessary to do so.

Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

A. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about

them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my

work.

Q. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin of the Book of Mormon?

A. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity B I have not the

slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the

manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father woulddictate 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. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have beenimprobable that a learned man could do this; and for one so ignorant and unlearned as he

was it was simply impossible.

* * * *


27/37


Q. What do you think of David Whitmer?

A. David Whitmer I believe to be an honest and truthful man. I think what he states may

be relied on.77

Unpublished letter from Emma Smith Bidamon to Mrs. George W. Pilgrim (from Nauvoo, Mar 27,1870):

Nauvoo March 27, 187[0]78

Mrs Pilgrim

I acknowledge the receit of a letter from you a long time ago, and will now try to

answer it, I should have done so immediately if I had not been called away from him by

Joseph, his oldest daughter was very sick with the lung fever, and she was so anxious to see

me that her father sent for me When I go there Emma was better, her fever was checked but

she was very weak, but I found my son Alexander=s wife just taken with the same fever the

day before the fever abated, She was so very bad that Joseph telegraphed to Alexander who

was then in San Francisco Cal to come home, and he brought my Son David home with himwho had been quite sick before they started for home, and I had to stay at Plano a week

longer before Alex Wife was well enough to go home with me, but thank God the sick all

recovered, through the prayer of faith and the administration of the ordinances, and good

nursing, without being under the painfull nessity of caling on a physetion, when health was

sufficiently restored, I started for home in Nauvoo bringing David and Emma home withme . . .

Now I would not trouble you with this long detail of events, but I feel it is due to you, that

you should know what was the cause of my long delay, and also that you may

[reverse]

know that it has not been willfull neglect or as wicked indifference to the subject of your

inquiry as I always feel a peculiar satisfaction in giving all the information on that subject

that I canNow the first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of Urim and Thummim,

and that was the part that Martin Harris lost. after that he used a small stone, not exactly

black, but was rather a dark color, I cannot tell whether that account in the Times and

Seasons is correct or not because some one stole all my books and I have none to refer to atpresent, if I can find one that has that account I will tell you what is true and what is not.

Now you will allow me to call you Sister Pilgrim as Joseph called you so, and please write

to me again and let me know how you get along, and how Mr Hedrick, and Mr McLelland

manages with regard to the Church, do they have any regular Church organization, or not,

and what their morral and religious influence is among the people there.

May God bless you is the prayer of your sister in the gospel

77Interview published as ALast Testimony of Sister Emma,@Saints=Herald, 26 (Oct 1, 1879),

289-290.

78The final number in the year-date is unclear, and the letter must be dated by historical context.

The RLDS Church Archives classifies it as 1870, rather than 1876. RLDS Archives P4 f20.


28/37


Emma Bidamon79

Edmund C. Briggs interview with Emma in Nauvoo in 1856:

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictatedeach sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce,

or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake inspelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to

see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could notpronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.

When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced

again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating

he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, AEmma, did Jerusalem have walls around

it?@ When I answered, AYes,@ he replied AOh! I was afraid I had been deceived.@ He had

such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem

was surrounded by walls.80

79RLDS Archives P4 f20.

80Edmund C. Briggs, AA Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,@Journal of History, 9 (Jan 1916), 454.


29/37


Joseph Smith, Jr.

Circa 1831-1832, in Joseph=s hand,

. . . the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced

translating the characters . . . and it came to pass that after we had translated 116 pages that

he desired to carry them to read to his friends . . . and Martin was Chastened for his

transgression and I also was chastened for my transgression for asking the Lord the third

time wherefore the Plates was taken from me by the power of God and I was not able to

obtain them for a seeson and it came to pass after much humility and affliction of Soul I

obtained them again when the Lord appeared unto a Young man by the name of Oliver

Cowdry and showed unto him the plates in a vision . . . .81

Joseph=s 1835 account for Joshua the Jewish Minister:

I obtained them and translated them into the English language by the gift and power of God

and have been preaching it ever since.82

Joseph=s first published account appeared in 1838:

I obtained them, and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which, I

translated the plates and thus came the Book of Mormon.83

Joseph=s letter to John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, March 1, 1842:

These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each

plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin.

They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volumeas the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume wassomething near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters on the

unsealed part were small, and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many

marks of antiquity in its construction, and much skill in the art of engraving. With the

records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called AUrim and Thummim,@

which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breast plate.Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and

power of God.84

81 Joseph Smith Letterbook, Kirtland, pp. 5-6; cf. Paul Cheesman, master=s thesis, 131.

82 Warren Cowdery, Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1, pp. 121-122.

83 Elders=Journal, I/3 (1838), 42-43.

84 AWentworth Letter,@Times & Seasons, III (Mar 1, 1842), 707 = B. H. Roberts, ed.,History of the

Church, IV:537.


30/37


Joseph=s formal history began publication in 1842:

. . . immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates.

I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I

translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife=sfather, in the month of December, and the February following.

85

Joseph=s 1838 official history also contains the following description:

. . . there were two stones in silver bows B and these stones, fastened to a breastplate,

constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim B deposited with the plates; and the

possession and use of these stones were what constituted ASeers@ in ancient or former

times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.86

Joseph=s ANew Translation@ or AInspired Revision@ or AInspired Version@ of the Bible contains thefollowing line at John 1:42:

Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a seer, or a stone.87

Orange, Ohio, Conference, October 25, 1831, in response to a question, Joseph

said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of theBook of Mormon; and also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things.88

Letter to J. A. Bennett, November 13, 1843:

I translated the Book of Mormon from hieroglyphics the knowledge of which was lost to

the world.

89

The disposition of plates, spectacles, and breastplate in the official history:

At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and

the Breastplate. On the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and

twenty-seven, having gone as usual at the end of another year to the place where they were

85 Times & Seasons, III (May 2, 1842), 772 = Roberts, ed.,History of the Church, I:19.

86 Times & Seasons, III:753 = Roberts, ed.,History of the Church, I:12; cf. Mosiah 28:13; Lucy

Mack Smith,Biographical Sketches , 1st ed., 107.

87 Cf. Coptic Gospel According to Thomas, logion 19 AIf you become my disciples andlisten to my words, these stones will minister to you@; and D&C 130:8-11.

88 AFar West Record,@ p. 13 = Roberts, ed.,History of the Church, I:220, note.

89Roberts, ed.,History of the Church, VI:74.


31/37


deposited, the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me . . . until he, the

messenger, should call for them, they should be protected.

* * * *

. . . by the wisdom of God, they remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by

them what was required at my hand. When, according to arrangements, the messengercalled for them, I delivered them up to him, and he has them in his charge until this day,

being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight.90

Mode of receipt of D&C 3 in July 1828:

. . . behold, the former heavenly messenger appeared and handed to me the Urim and

Thummim again B for it had been taken from me in consequence of my having wearied the

Lord in asking for the privilege of letting Martin Harris take the writings, which he lost . . .

.

* * * *

After I had obtained the above translation, both the plates and the Urim and

Thummim were taken from me again; but in a few days they were returned to me, when Iinquired of the Lord, . . .

91

Mode of receipt of D&C ''6, 11, and 17:

I inquired of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim, and obtained the following:

* * * *

. . , I inquired of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim, and received for him the

following:

* * * *

. . ; and through the Urim and Thummim, I obtained of the Lord for them the following:92

90 Times & Seasons, III:772 = Roberts, ed.,History of the Church, I:18-19 = PGP JS-H 59-60.

91 Times & Seasons, III:786,801 = Roberts, ed.,History of the Church, I:21,23.

92 Times & Seasons, III:853,885,897 = Roberts, ed.,History of the Church, I:33, 45, 53.


32/37


33/37


34/37


35/37


36/37


Ether 3:23-24 (RLDS 1:88-89) stones prepared by Lord Amagnify to the eyes of men, these

things which ye shall write.@Ether 5:1 (RLDS 2:1) Moroni writes according to his memory of the words he was

commanded to write. God alone may specify what may be translated.Moroni 7:16-17 (RLDS 7:14-15) every man has Spirit of Christ in order to tell differencebetween good and evil; good is of God, but evil is of the devil, and things may be judged on

this basis.

Moroni 10:4-5 (RLDS 10:4-5) ask God if word is true with sincerety, real intent, and faith, andall truth will be made known via the Holy Ghost.

* * * * *

INSTRUMENTS

I Nephi 16:10,16,26-30, 18:12 18:21, II Nephi 5:12, Acompass@ = Aball@

Mosiah 1:16, Aball or director@

Alma 37:38,45, Aball or director@ = liahona, Acompass@Omni 20-22, Mosiah 8:13-19 21:27-28, 28:11-20, Ainterpreters@; Alma 37:21-26, Adirectors@

101;

Ether 3:23,28, 4:5, Ainterpreters,@Agift from God,@Atwo stones which were fastened into the rims

of a bow,@ used by Aseer@ = Ainterpreters@; Adirectors@; Atwo stones@ given to brother of Jared to

Amagnify to the eyes of men these things which ye shall write@ = Ainterpreters@

AUrim and Thummim@ can be found in no early Mormon source (published or unpublished) before

1832-1833, and all D&C sections which appear to read otherwise are late aterations. However,

this fact in no way changes the substantive meaning of those sections.

101 LDS Alma 37:24, Ainterpreters,@ is incorrect B the Original and Printer=s Manuscripts read

Adirectors,@ which has always been correctly used in RLDS editions of the Book of Mormon, and in the

LDS editions until 1920.


37/37

translation of languages

Documents