Transcription
Today, we know very little pertaining to the specifics of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Many have studied this subject deeply, and we seem to still not have a better idea. Some claim it was a word-for-word translation from the reformed Egyptian, while others claim it must have been an idea-for-idea translation instead. To be clear, I do hold the Book of Mormon as scripture and the word of God. However, we do have to admit that we know very little about the book itself.
Before I look at the translation, I first want to mention that this is not an attack piece on Joseph or the Book of Mormon. I hold Joseph as a prophet with a unique connection to God. I also hold the Book of Mormon as scripture and genuinely find Christ in its pages. I read it daily, personally and with my family. However, the more that I read it, the more I understand the deviations from it and the LDS church. If I could stress one thing, then it would be that the Book of Mormon is not the LDS church. You can be a Mormon without belonging to the Salt Lake Church.
As far as the translation of the Book of Mormon is concerned, though, we do have very little information about how the translation itself happened. Certainly, almost none directly from Joseph. From several contemporary accounts, we do know that Joseph used a seer stone in a hat to receive the wording of the Book of Mormon. However, for the specifics, we don't have much else. Some accounts are vague, and some are very specific concerning the wording given to Joseph.
For instance, David Whitmer wrote a book, "An Address to All Believers in Christ," in 1887, which mentioned that Joseph was given a word-for-word translation. His statement reads: "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 the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."
In this account, David Whitmer claims Joseph would visualize a piece of paper which contained the character from the plates along with the wording for the piece of text in English. This would support the idea that the text was given to Joseph literally, word for word, exactly as God wanted it.
And another account, published in 1882, or in the 1882 edition of the "Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star," Edward Stevenson mentioned that Joseph saw the text directly, and then this is what he would read aloud. The statement reads: "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 'written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained in corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
This account largely agrees with the account from David Whitmer in that Joseph received the language of the Book of Mormon directly from God. In this account, though, it is mentioned that no deviations could occur because the translation could not continue if it wasn't written correctly. The issue with this concept is that we have the original manuscript from the Book of Mormon, and it seems to directly contradict this statement. For instance, the original manuscript includes frequent misspellings and crossed-out words, which indicates errors and changes. Many concepts are also incomplete, with a huge number of abbreviated words or phrases. This would certainly imply that there was not a formal check before moving on to the next sentence, as Stevenson seems to suggest.
And looking at the actual translation of the Book of Mormon, then, it is not entirely clear whether Joseph was given a direct word-for-word translation of the reformed Egyptian, or whether he was given an idea that he then used his personal experience to fill in with the actual text. As mentioned, those that have deeply studied this subject seem to disagree and take whatever side of the argument that suits their conclusion at the time. Maybe some parts are word-for-word, and some are Joseph's words through the idea Mormon was trying to convey. It is really impossible to know until God or Joseph tells us how it was done.
It does seem to make sense to me that if I was communicating with someone else when they couldn't understand my language, then I would use an idea-based communication mechanism. This would let them pick the specific wording; however, it would still be my own ideas. This would imply then a partnership between God and Joseph, instead of Joseph just being a pass-through for the text itself. We can see this partnership concept in several cases in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. For instance, we see several cases of people being filled with the spirit and then putting this feeling into their own words. This feeling into literal words then becomes scriptures to us today. We even see this in the first chapter of the Book of Mormon itself. Lehi is filled with the spirit because of a vision that he had, and then he put these thoughts and ideas into his own words by speaking about it. This was then written down, and we have it today. This partnership between God and man is what makes scripture uniquely divine and a unique work of the author. This partnership concept can help us understand many aspects of scripture. However, for the translation of the book itself, we still don't have much information as to how it specifically happened. We simply know that God used Joseph to bring the book forth; however, we really don't know much beyond that. Was Joseph a pass-through? Was Joseph an interactive participant? We don't know at all.
If Joseph was an interactive participant, then this would help explain the huge number of parallels that exist between the Book of Mormon and contemporary works which were easily available to Joseph. These parallels should not be alarming to us today; however, we should seek to understand their meaning. Are they by mere chance, or is there a deeper meaning concerning a prophet's interactions with God? Parallels are sometimes inevitable when writing a story, and they aren't necessarily a problem. However, the amount and closeness of the parallels certainly increases the likelihood of an earlier work being a source of inspiration. It is this amount and closeness which we really need to judge when analyzing literary works like this. Some acknowledge the parallels and then discount them because there are deviations as well. Certainly, unless two works are exact matches, then there is going to be deviations as well. These deviations are not important, but the parallels are. Simply, the more parallels there are and the closeness of them strengthens the argument that one was a source text for the other.
Again, I want to stress, for what feels like the thousandth time, this is not an attack on Joseph or the Book of Mormon. This is simply an interesting observation which I think requires more study. We don't really understand the specifics of how God works with humans to produce what we call scripture. We likely never will until God tells us directly or we experience it ourselves. God very often works in ways that we don't understand until after the fact. This results in a beautiful partnership between God and man, which we can see in our own lives and the lives of those in the scriptures, which includes the Book of Mormon.
One of the contemporary works which shares a number of parallels with the Book of Mormon is "Pilgrim's Progress," which was first published in 1678 and written by the prolific writer John Bunyan. The work was very popular and reprinted a number of times in several different languages. The book itself is divided into two parts and details the long and arduous journey from the "city of Destruction" to the "Celestial City," which always seems to be in the distance in the story. It has been regarded by many as the most significant work of theological fiction in the English language. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that most people of Joseph's time would have been well acquainted with the work. To be fair, there are several aspects of "Pilgrim's Progress" that have no direct correlation to anything similar in the Book of Mormon. However, there are other things that seem to have a direct one-to-one correlation between the two. The Book of Mormon is also a much larger work than "Pilgrim's Progress" itself. It may be the case that Joseph simply used a number of different works as literary inspiration. However, just because a work may have been used as inspiration doesn't mean that every element of it needs to be represented in the other work as well. Inspiration means taking ideas from it; it doesn't mean copying literally.
This parallel between "Pilgrim's Progress" and the Book of Mormon was also raised in 1834 during the printing of the antagonistic work "Mormonism Unveiled" by Eber Howe. "Mormonism Unveiled" asked the question as to why names and thematic elements should match so closely between the two works and John Bunyan's works in general. The connection between John Bunyan's works overall and the Book of Mormon seems to be staggering, according to Dr. William L. Davis, who has studied this question. In his look into the subject, he says: "Smith's text reveals an active creative engagement with the stories. Even as Bunyan pulled from multiple sources to construct his unique narrative formulations, so too did Smith absorb and rework these narrative templates into new configurations. But even in such instances, Smith's forms never nevertheless remain indebted to Bunyan. The parallel narratives are ubiquitous and systemic, appearing with sustained consistency throughout the entire narrative of the Book of Mormon. Indeed, reading the Book of Mormon is tantamount to reading John Bunyan's many works condensed into a single volume."
We can look at one specific example of this correlation between "Pilgrim's Progress" and the Book of Mormon to get a better understanding of how they seemingly relate to each other. "Pilgrim's Progress" describes a man named Faithful who enters a city, teaches against the leaders, participates in a mock trial, and then is put to death. However, there is another character that witnesses this and then flees the city in order to start a new religious group. This new character then becomes pivotal to the story. Interestingly, this story matches the Book of Mormon's story of Abinadi and Alma in 14 distinct ways. In the book, this story begins in Alma 12 and changes the entire course of the rest of the book. Interestingly, this story in "Pilgrim's Progress" also describes a narrative that changes the entire course of that book as well. The matching parallels between the two accounts are described as follows:
1. In the Book of Mormon, Abinadi enters the wicked city of Lehi-Nephi and is bound and thrown into prison. In "Pilgrim's Progress," Faithful enters the wicked City Vanity Fair and is bound and thrown into prison.
2. In the Book of Mormon, the town leader assembles a group to examine Abinadi. In "Pilgrim's Progress," the town leader assembles a group to examine Faithful.
3. In the Book of Mormon, Abinadi is brought before the leaders and put on trial. In "Pilgrim's Progress," Faithful is brought before the leaders and put on trial.
4. In the Book of Mormon, the leaders accuse Abinadi of being mad. In "Pilgrim's Progress," the leaders accuse Faithful of being a madman.
5. In the Book of Mormon, the leaders accuse Abinadi of stirring up contention among the people. In "Pilgrim's Progress," the leaders accuse Faithful of stirring up contention among the people.
6. In the Book of Mormon, the leaders accuse Abinadi of slandering the town leaders. In "Pilgrim's Progress," the leaders accuse Faithful of slandering the town leaders.
7. In the Book of Mormon, Abinadi speaks boldly in his own defense, without effect. In "Pilgrim's Progress," Faithful speaks boldly in his own defense, without effect.
8. In the Book of Mormon, the town leader condemns Abinadi and decrees that he will be slain and put to death. In "Pilgrim's Progress," the trial leader condemns Faithful and decrees that he will be slain and put to death.
9. In the Book of Mormon, Abinadi is scourged. In "Pilgrim's Progress," Faithful is scourged.
10. In the Book of Mormon, Abinadi is burned to death. In "Pilgrim's Progress," Faithful is burned to death.
11. In the Book of Mormon, Abinadi seals his testimony with his blood. In "Pilgrim's Progress," Faithful seals his testimony with his blood.
12. In the Book of Mormon, Abinadi's teaching and martyrdom converts a witness named Alma. Alma flees the city and becomes a significant part of the narrative. In "Pilgrim's Progress," Faithful's teaching and martyrdom converts a witness named Hopeful. Hopeful flees the city and becomes a significant part of the narrative.
13. In the Book of Mormon, many converts flee the city to join Alma. In "Pilgrim's Progress," many converts flee the city to join with Hopeful.
14. In the Book of Mormon, converts join Alma by entering into a covenant to follow Christ. In "Pilgrim's Progress," converts join Hopeful by entering into a covenant to follow Christ.
As we can see here, with the 14 exact elements between both stories, then it certainly seems that the widely distributed "Pilgrim's Progress" played a role in the creation of the Abinadi story, as well as some of the overall themes of the Book of Mormon itself. This is not to suggest that Joseph copied "Pilgrim's Progress" or anything to that magnitude; however, it certainly seems to suggest that "Pilgrim's Progress" had to have been an inspiration in this case and other cases. If I was writing a story and it shared significant overlap in parts with another popular story, then wouldn't it be a natural assumption to suggest that maybe the earlier story was an inspiration for my story?
For some that think parallels are inevitable in different works, and how many parallels are needed before you claim a link between the two? 20, 30, 50 parallels? If 30 parallels are required, then 29 parallels signify no correlation between the two works, and 30 parallels do. Again, I hold the Book of Mormon is scripture and the word of God; however, these parallels are remarkable and shouldn't just be assumed to be random chance.
Another source of extensive parallels with the Book of Mormon is an 1823 book by Pastor Ethan Smith titled "View of the Hebrews." Interestingly, Oliver Cowdery was likely a member of Ethan Smith's congregation in the small town of Poultney, Vermont, while he was writing "View of the Hebrews." It is hard to tell with specifics; however, Oliver Cowdery's family were recorded members, and while Oliver was living with them, he would have likely attended as well. Ethan Smith's book describes a group of Israelites who flee the old world due to religious persecution. Over the course of a long sea voyage, they eventually land in America. Once in America, the group breaks into two factions, which simplifies to a civilized group and an uncivilized one. There are many wars between the groups. The civilized group quotes extensively from Isaiah and other scripture and looks forward to a time of rest and restoration. Eventually, the civilized group changes their government from a monarchy to a republic and enjoys bouts of peace and war. The Messiah visits the people and describes his gospel, which ushers in a time of peace. The civilized group is eventually overpowered by the uncivilized one. A record is preserved and buried for future generations. This uncivilized group engages in atrocities and becomes the Native Americans that we know today.
As anyone who has read the Book of Mormon knows, this sounds exactly like the story we find there. It actually shares a remarkable number of similarities and is hard to overlook. Again, no one is suggesting that Joseph copied it directly; however, with the vast number of parallels, then it certainly becomes a point of significant interest when studying the translation of the text. It is also possible that, for whatever reason, Ethan Smith was also inspired to write his text. It is fundamentally impossible to say either way.
This significant correlation didn't go entirely unnoticed by the leaders of the LDS Church. In 1922, B. H. Roberts, a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, was asked to study "View of the Hebrews" and report back to the church leaders. Over the course of several years, he undertook his study and reached the conclusion that the parallels between the Book of Mormon and "View of the Hebrews" were too numerous to overlook. In addition, according to his research, various aspects of the Book of Mormon seem to be non-historical and likely the creation of Joseph Smith directly. B. H. Roberts produced a confidential report of his findings; however, according to a March 14, 1932, letter to Elizabeth Sculfield, he had difficulty getting an audience with the First Presidency, who didn't seem interested in his studies anymore. His report was never taken seriously by the leadership and languished until 1985 when it was published as "Studies of the Book of Mormon." The book is likely the most in-depth analysis of the Book of Mormon ever performed and is incredibly detailed. B. H. Roberts is careful to not come to any kind of overall conclusion; however, he repeatedly mentioned the parallels were unlikely to be by accident. In his report, he mentioned: "Did Ethan Smith's 'View of the Hebrews' furnish structural material for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon? It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other—not a few things merely, one or two, or half dozen, but many. And it is this fact of many things of similarity, and the cumulative force of them, that make them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the book's origin."
In another case, B. H. Roberts was analyzing the many internal similarities in the Book of Mormon itself concerning major characters and concluded that they could not have been an accident. The similarities across time and space suggested to him that they were not, in fact, literal historical people but were instead creations in order to help the overall narrative. This certainly sounds alarming; however, it shouldn't be if the Book of Mormon was a translation of ideas instead of a translation of words.
In B. H. Roberts' analysis of the major characters in the Book of Mormon, he stated: "I shall hold that what is here presented illustrates sufficiently the matter taken in hand by referring to them, namely, that they are all of one breed and brand, so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped but piously inclined mind. The evidence, I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history; that they come from the scene separated by long periods of time and among a race which was the ancestral race of the Red Man of America."
In comparing "View of the Hebrews" to the Book of Mormon, B. H. Roberts noted 33 distinct similarities between the two texts. Some of the similarities are relatively minor; however, others are substantial and numerous. The similarities are also not in a specific order. Roberts described the similarities as follows:
1. Book of Mormon was published in 1830. View of the Hebrews published in 1823.
2. Book of Mormon: Oliver Cowdery lived in Poultney, Vermont, and was likely a member of Ethan Smith's congregation, as his family was there already. View of the Hebrews: it was written in Poultney, Vermont, by Ethan Smith.
3. In the Book of Mormon, the record begins with the theme of the destruction of Jerusalem. In View of the Hebrews, the record begins with the destruction of Jerusalem.
4. The Book of Mormon describes the American Indians as being Jewish descendants. In View of the Hebrews, it describes the American Indians as being Jewish descendants.
5. The in the Book of Mormon, the overall theme is the Gathering of Israel in the last days. In View of the Hebrews, the overall theme is the Gathering of Israel in the last days.
6. The Book of Mormon describes a future Gathering of Israel and the restoration of the Ten Tribes. View of the Hebrews describes a future Gathering of Israel and the restoration of the Ten Tribes.
7. The Book of Mormon extensively quotes from Isaiah, including entire chapters. In View of the Hebrews, it extensively quotes from Isaiah, including entire chapters.
8. In the Book of Mormon, it describes the Gentiles of America as nursing fathers and mothers of Israel in the new world and as their latter-day saviors. In View of the Hebrews, it also describes the Gentiles of America as nursing fathers and mothers of Israel in the new world and as their latter-day saviors.
9. The Book of Mormon describes a group of people who left the old world to settle in the new world "that quarter where there never had man been." In View of the Hebrews, it describes a group of people who left the old world to settle in the new world "that quarter where there never had man been."
10. In the Book of Mormon, it describes a group of people that flee northward for religious reasons to a valley and great river and encounter seas of many waters over a long journey. In View of the Hebrews, it describes a group of people that flee northward for religious reasons to a valley and great river and encounter seas of many waters over a long journey.
11. The Book of Mormon: Ether's record records this great exodus. In View of the Hebrews: Ethan records this great exodus.
12. In the Book of Mormon, it describes a group of people landing in the new world and separating into two groups: an industrious group and a wild, indolent group. In View of the Hebrews, it also describes a group of people landing in the new world and separating into two groups: an industrious group and a wild and indolent group.
13. The Book of Mormon describes the industrious and indolent group as having long-drawn-out battles over a lengthy time span. The View of the Hebrews also describes industrious and indolent groups as having long-drawn-out battles over a lengthy time span.
14. The Book of Mormon: or in the Book of Mormon, the indolent group exterminates the industrious group through the many battles and leaves vast ruins. In View of the Hebrews, the indolent group exterminates the industrious group through the many battles and leaves vast ruins.
15. In the Book of Mormon, the industrious group are experts in language, metal smithing, and sea navigation. In View of the Hebrews, the industrious group are expert in language, metal smithing, and sea navigation.
16. The Book of Mormon describes how all people brought to America after the Jaredites (because Hebrews didn't exist then) were Hebrew in origin. In View of the Hebrews, it also describes how all people brought to America were Hebrew in origin.
17. The Book of Mormon describes the source language of the American inhabitants to be Hebrew. In View of the Hebrews, it also describes the source language of the American inhabitants to be Hebrew.
18. The Book of Mormon describes the ancient Americans as using a language composed of hieroglyphics called reformed Egyptian, which originated from Egypt. In View of the Hebrews, it describes the ancient Americans as using a language composed of hieroglyphics that "had been transmitted from Egypt, its original source."
19. The Book of Mormon describes how the people covered the entire American continent. View of the Hebrews describes how the people covered the entire American continent.
20. Book of Mormon: Joseph Smith described finding a breastplate with two attachments which he described as a Urim and Thummim. For the View of the Hebrews: Ethan Smith described finding a breastplate with two white attachments, "an imitation of the precious stones of the Urim."
21. Book of Mormon describes the indolent group of people as engaging in idolatry and human sacrifice. In View of the Hebrews, it describes the indolent people as engaging in idolatry and human sacrifice.
22. The Book of Mormon teaches in favor of generosity to the poor and the denunciation of pride. In View of the Hebrews, it also teaches in favor of generosity to the poor and the denunciation of pride.
23. Book of Mormon teaches against polygamy. View of the Hebrews teaches against polygamy.
24. The Book of Mormon describes the Book of Mormon itself as being given to the Indians and more records to be given in the promise of its restoration to the Indians when they correctly worship the Great Spirit, which is God. The View of the Hebrews describes Indian traditions of a "lost book of God" and the promise of its restoration to the Indians when they correctly worship the Great Spirit, which is God.
25. The Book of Mormon: The source sacred book was buried by Moroni, who was likely a high priest who was the last of the sacred tradition of his people. In View of the Hebrews, the source sacred book was buried with a "high priest" who was the "keeper of the sacred tradition."
26. The Book of Mormon describes extensive military fortifications over a wide area, including watchtowers for defense. In View of the Hebrews, it describes extensive military fortifications over a wide area, including watchtowers for defense.
27. The Book of Mormon describes sacred spaces or high places of worship devoted to true worship. View of the Hebrews describes sacred spaces or high places devoted to true worship.
28. The Book of Mormon: In the Book of Mormon, civilized people decide to change their government from a monarchy to a republic. In View of the Hebrews, the civilized people decide to change their government from a monarchy to a republic.
29. The Book of Mormon describes a group of people with seers and prophets who can foretell the future as long as the people obeyed God and His sacred laws. They passed along sacred records to their descendants. In View of the Hebrews, it also describes a group of people with seers and prophets who can foretell the future as long as the people "obeyed the sacred laws annexed to it." They passed along their sacred records to their descendants.
30. In the Book of Mormon: In the Book of Mormon, in the republic government, civil and ecclesiastical power is concentrated in a single person. In the View of the Hebrews, and their republic government, civil and ecclesiastical power is concentrated in a single person.
31. In the Book of Mormon, it teaches about the need for opposition in all things: good versus bad, life versus death. In View of the Hebrews, it also teaches about the need for opposition in all things: good versus bad, life versus death.
32. The Book of Mormon teaches that the true gospel was taught among the ancient Americans. In View of the Hebrews, it teaches that the true gospel was taught among the ancient Americans.
33. Lastly, the Book of Mormon describes the Messiah visiting the people and teaching truth. His reign ushers in an unparalleled time of peace. In View of the Hebrews, it describes the Messiah visiting the people and teaching truth. His reign ushered in an unparalleled time of peace.
Was a long list. This list of parallels is extensive, to say the least. The parallels are actually so vast and deep that it is very hard to imagine they were the result of mere chance. The parallels also involve entire thematic elements involving key figures, places, and events across the entire work. Certainly, they differ in key areas; however, this doesn't mean that "View of the Hebrews" couldn't have been an inspiration for the Book of Mormon or used by Joseph in some regard. If they are not identical, which they are not, then they necessarily must differ in some way. This difference shouldn't be used as an argument to say there is no link between them at all.
Of course, there are also some viable explanations that don't involve "View of the Hebrews" as a source text for the Book of Mormon. However, it does make sense, considering their overall similarity, to suggest that "View of the Hebrews" could in fact be a source text as well, and likely was. This is because of its prior publication and publication in the same area as Joseph was living at the time. Oliver, with his background, would very likely also have been familiar with Ethan Smith and his new book. This naturally shouldn't diminish the Book of Mormon or Joseph's role; however, it certainly should change our understanding of things.
The Book of Mormon may have been given to Joseph word for word using the seer stone; however, based on the extensive parallels with "Pilgrim's Progress" and "View of the Hebrews," this seems highly unlikely. Again, I want to stress that this doesn't mean the book is not scripture or couldn't have originated from God. To me, scripture is a divine partnership between a prophet and God. It doesn't have to be given literally for it to be scripture. Divine ideas can be given, and then the prophet fills in the details. Describing anything connected to God with words is going to fundamentally be inadequate.
Whether Nephi existed as a literal person or not doesn't change the fact that the struggle of Nephi against an oppressive force is an example to all of us. Whether Enos existed as a literal person or not doesn't change the fact that we can approach God in mighty prayer. Whether Abinadi existed as a literal person or not doesn't change the fact that his example of courage is pertinent today. Whether King Benjamin existed as a literal person or not doesn't change the fact that he was a leader worthy of our emulation. Whether Captain Moroni existed as a literal person or not doesn't change the fact that we can rely on God in our darkest moments. There are so many lessons we can learn from the Book of Mormon which can help us approach God more fully that it seems a little shortsighted to argue over details of a process that Joseph never described.
Joseph may also have used various sources as inspiration unintentionally. Over the course of my life, I have read stories that have fundamentally reshaped how I have thought of things and how I have seen others. If God impressed in my mind a story of righteous, heroic love and devotion, then I would model it after a character that deeply affected me in my childhood. If God impressed in my mind a story of unbridled ambition, then I would model it after a different character that deeply affected me also. So many things have fundamentally changed me that if God wanted me to write scriptures, then there would inevitably be parallels with the many things that have affected me in my life.
The Book of Mormon is scripture to me because it testifies of Christ and is profitable for learning. The Book of Mormon is scripture to me because there are many examples I can learn from where people are yearning for a deeper connection with God. The Book of Mormon is scripture to me because I can feel the truth of the plain and simple words. I will honestly never be able to verify whether things are 100% historically accurate; however, I can know that I am a better person by studying the words of the Book of Mormon. This is what makes it scripture to me.
As always, thanks for figuring things out with me.