I came across the above video, in which Jonathan Neville explains his theories about the translation of the Book of Mormon. I had previously watched several of his earlier videos, expressing his views on this subject, and I had always meant to respond to them in my blog, but never got round to it. Now I have finally decided to give my opinion on the subject.
I recall reading in Church literature several years ago that at one time someone asked Joseph Smith the following question, regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon: “Who did the translating, was it the ‘stone’ that he was using, or was it Joseph Smith himself?” (or words close to it, I am quoting from memory) Joseph’s reply was that it was not the will of the Lord at that time that it should be revealed the precise details of how the Book of Mormon was translated. What the questionnaire was effectively asking was whether the translation of the Book of Mormon was purely a revelation from God, or whether Joseph Smith was intellectually involved in the translation process, like any ordinary human translator might. That is a question that Joseph Smith refused to answer at that time. I am not now able to find the source of that original quote. If someone can find and point it out to me, it would be appreciated. But searching the Internet, I was able to find another quote by Joseph Smith (or possibly the same quote, with the source of the question that drew out Joseph’s response missing) that says the same thing. I found it in several publications. The following is copied from an article by John W. Welch published in BYU Studies, and titled, “Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon” Link. It is as follows:
“Br. Hyrum Smith said that he thought best that the information of the coming forth of the book of Mormon be related by Joseph himself to the Elders present, that all might know for themselves. Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things &c.”
This quote unfortunately does not identify the original question that drew out this response from Joseph Smith. That original question asked (the source of which I am not now able to find), however, is as important as the answer that was given to it. The question was not about what physical instrument was used to translate the plates—the seer stone, or the Urim and Thummim. The question was about the actual manner or nature of the translation—i.e. whether it was dictated as a direct revelation from God, or whether Joseph Smith’s own intellect was involved in the translation process. Joseph Smith refuses to answer that question at that time. That is significant. The question of what instrument was used in the translation process—the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim—is of secondary importance, compared to the question of whether the translation was a pure revelation from God; or whether Joseph Smith was intellectually involved in the translation process—like a normal human translator might. Jonathan Neville makes a big fuss about whether it was by the Urim and Thummim or by the sheer stone—which is not the most important consideration.
Likewise the distinction he makes between the two instrumental methods—as one of “translation” vs. “transcription”—is unjustified, based on all the documentary evidence that is available about the process of how the translation was done. The above mentioned article by John W. Welch, published in BYU Studies, provides a comprehensive list of all the documentary evidence that is available on the subject; and the distinction between “translation” vs. “transcription” that Jonathan Neville makes, with regard to the two instruments, is not justified by that documentary evidence. The two instruments did more or less the same kind of thing. It is of secondary importance which instrument was used to do the translation, compared to the more important question of whether it was entirely a revelation from God; or whether Joseph Smith’s own intellect was involved in the translation process—or whether it was a combination of both—regardless of which instrument was used.
Oliver Cowdery’s experience in attempting to translate, and the advice that the Lord gave him in the process, is significant here, and provides us with some clues in answering that question:
Doctrine and Covenants 9:
7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.
That in part answers the question raised above. It was a combination of both—a direct revelation from God, with Joseph Smith’s own intellect being involved in the process. But the speed with which he accomplished the task suggests that the revelatory element, in his case at least, was much stronger than his own intellectual involvement.
This brings us to the next element that needs to be considered in our analysis of these events—which Jonathan Neville tends to overlook or downplay—the speed with which the translation was accomplished. It is said that Joseph Smith completed the work of translation within 65 working days. Some people would have a hard time reading the Book of Mormon in that period of time, nevermind composing or translating it. So the question still remains: was the translation a direct revelation from God; or was Joseph Smith intellectually involved in the translation process? If we conclude that it was a direct revelation from God, that comes into conflict with the advice that the Lord gave to Oliver Cowdery in Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-10. If we conclude that Joseph Smith was intellectually involved in the translation process, that raises the question of how he was able to accomplish it in such a short period of time? Perhaps that is why Joseph Smith didn’t want to answer that question at that time. People wouldn’t have been able to understand what he was talking about.
There is one other clue, however, that gives us more insight into how the translation was done. According to Doctrine and Covenants 3:12, God gave to Joseph Smith “sight and power” to translate. In other words, the translation process was a miraculous exercise, even though Joseph Smith’s own intellect was involved in the translation process. His intellect was so enlightened and elevated beyond the normal human capacity that the process for him was a lot faster and more convenient than anyone could have imagined. That may also explain the reason why he didn’t want to tell anyone how the translation was accomplished, because no one would have understood him if he had.
But the most important consideration of all, in what has been said above, is that whatever the process of translation was, the end result, the finished product, was (1) Sacred, and (2) Given by god (D&C 9:9)—in other words, it was as good as if it had been dictated directly from God. That pretty much negates all of Jonathan Neville’s arguments about the nature of the translation process. Firstly, it renders his big fuss about whether the translation was done by the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim (and likewise his distinction between the two methods as one of “translation” vs. “transcription”) irrelevant and redundant. Secondly, it negates his argument that the translation process was mainly a human endeavor, like any other normal human translation. He even goes so far as to conclude (in an earlier interview which he gave with Rick Bennett of Gospel Tangents, which can be seen here), that Joseph Smith’s translation of the lengthy Isaiah passages was simply an act of memorizing the KJV; and the variations in them are the result of a faulty memory!—which again is in direct contradiction to what the Lord has revealed in Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-10. How could that translation have been sacred, and given from God (D&C 9:9), if Joseph Smith was simply memorizing quotes from the KJV, and giving us a faulty version from a bad memory—as Jonathan Neville has theorized?
There remains one more question that needs to be answered here. If the original translation of the Book of Mormon was perfect, or close enough, and “given from God,” as Doctrine and Covenants section 9 suggests, why was it necessary for Joseph Smith to make editorial changes to it later on? There are several possible reasons for that. One reason was the obvious typographical errors that were common at that time, due to hand copying of manuscripts, or manual typesetting of books. But that doesn’t explain all the changes that Joseph Smith later made. Some of them were obvious editorial changes—although their numbers were few. There are other possible explanations for that. The primary reason is that just because a piece of text has been given by revelation from God, it does not follow that it has been cast in stone, and God does not have the right to edit, improve, and make changes to it himself later on. God has as much right to edit his own work as man does. The changes would reflect changes in circumstance, not that God has changed, or his doctrine has changed, or that he had previously made a mistake.
Many of the revelations in the book of Doctrine and Covenants were edited and improved (by revelation by Joseph Smith) in later editions. That doesn’t mean that God had made a mistake in earlier editions, or that the doctrine had changed. The changes later made do not affect the doctrine. It reflects changes in circumstance. God deals with mankind at the human level; and as man’s circumstances may change, how God interacts with man later on may also change. That I believe is the reason and explanation for the editorial changes that Joseph Smith made (by revelation) in the later editions of the the Doctrine and Covenants; and the same applies to the (minor) editorial changes that Joseph Smith later made (by revelation) in the next edition of the Book of Mormon. It reflects changed circumstances, not that God had changed, or his doctrine had changed, or that he had previously made a mistake. And the Book of Mormon in its present form, as published by the Church, still contains some typographical errors introduced as a result of human involvement in earlier editions, which still remains to be corrected—which is a separate issue entirely. And the punctuation is also manmade, not part of the original revealed text. But the Book of Mormon in its original form, as dictated by Joseph Smith, was a pure revelation in its entirety, with no involvement of Joseph Smith’s own human intellect—except insofar as that intellect was enlightened and inspired by power of the Spirit of God. And the text of the Book of Mormon in its original form was (and still is) sacred and divine, and originates directly from God, as outlined in Doctrine and Covenants 9:9: “therefore you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me”. That settles it completely. It discredits, dismantles, cancels out, and puts the final end to all of Jonathan Neville’s baseless theorizing about the translation and coming forth of the Book of Mormon. It is a pure revelation from God, from the beginning to the end—minus the punctuation, and a few minor typographical errors that still remain in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment