This book includes a mixture of scholarship about all of Joseph Smith’s translation projects, including the highly anticipated paper by Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon on the use of the Clarke Commentary in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. We had the opportunity to discuss the book with Michael Hubbard MacKay and Mark Ashurst-McGee. A review of the book will be forthcoming.
Q1: What is the purpose of the book?
Mike and Mark: The book was conceived as an attempt to cover all of the various Joseph Smith translation projects—not only the Book of Mormon and the “New Translation” of the Bible and the Book of Abraham but also the excerpt from the new account of John (D&C 7), the excerpt from the “record of John” (in D&C 93), the Kinderhook plates, and anything else. This had actually never been done before—at least not at this depth.
This objective of covering all of the projects is well reflected in the book’s Table of Contents. You can check it out here:
https://uofupress.lib.utah.edu/producing-ancient-scripture/
Q2: Who is the audience?
Mark and Mike: The book is written for a scholarly audience. So, to be clear, the chapters are not arguing for or against the antiquity of the translation texts. While most of the contributors are observant and believing church members, others are disaffected or never had been church members. All, however, are friendly to our faith and have offered their contributions of scholarship toward helping to increase what can be known about the modern historical aspects of Smith’s translation projects. The chapters are intended to be something that any scholar could read and appreciate, whether members of the Church or not.
In this Q&A, we have a responsibility to represent both the member and nonmember scholars who contributed to Producing Ancient Scripture. But, here in this particular venue, we will also be able to speak as believing Latter-day Saints. We’ll try to signal which hat we’re wearing as we give our responses to the various (and challenging) questions posed here.
Q3: There seems to be a wide range of orthodoxy represented by the various contributed chapters. How did you select which ones to include?
Mark: If we were trying to represent the wide range of orthodoxy (and heterodoxy) found in Mormon studies, we would have tried to conscript at least one scholar from the Community of Christ, another scholar from one of the other Restoration churches (maybe a Strangite like Bill Shepard or a Bickertonite like Daniel P. Stone), and maybe even a Utah fundamentalist (like Anne Wilde).
Instead, we selected the contributors based on their subject expertise. We wanted to cover all of the translation projects (see Q1 above), so we made a list of the various projects, figured out who would be good to engage, and went from there.
A few of the initial submissions were turned down because they didn’t quite fit the book’s purpose. None of the submissions were included or excluded based on any standards of orthodoxy. There were a few places here and there in the chapters where, as an editor, I worked with the authors to revise language that was either asserting or ruling out divine revelation. But this was very rare. All of the submissions were written in a scholarly style that was aimed at other scholars, whether believing Latter-day Saints or otherwise.
As noted in the answer to Q2, above, we wanted the book to be something that could be appreciated by anyone of any faith (or no faith). Insofar as there is a wide range of orthodoxy (or even heterodoxy) represented by the various contributed chapters, it is an organic reflection of the various kinds of scholars engaged in Mormon studies at this moment in time.
Q4: The book includes a chapter by Brian Hauglid, a former professor of Ancient Scripture in the College of Religious Education at BYU. Hauglid recently retired and then announced in a podcast that he no longer believed that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are ancient. Moreover, he seems to imply that this has been his position for some time now. Is this the position taken in his chapter on the Book of Abraham?
Mike: In Brian Hauglid’s chapter, the main argument is that there are parts of the Book of Abraham that rely upon parts of the Egyptian language study documents. I think he does a good job exploring the evidence and context, and his conclusions are very tentative. Also, he does not rule out the possibility of translation by revelation. I don’t think there is an ulterior motive to get readers to arrive at a position of doubt. It’s much more a work of scholarship than of religious politics.
Q5: The book includes a chapter by Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon arguing that Joseph Smith drew on Adam Clarke’s Bible commentary for some of the changes in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Wilson-Lemmon has recently participated in a podcast in which she presents this apparent use of Clarke’s commentary as plagiarism. How does one resolve concerns regarding the JST chapter?
Mark: Haley Wilson-Lemmon considers Joseph Smith’s use of Adam Clarke’s Bible commentary as “plagiarism.” Thomas A. Wayment does not. In his recent article in the Journal of Mormon History, Wayment presents Smith’s study of Clarke as an example of Smith following the revelation to “seek . . . out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). Wayment also points out how selectively Smith drew upon Clarke and seems to implicitly argue that this utilization was not simple borrowing. So, different people will arrive at different conclusions on this one.
Some have taken issue with detractors using the word “plagiarism,” arguing that it is anachronistic. I have not yet looked into the history of the usage and cultural connotations of that word for myself.
My main problem with asserting plagiarism is that we do not know how Joseph Smith would have presented his borrowings from Clarke. Although Joseph Smith intended to publish the JST, this was never accomplished (in his lifetime). All of the Joseph Smith-era books published by the Church (the Book of Mormon, the Book of Commandments, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the hymnal) included introductory content. If the JST had been published, it would have almost certainly included similar introductory content. Moreover, a version of the Bible that differed from the culturally sacrosanct text of the King James Version would have had at least some explaining to do. This may well have included a blanket attribution to Clarke’s commentary for some of the changes. Again, based on the publishing precedents, we can safely surmise that the JST would have had an introduction, and we just don’t know what it would or would not have explained. The charge of plagiarism rests upon the assumption that Smith would have presented everything as his own or as pure revelation. I have almost completed an article on this that I hope to publish soon.
Q6: Besides the chapter on the Joseph Smith Translation, what other chapters would be of the most interest to readers of the FairMormon blog and why?
Mike: Gerrit Dirkmaat contributes a chapter on the termination of the Joseph Smith Translation that focuses on Smith’s revelation regarding the Apocrypha. Toward the completion of revising the Old and New Testaments, Smith prayed to know whether he should carry the JST on into the Apocrypha. This chapter is an interesting complement to the chapter by Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon.
Mark: The chapter by Matthew Grey shows quite clearly that Joseph Smith drew upon his Hebrew textbooks for the Hebrew words that appear in the Book of Abraham. Grey lays out the evidence for this far better than anyone else ever has, and he does a great job of placing this usage within the context of Joseph Smith’s Hebrew study and his translation efforts. The findings in this chapter will certainly be used (and abused) by detractors, so it would be good for FairMormon apologists and followers to know that the evidence comes from an article (or, rather, a chapter) that contextualizes this evidence in a way that does not undermine Joseph Smith as a translator.
Mike: I think that readers of this blog would also be interested in the final chapter in the book, on the Kinderhook plates, which shows quite clearly that Joseph Smith attempted to translate from the Kinderhook plates as a secular effort, and that he did so openly in the presence of both church members and nonmembers.
Mark: Oh, and I would also recommend all of the other chapters too!
Q7: What misconceptions about chapters in this book should believers be aware of and avoid falling trap to?
Mike: Well, we appreciate being invited to do this Q&A because we do think that many of your readers will be interested in the scholarship contained in Producing Ancient Scripture. However, we should also clarify that this is not a work of devotional or apologetic history. More than anything, it fits within the genre, style, and academic tenor of American religious history.
Mark: Some of it will probably be found to be of some use in apologetics (like the chapter that Don Bradley and I contributed on the Kinderhook plates), but other chapters will be probably be used (or, rather, abused) by detractors (such as the chapters on the JST and the Book of Abraham). Some chapters, like the one on the involvement of women in the translation of the Book of Mormon, are very insightful but do not really lend themselves to either attacking or defending the faith. The various contributors studying the various translation projects came up with various findings, with the chips falling here, there, and everywhere. I think anyone with a deep interest in Joseph Smith’s translation projects would like to learn about these new findings, whether or not they affirm faith. Going back to the chapter on women and the translation of the Book of Mormon, I’d say that many faithful Latter-day Saints would really like this one. I think there’s lots to learn from in the book.
Q8: Is there a need to loosen definitions of literal or historical truth going forward?
Mark: To my view, this is already being effectively accomplished in scholarship produced by the Church, FairMormon, the Maxwell Institute, the Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, and several other outlets producing faithful scholarship. For example, the Book of Mormon includes mention of pre-Columbian horses. Many apologists have offered an explanation that in this case, the English word “horse” should not be understood as a rigid and literal cognate-to-cognate translation, but should be more loosely understood as a case of loan shifting or utilizing an “expanded” (and thus loosened) definition.
To give another example, Bill Hamblin, Daniel Peterson, and John Gee have explicated what appears to be geocentric astronomy in the Book of Abraham, pointing to this as an evidence of the text’s antiquity and historicity. This, however, requires modern (post-Copernican) readers to loosen up our reading of Abraham’s astronomical visions. I’m pretty sure that Hamblin, Peterson, and Gee are not trying to convert us to a geocentric model of the cosmos. Rather, we have to understand Abraham’s astronomical visions within their cultural context and not as “literal” explications of actual astronomical mechanics.
Of course, if you loosen the definition of historical or literal truth too much it become vacuous and meaningless. So, there are limits, to be sure. And, of course, these limits are hotly contested.
I think that maybe I am rambling here, so back to the question. I guess my answer would be this: No, there is not a need to loosen definitions of literal or historical truth going forward. This is because we are already doing this and have been doing so for decades now. And we are getting better at it, too. And we need to continue doing it, and doing it as carefully as we can, in both neutral scholarship and honest apologetics.
Q9: How does the methodology present within this book show a pivot in the future of Latter-day Saint scholarship? Should there be a pivot?
Mark and Mike: I think we are too close to the book to answer this one. We’ll wait and see what others think. Perhaps this is a good place to start a wider conversation.
Michael Hubbard MacKay is an associate professor in the Department of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham Young University. He is also a former historian at the Joseph Smith Papers Project and co-editor of Volume 1 in the Documents series. He is the author of Prophetic Authority: Democratic Hierarchy and the Mormon Priesthood (University of Illinois Press, 2020) and Sacred Space: Exploring the Birthplace of Mormonism (RSC, Brigham Young University, 2015). He is also the co-author of Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones (RSC, Brigham Young University, 2016) and From Darkness Unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (RSC, Brigham Young University, 2015).
Mark Ashurst-McGee is a senior historian in the Church History Department and the senior research and review editor for the Joseph Smith Papers, where he also serves as a specialist in document analysis and documentary editing methodology. He holds a PhD in history from Arizona State University and has trained at the Institute for the Editing of Historical Documents. He has coedited several volumes of The Joseph Smith Papers and is also coeditor of Foundational Texts of Mormonism: Examining Major Early Sources (Oxford University Press, 2018). He is also the author of several articles on Joseph Smith and early Latter-day Saint history published in scholarly journals and popular venues.
McKay says, “However, we should also clarify that this is not a work of devotional or apologetic history. More than anything, it fits within the genre, style, and academic tenor of American religious history.”
In other, clearer, more honest words, Mike McKay is saying he and his non-believer colleague Hauglid insisted on a secular approach to this project. Faithful Perspective, which he disses and dismisses as “apologetic” is unacceptable.
We note too, the hypocrisy in stating their intent to use “a wide range of orthodoxy“ but did not invite participation from Egyptologist John Gee, William Hamblin, or Dan Peterson. And they incredibly dismiss the need for faithful scholarship by saying, well, that niche is already being served by FairMormon and the Church. And so they therefore are under no obligation to be responsibly faithful, and at LEAST include Faithful Perspective?
So the disease of Liberalism/Secularism has taken over the government of the Church History Department. This is unforgivable departure. And it makes me sick.
Ouch. That was a hard hit from the right. If you want to see us getting hit from the left, check out the Q&A over at By Common Consent (here: https://bycommonconsent.com/2020/07/20/a-qa-with-the-editors-of-producing-ancient-scripture/).
It’s good to be getting hit from both sides. If you are only getting hit from one side, then that tells you something about where you sit (all the way out at one pole or the other).
On a more serious note, we do not diss apologetics–not at all. I and others involved in the book have participated in quite a bit of apologetics (e.g., my articles in the FARMS review). It’s just that this book is doing something different. It’s like you are saying that you don’t like our bagels when, today, we are actually making donuts (and we will be making some more bagels on another day). As noted in the answer to Q8, we are interested in “both neutral scholarship and honest apologetics.”
I have been loving the book so far. It is excellent. Will it also be out as an e-book?
As far as Gee, Hamblin and Peterson, they unfortunately have developed a reputation as polemicists, whether fair or not; battle scars of their long and valiant fight. Their inclusion as editors of the JSP project would have been seen skeptically by the broader scholarly community.
There are lots of really good scholars in the church, I don’t Gee, Hamblin and Peterson should take it as a personal sleight that they weren’t included as part of the JSP project as editors, but as a badge of honor for the part they play in all of this.
Hauglid’s essay wasn’t meant to be “political”. What does that even mean? Certainly Hauglid was writing to persuade. He is writing to persuade that the Book of Abraham is based on documents that are nonsense as far as Egyptian studies go. The KEP and related documents are not written by Joseph Smith but Hauglid does his best to persuade that Joseph Smith directed the entire affair — an extremely doubtful proposition and not one I find persuasive based on the evidence. Hauglid’s contribution (or failure to contribute) to the Book of Abraham volume of the Joseph Smith Papers project is also colored by his disbelief.
We have the so-called Maxwell Institute (though it does not begin to fulfill the vision he had for studies of LDS scripture) that also adopts the Religious Studies stance and therefore essentially supports the secular approach that assumes as a starting point that writing to persuade that a faithful position can be supported (apologetics is a dirty word at the MI and in Religious Studies unless it is the study of aplogetics per se rather than writing in support of a faithful position) must be avoided as a starting position or it will alienate those not coming from that position. However, writing a piece that challenges a faithful position is not only accepted but has become the norm.
What is really troubling to me is the intent to avoid anyone who would take the view that the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon were indeed ancient (at least in part) and to argue from that perspective. The “Religious Studies” perspective attempts to side-step the question but ends up begging the question against that perspective. The intentional decisions made to avoid anything like a faithful LDS perspective speak for themselves. However, the assumes “neutral stance” fully accepts arguments that Joseph Smith based everything on his own sitz im Leben in making it all up.
As I read Hauglid, his entire project is to disagree with John Gee. In a comment to Hauglid’s interview where he comes out as a non-believer, RFM moderator commented on an important admission made by Hauglid:
“I talked about it with Brian last Friday night.
I asked him first if all the BOA text was on the Abraham/Egyptian papers. (I thought I already knew the answer to that but wanted to confirm.)
He said no, only the first chapter and up to verse 18 of the second chapter.
I then asked, ‘Well, from John Gee’s perspective, why does he have to argue that all the BOA was translated in 1835? Wouldn’t it suit his purposes just as well to say that only the first part of BOA that appears on the papers was translated before 1835, and that the rest was translated after that? That way, he wouldn’t have to argue against all the evidence that Joseph’s translation continued after 1835 and even into 1842 immediately prior to publication. In other words, John Gee could have the benefit of still saying the papers were an attempt by Joseph’s followers to reverse engineer the text into the characters, but wouldn’t have to stake out the position that everything was translated before then.’
Brian thought about it and agreed with the proposition. Brian said he doesn’t know why John Gee maintains that position, because he definitely doesn’t have to, and yet it is beyond doubt that John Gee does feel it necessary to maintain that position, even in the face of the countervailing evidence.”
In other words, the thesis that Hauglid argues against, that the Book of Abraham is not derived from the KEP and related documents, is really just an argument against John Gee that NO material in the Book of Abraham was derived after 1835. Why is that of interest? It seems like a mere intramural conflict and Hauglid just fails to address the real issues related to the Book of Abraham text is somehow derived from the KEP.
Blake, you write that the “KEP and related documents are not written by Joseph Smith,” but that is not entirely true. Joseph Smith did write one of the alphabet documents and was involved in more than just that (according to his journal). So we have to try to figure all of that out.
I’ve also got to disagree with you on your statement that “the assumes ‘neutral stance’ fully accepts arguments that Joseph Smith based everything on his own sitz im Leben in making it all up.” I can tell you assuredly that I for one do not fully accept those arguments and I don’t think it’s fair to brand everyone else that way.
Anyhow, even if we don’t see things just the same, I have tremendous respect for you and others you mentioned.
All kinds of bells and whistles and warning flags went up while I read this interview. Some examples:
“others are disaffected or never had been church members. All, however, are friendly to our faith”
How can someone that is disaffected be friendly to faith?
Pres. Nelson: “Some things are simply true. The arbiter of truth is God . . . and certainly not those who are disaffected from the Church.”
Speaking specifically of contrary views about the spirit of prophecy and revelation Pres. Nelson said: “As the people became more and more prideful, many of the Nephites made “a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation” (Helaman 4:12). Those same threats are among us today. The somber reality is that “servants of Satan” (D&C 10:5) are embedded throughout society.” Might some of these disaffected servants be embedded in scholarship and have articles in books?
“we will also be able to speak as believing Latter-day Saints. We’ll try to signal which hat we’re wearing”
Is there ever a time that baptized, temple-endowed covenant-keepers can “also” speak as believing Latter-day Saints instead of “always”? Should there ever be a second when a question could arise as to which hat to wear, or even if there are other hats? What do those other hats look like? Does scholarship excuse wearing unbeliever hats?
In other words, from this interview, I conclude this book worthless as anything more than a secular attempt to say what Joseph Smith did while “in the Spirit.”
“The findings in this chapter will certainly be used (and abused) by detractors” Then why give incomplete or unsubstantiated ammunition to enemies? They won’t keep it to scholars only.
I suggest Pres. Nelson is the only one who could come close to telling us how Joseph Smith translated because he is the only one who has received written revelations from God for the church. These secular scholarly ventures come under the heading of “The things of God can only be known by the Spirit of God.”
And personally, I wouldn’t want to be in the middle, neither cold nor hot, but on the end as a belligerent defender of eternal truth. Then when I am criticized by certain groups (like By Common Consent/Juvenile Instructor/NAMI), I have further evidence I did right.
Dennis, I have to disagree with this extreme position. Being disaffected does not automatically make you a “servant of Satan” that couldn’t possibly contribute any scholarship toward understanding anything related to Church history.
Anyhow, most of the chapters in the book are contributed by scholars who are firm in the faith, and some of these contributions will lend themselves well to the kind of apologetic scholarship done here by FairMormon.
No offense, but I thought “work[ing] with the authors to revise language that was . . . asserting . . . divine revelation” in the translation process was an extremely extreme position myself.
I guess that was the “neutral scholarship” hat being worn then? And that is hopefully a different hat than the one worn as an employee of the Church History Dept. where I hope faithful scholarship is done.
(Frankly, I hear from many members/church employees voicing Glen’s point of view.)
I just wanted to point out that my experience in working with the Maxwell Institute does not conform with Blake Ostler’s impression of what goes on there. I myself believe that the Book of Mormon is a miraculous translation of a record written by ancient prophets, and when I proposed a Study Edition that would be edited from an explicitly faithful point of view–highlighting some of the strongest literary evidences for the book’s historicity–scholars at the Institute, rather than “avoiding” such a faith-based project, were very enthusiastic and incredibly supportive. It was a pleasure to collaborate with like-minded individuals there.
Grant Hardy thanks for taking the time to respond. I have enjoyed your study edition from a literary and neutral perspective. I even think that our views of the historicity of the Book of Mormon may be somewhat similar — viz. viewing it as an inspired “translation” of an ancient source that allowed Joseph Smith a lot of leeway.
However, with the exception of the small note on anachronisms and a comment about what “inspired translation” could mean (which I appreciated), it does not address the issue that the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be — an ancient document translated by the gift and power of God. The book does not quote or expressly reference any of the prior work done on the ancient background of the Book of Mormon — I assume intentionally. In fact your project is an instance of the neutral stance that ignores historicity and truth claims with the exception of the very tentative “anachronisms” note. Instead, you provide a neutral read from a literary perspective that could also be fully adopted by a non-believer (and in fact is adopted even by those who challenge the Book of Mormon as sheer fiction made up by Joseph Smith in its entirety). In fact if I am not mistaken you expressly make allowance for an “inspired fiction” view of the Book of Mormon as a viable position.
Mind that I am not saying that such an approach cannot be valuable (and I believe that your contribution is valuable) — I just do not see how it is edited from a “faithful point of view” as opposed to someone who does not believe in the Book of Mormon but appreciates its literary contribution. The ahistorical-context still leaves a lot unaddressed that is critical to address IMO.
But I want to highlight the problem. The MI does nor engage in the kinds of projects that Neal Maxwell envisioned when I spoke with him about what the prior FARMS could be — an outlet that interacts with the best in critical biblical scholarship and other relevant disciplines that addresses head-on the issues related t the claims of the historicity of Joseph Smith’s “translations.” Instead we have a merely neutral approach that brackets the issues that he wanted so see (and that need to be) addressed.
Mark: Thanks for responding. However, your response seems to me to avoid the issue. I fully accept that you not “fully accept” the view that Joseph Smith’s translations (of the BofM and BofAbr) can be fully explained by Joseph Smith’s environment. However, what you personally accept and what the neutral approach of Religious Studies accepts are two different things. The nutural approach taken will not only countenance but also accept as equally valid approaches that argue that Joseph Smith just made it up — and in fact several of the articles, including Brian Hauglid’s and Ann Taves (and that is in fact what they believe). None of the papers expressly address or argue for historicity. Not every paper or book has to address that issue; but purposely avoiding it is another issue.
Blake, I too think that our views on the origins of the Book of Mormon are similar—an inspired translation of an ancient source that allows the translator some leeway (though I’m not sure that Joseph Smith was the translator; I have found Royal Skousen’s arguments about Joseph receiving a previously existing translation through revelation persuasive). I also think that your article on the expansion theory is one of the most significant contributions to Book of Mormon studies in the last forty years. That being said, we are going to disagree on the Maxwell Institute and Producing Ancient Scripture (the topic of this thread).
I do not regard the Maxwell Institute Study Edition as being as religiously neutral as my earlier Reader’s Edition or Understanding the Book of Mormon—both of which were published by secular university presses. And even in those volumes I hope that my position as a believer comes through clearly to readers, not just in my analysis of the text, but also in the way I try to treat other points of view with fairness and respect. As you note, there is some engagement with FARM-style apologetics in the back matter of the Study Edition, but that wasn’t the main point of the book. I concluded the “Brief History of the Text” with my testimony: “The narrative complexity and coherence of the Book of Mormon—highlighted in this edition—offer some of the strongest evidences of its historicity and miraculous translation. As we learn to read this sacred text as carefully as possible, with detailed attention to language, structure, and historical context, its message of salvation through Jesus Christ will become more compelling and its lessons for life more clear.” That introduces the main project, which was concerned with uncovering the intentions of the ancient authors. The editing and footnotes regularly point out the rhetorical strategies and editorial decisions of the book’s prophetic authors and narrators. All along the way I highlight complex narrative patterns and the remarkable consistency of the text with regard to chronology, geography, records, and internal allusions. (Even though I kept the notes to a minimum, I wanted to provide examples of the sorts of observations that believing readers might make.) In an academic version of this work that was more neutral in its theological commitments, I would need to address alternative explanations and pay attention to some of the scripture’s weaknesses as well as its strengths. The Study Edition begins with an assumption of historicity and presents the text from that perspective throughout. That is what I meant when I said it was edited from a faithful point of view.
It is true that the Maxwell Institute is less engaged now than it used to be with FARMS-style apologetics (which sometimes veered into polemics), but interested readers can still find those important perspectives at the Interpreter and Book of Mormon Central and here at FairMormon. Nevertheless, recent articles in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and books published by the Maxwell Institute seek to bring Latter-day Saints thoughtful, faithful explorations of LDS scripture and thought, often informed by recent biblical and historical scholarship. The Maxwell Institute does not simply duplicate the same sort of Religious Studies perspectives that one might find elsewhere (say at the University of Utah Press), and in any case I don’t think that the field of Religious Studies is necessarily inimical to faith. In fact, “neutrality” often means deliberately making space for faithful voices from different religious traditions and providing a platform for civil, useful, mutually enlightening conversations between believers, nonbelievers, and people in between. I think that Producing Ancient Scripture does that admirably, and I’m happy to have a chapter in the volume. There is more to faithful perspectives than the single issue of scriptural historicity—important as that is.
Grant thank you for your response. Here is the issue: the neutral Religious Studies stance precludes positive apologetics of the type sought by Elder Maxwell — the type that argues for the truth claims and veracity of the LDS scriptures. However, it allows criticism and rejection of those claims and brackets or excludes those arguing for historicity. Thus, it is not a neutral or level playing field. The cards are stacked against arguments in favor of belief. It is not merely a philosophical problem; it is a practical problem that when we bring secular assumptions to such issues we inevitably receive secular results.
I accept that you do not see your “Maxwell Institute” edition as being “religiously neutral.” I believe that your faith comes through — because no one can avoid their own biases. The lack of faith and even anti-faith polemic also come through in Taves and Hauglid’s pieces. There is certainly a place for respectful and mutually enlightening dialogue with those from other faith traditions or those who reject faith altogether (I have such conversations and have published such dialogue myself). As I see it, the problem arises when we are limited to such faith-neutral approaches. The problem is that the MI is now in the secular approach territory. As you admit, MI does not do positive apologetics (and the negative connotation and even outright hate for apologetics comes through whenever someone is labelled a mere apologist as Hauglid has done on many occasions). There is a place for positive apologetics and it ought to be the MI as it once was.
Mark: You are correct that JS’s handwriting appears on at least one Egyptian Alphabet “related” document — Ms. Alphabet A with the “pure language” observations. I would note that the characters in the left-hand column are not Egyptian and not from the papyri but merely figures with unknown origin. Moreover, it appears that JS is not saying that they are Egyptian but from the pure “original” language. I would also note that the few lines at the beginning of the document that JS writes (and then abandons) do not establish that he was involved in the Book of Abraham production through such efforts because the handwriting does not appear on the three (Mss. A, B and C 1835) documents that have text from the Book of Abraham (that are in Phelps’ and Williams’ handwriting). Moreover, it is rather clear as the notes from the JSPP state that the Book of Abraham text is copied from another pre-existing ms. because the text is already versified and does not have the scribal errors and marks that the documents JS dictated always have. Further, the final page has text from the BofA without any corresponding Egyptian texts or characters (p. 4 ms. A 1835) and thus it is painfully clear that the BofA came first and the Egyptian figures are being matched against an already existing BofAbr text.
All of my observations here are ignored by Hauglid in his argument that the dependence is in the other direction — with BofAbr text being derived from the Egyptian characters. Any responsible editing should have required that these issues be addressed. Hauglid’s thesis should have been scrutinized and challenged. That is why I say that the evidence will not support that Joseph Smith was in charge of the entire project and responsible for the EAG and the mss. A, B and C that have BofAbr text. The evidence simply does not support that JS used Egyptian characters to match them up to the BofAbr.
“Any responsible editing should have required that these issues be addressed. Hauglid’s thesis should have been scrutinized and challenged.”
Actually, Hauglid’s thesis was scrutinized and it was challenged at several points. However, while “responsible editing” leads to asking authors to consider certain issues, it does not necessarily demand that each of these issue be addressed in any certain way. I won’t be going any further into any of the details there. I will say that the relationship between the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian language study papers is far from clear, so I can appreciate both the arguments you make above and the arguments made by Hauglid in his chapter.
I should add that each of the chapters contributed to the volume went through an editorial process that was significantly more involved than in most anthologies–as I am certain the contributors will attest. So there was plenty of scrutiny and challenge all around.
Thanks for responding Mark. In my discipline (philosophy) it is common to require that certain arguments be addressed as a condition to publication because it does no good to disembowel a straw-man. In other words, if a piece argues for a conclusion but fails to address the strongest arguments against that conclusion then the piece is not worth publishing because it does not really establish the strength or soundness of a position. IMO Hauglid’s article is guilty of failing to address the strongest arguments and therefore does not really address the issue in a way worthy of publication. I understand that you believe that the editorial process was rigorous — but that leaves unexplained why the strongest arguments are left unaddressed. I will accept your characterization of the editorial process because you were involved and I was not and therefore know what was done.
Blake and Grant,
I’ve admired both of your work my entire adult life. Thanks for such astute questions. I find myself resonating with both the challenges you’ve proposed and the agreements. Blake I’d like to continue a private conversation by email but I don’t know your address.
Mike you can contact me at my law-firm’s telephone number to get my email address: 801-575-5000.
Regarding this statement from Grant Hardy above: “I’m not sure that Joseph Smith was the translator; I have found Royal Skousen’s arguments about Joseph receiving a previously existing translation through revelation persuasive”
I am unable to find one prophet or apostle (the people that determine doctrine for the church) that agrees with this view. On the contrary, as I study their addresses, they bear consistent fervent testimony, received by revelation, that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and they are defining the word “translate” as it is generally understood today. In no case do they offer an alternate meaning than what church members collectively understand.
I understand FAIR’s position to be the same as the prophets on this issue. If I am wrong they can correct me. And I know what my position is.
Let me take issue with the notion that a standard definition of translation applies to a revelation of ideas. It doesn’t, and this is a common misconception.
Under a revealed-ideas approach, JS didn’t know the original languages and he didn’t render the original words into English words. He would’ve received intelligible ideas from the Lord, who would have first translated the source material for JS, and then JS would’ve expressed those ideas in his own (presumably pseudobiblical) language. (That it is a pseudobiblical text in its form and structure is contraindicated by a large amount of syntax.) This is a process not unlike how we usually write, which is not translation in the default sense. We work from ideas and type them up.
In any event, only non-default meanings of translate and translation work in the case of the Book of Mormon, for either a revelation of ideas or a revelation of words. This point is unclear in the literature.
I’ve worked at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for seven years now. (Strange to say, I’ve worked specifically under the Maxwell Institute name longer than Dr. Peterson did. Time flies.) Without speaking to all the points raised in the comments because I haven’t closely read them all, nor have I read the new translation volume, I’d like to say it’s not true that the Institute is a home to mere secular studies which don’t commend or defend the faith of Latter-day Saints. I’m reminded of something Elder Maxwell’s son Cory Maxwell, a member of the Institute’s advisory board, wrote in a previous annual report:
“I am grateful that, in bearing Elder Maxwell’s name, the Institute gathers and nurtures those who wish to increase in a scholar’s knowledge without forgetting a disciple’s virtues. It is my hope that all of us associated with the Maxwell Institute will continue seeking to infuse our work of defending, fortifying, and inspiring Latter-day Saints with the patience and meekness enjoined upon us all by the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.”
That’s the goal, and we do our best to live up to it as imperfect as we are. I’m thankful to work under the direction of Cory Maxwell, the rest of the advisory board, Spencer Fluhman and Phil Barlow, and also with the scholars at the Institute who are striving to consecrate their scholarship. Defending the faith effectively takes many different approaches. What doesn’t reach the heart of one person might be the very thing that inspires another.
For those who are looking for examples of what I describe, I invite people to look at our brief theological introductions to the Book of Mormon. Small volumes looking at every book in the Book of Mormon from a variety of perspectives, all with an eye to finding Christ in its pages in ways that inspire and challenge believers today. The Maxwell Institute Podcast is featuring interviews with each of the authors, and we’ve been receiving some great feedback from people who’ve been inspired by the work. The brief theological intro to the Book of Mormon series aligns with Elder Maxwell’s inspired counsel:
“There is so much more in the Book of Mormon than we have yet discovered. The book’s divine architecture and rich furnishings will increasingly unfold to our view, further qualifying it as “a marvelous work and a wonder” (Isaiah 29:14)…’The Book of Mormon is like a vast mansion with gardens, towers, courtyards, and wings. All the rooms in this mansion need to be explored, whether by valued traditional scholars or by those at the cutting edge. Each plays a role, and one LDS scholar cannot say to the other, ‘I have no need of thee’” (1 Corinthians 12:21).”
As Latter-day Saint scholars, we can continue to learn to work together, even when we disagree on particulars, without saying we “have no need” of each other.
I think I am adequately informed about the various translation theories developed by academics studying the original BofM manuscripts; the looser and tighter control theories; pre-1830 English wording; someone else actually did the translation; etc.
Other evidence convinces me that all these theories are insufficient and lacking.
Some examples of what I mean from apostles and prophets and other general authorities:
Elder Andersen: “As I prayed and thanked the Lord for the blessing, the thought came into my mind of: ‘I gave it to you because of what you did for Elder so-and-so’—a mission companion I had had in France as a young man. Totally obscure thought that I could never have put in my mind by myself.”
Also:
“As I prayed about it I remember the thought coming to me very, very clearly: ‘You don’t have to worry about their suffering; you didn’t call them, I did. And if they want their suffering relieved, they will have to come to me.’”
Sister Featherstone: “She said that just as clear as anything in this world the words came into her mind, saying, ‘My daughter, this is not your time; this is my time.’”
Pres. J. R. Clark: “There came into my mind a voice, saying as distinctly as though it spoke in my ear, . . .”
Elder Goberg: “I leaned back and was thinking deeply when suddenly, as clear as anything, these words came into my mind: ‘You will go to Tonga and there preside over a fiftieth anniversary celebration. You will receive further instructions.’”
Pres. Hinckley: “There came into my mind the words, ‘Be still and know that I am God.’”
Elder McConkie: “The voice of the Lord came into my mind as certainly, I am sure, as the voice of the Lord came into the mind of Enos, and the very words were formed, and it said: ‘These are they whom I have chosen as the First Presidency of my Church. Follow them’—those few words.”
Elder Bushe: “I heard a voice speaking loud and clear, in German,”
Elder Scott: “He answers prayer so clearly and concisely that we can write his counsel down as though it were dictated to our mind and heart, for I have done that.”
Pres. Romney: “I have had answers revealed to my mind in finished sentences. I have heard the voice of God in my mind, and I know his words.”
Also:
“I know, for example, what Enos was talking about when he said, ‘the voice of the Lord came into my mind again, . . .’ He did not say it came into his ear, but that it ‘came into my mind again, saying. . . .’ I know what that voice is like, because I have had it come into my mind and give me names when I have had to select stake presidents. There is nothing mysterious about it to people who learn to be guided by the Spirit. The voice of the Lord has come into my mind, in sentences, in answer to prayer.”
Also:
“I have had that experience; sentences, names, have been given to me. I know this is true and in my soul is an absolute certain witness. I know if it were necessary for us to do it, we could go into our secret chambers or on the mountaintop and hear the voice of God as plainly as the Prophet Joseph did.”
Also:
“I was once concluding a talk I had given at the funeral of a fine Latter-day Saint mother and was almost ready to say amen and sit down. There came into my mind the words, ‘Turn around and bear your testimony.’”
Elder McConkie speaking about Elder Milton R. Hunter: “On one occasion, speaking before a large congregation in Mexico, the Spirit of the Lord was poured out in such an abundant measure that the whole congregation received the gift of interpreting tongues. He [Elder Hunter] spoke in English and they understood in Spanish and he was given, by the power of the Spirit, those things which he should say. Telling us of this later he said, “I felt so inspired and moved upon by the power of the Spirit that it was just as though I was lifted up in the air.”
As for myself, decades ago I sat in a room, where the Spirit was strong, when someone read from a French Book of Mormon and asked several of us what verse he had read. Each of us present was given, in the same instant, to know that he read Moroni 10:4. There was no theorizing about how we knew, we just knew. The knowledge was instantly placed in our minds by the Spirit.
Elder Cook summarized: “How the Spirit influences our minds, including speaking peace to our minds, occupying our minds, enlightening our minds, and even sending a voice to our minds.”
Most of the above instances are not related to translation (as most all members understand it) but some do, such as the interpretation of tongues, hearing the voice in German, and a non-French speaker knowing a French verse reference. But all of them do have to do with the “power of God” or the Spirit of God, giving knowledge not had previously. This kind of knowledge cannot come from manuscript textual studies alone.
From the above we can summarize:
-“The thought came into my mind”—and then that thought was expressed.
-“Thought coming to me very, very clearly”—and then that thought was expressed.
-“words came into her mind”—specific words being given; much more than a given thought being expressed.
-“came into my mind a voice, saying as distinctly as though it spoke in my ear”—exact wording given.
-“as clear as anything, these words came into my mind”—exact wording.
-“There came into my mind the words”—specific words given. This is almost funny because Haley Wilson-Lemmon would evidently say that the Holy Ghost plagiarized Jesus from the New Testament into President Hinckley’s mind.
-“The voice of the Lord came into my mind . . . and the very words were formed, and it said”—the exact words were formed.
-“As though it were dictated into my mind and heart”–dictated is a fairly precise method.
-“a voice speaking loud and clear, in German”—load and clear, and we get exact words.
-“I have had that experience; sentences, names, have been given to me”—exact wording again.
-“He [Elder Hunter] spoke in English and they understood in Spanish and he was given, by the power of the Spirit, those things which he should say.”—probably not exact wording given here, but verbal/spoken translation from English to Spanish by the power of the Spirit, with the general thought being given.
These kinds of examples are the closest we can get, at least that I know of, to understanding how joseph Smith translated by the gift (Urim and Thummim and seer stone) and power (Holy Spirit) of God (not someone else before him). They are examples of God providing language to impart knowledge expressed as literal wording or text. This is how I believe the translation process occurred, with the assistance of the sacred instruments.
President Ezra Taft Benson, speaking for God, said:
“First, is the Book of Mormon the word of God? Yes. God has so testified. (See D&C 20:8–10.) So have its writers (see 2 Ne. 33:10; Moro. 7:35), so has its translator (see A of F 1:8), so have its witnesses, . . . “This generation,” said the Lord to Joseph Smith, the translator, “shall have my word through you” (D&C 5:10). And so it has, . . . The Book of Mormon being true, then God did inspire his prophet Joseph Smith to translate it.”
“By His own mouth He has borne witness (1) that it is true (D&C 17:6), (2) that it contains the truth and His words (D&C 19:26), (3) that it was translated by power from on high (D&C 20:8),”
“the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation.” (One inspired step eliminates this other new anonymous heavenly guy having a step and doing the translating.)
No earlier heavenly translator or alternate 1820-30s definition of “translation” was given by the prophet of the Lord to the Church with these five usages of the word. No Conference message or church manual contains any such that I ever heard of. I think Pres. Benson understood “translate” the way all but some few academics do. I can see no alternative but to believe President Benson believed Joseph Smith was the translator, as he would have defined the word, not some previous fellow in heaven. In fact I think he would have kindly but firmly disputed this newer explanation of translation as presented by Skousen, Givens, Hardy, etc.—perhaps even rebuked such. And he is the great Book of Mormon-promoting prophet for our last few generations.
Dennis, that’s an impressive compilation. Thanks for sharing. I will be giving this some thought.
Hi Dennis. I think there’s room for a variety of views about the particulars of how the translation worked. From Elder Maxwell:
“Many who read the Book of Mormon understandably desire to know more about its coming forth, including the actual process of translation. This was certainly so with faithful and loyal Hyrum Smith. Upon inquiring, Hyrum was told by the Prophet Joseph that ‘it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon’ and that ‘it was not expedient for him to relate these things’ (History of the Church, 1:220). Thus what we do know about the actual coming forth of the Book of Mormon is adequate, but it is not comprehensive.
Our primary focus in studying the Book of Mormon should be on the principles of the gospel anyway, not on the process by which the book came forth. Yet because its coming so amply fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy of a ‘marvellous work and a wonder,’ we may find strengthened faith in considering how marvelous and wondrous the translation really was.”
Elder Maxwell then goes on to offer some thoughts on the subject. Regardless of how many past prophets have described the translation, it seems to me today’s leaders understand that Joseph was prudent in being careful about how he described the translation, pointing us to the message the book contains even more than the method by which it was revealed.
Let not the buckler of armor boast like the unfastener. Blair, boasting about being at the Maxwell Institute under its current name longer than Dan is not not a good look for the institute’s PR face. Dan helped build it. He helped bring it into BYU under that name. You would not be there at all if Dan had not been there to bring FARMS and the MI about. A little less sneering at Dan, maybe? Or calling him a coward in public. Not that you would dream of it, I’m sure.
Not intended as a boast, Jacob Bentov, although I can understand how it could be interpreted that way. I apologize for the remark. It truly is strange for me to think it’s really been seven years.
Tell me, what foreign language did JS know in 1829 that he translated from?
And notice, translate doesn’t mean translate in AoF 8.
I assume you are talking to me.
As we know, Joseph knew no other language beside English and didn’t need to. That’s the whole point. It took the gift and power of God for him to translate, or know what the characters on the gold plates said. If the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved to give him the translation, he would have failed and been stymied. If the Holy Spirit and/or interpreters gave him some earlier English words or a French word, so what? But he was a prophet, seer, and translator.
King Mosiah didn’t know the Jaradite language either (whether it was the pure Adamic tongue or something else), but he was still able to translate it from the discovered plates by the gift and power of God into his own language (as Ammon explained)–same as Joseph. Same as the gift of tongues works, only also using a sacred instrument (part of being a “seer”).
And in AofF 8 “translate” the meaning is both transmit and translate. Whether one buys that or not, the prophets still use the main known common definition when teaching the Church. I have never seen otherwise.
Dennis, you’ve just laid it out that God translated the text for Joseph Smith, in the sense to which you are restricting the terms translate, translation for the prophets: ‘turning one language into another’, ‘changing into another language retaining the sense’, ‘rendering one language into another’. This isn’t the first sense listed in the OED for translate, however, and the first sense works just fine for JS in relation to the Book of Mormon.
Yes.
Isn’t saying that God (really the Holy Ghost thru the interpreters) translated the text for Joseph Smith (who couldn’t do it by himself, unaided) just another way of saying that Joseph translated it by the gift and power of God?, or that King Mosiah (who couldn’t do it by himself, unaided, either) translated the Jaradite text by the gift and power of God? The process is absolutely miraculous, but, as Blair pointed out, Joseph refused to explain all the particulars (that only he could) when asked. My expressions are simply the closest I can get to understanding how–prophets, seers, and revelators being prophets, seers, and revelators.
Pres. Oaks has taught (in a talk) that the scriptures can become a Urim and Thummim to each of us as a source of revelation to us from the Holy Ghost, and I have experienced that on many occasions.
I have also had the Spirit move my eyes over the pages of the scriptures to particular verses to teach and testify of what they meant and that they were true.
I have read an account written by a faithful man who received a vision of what a particular BofM verse meant, beyond what it said on the surface.
Dictionary definitions don’t matter much in these instances; but I have never seen or read of a prophet or apostle using an early dictionary to restate or clarify to us today what Joseph meant by “translation”.
An interesting and I think relevant item I just ran into in one of Pres. Heber J. Grant’s discourses in Conference (October 1919):
“We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues,” etc. — we believe in the gift of tongues. When I was a little child, in a Relief society meeting held in the home of the late William C. Staines, corner South Temple and Fifth East streets, my mother was there, “Aunt Em” Wells was there, Eliza R. Snow, Zina D. Young, and many others. After the meeting was over Sister Eliza R. Snow, by the gift of tongues, gave a blessing to each and everyone of those good sisters, and Sister Zina D. Young gave the interpretation. After blessing those sisters, she turned to the boy playing on the floor, and pronounced a blessing upon my head by the gift of tongues, and Zina D. Young gave the interpretation. I of course did not understand one word that Aunt Eliza was saying. I was astonished because she was talking to me and pointing at me. I could not understand a word, and all I got of the interpretation, as a child, was that some day I should be a big man. I thought it meant that I would grow tall. My mother made a record of that blessing. What was it? It was a prophecy, by the gift of tongues, that her boy should live to be an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ; and ofttimes she told me that if I would behave myself, that honor would come to me. I always laughed at her and said: “Every mother believes that her son will become president of the United States, or hold some great office. You ought to get that out of your head, Mother.” I did not believe her until that honor came to me. Tell me that the gift of tongues is not exercised in this Church? As well tell me that I do not know that I stand here today.