Author: Jonathan Neville

Today I want to mention three points to consider.

1. Only the Title Page is a literal translation. 

Joseph Smith’s History, circa June – October 1839 [Draft 1], here, reads,

“I would mention here also in order to correct a misunderstanding, which has gone abroad concerning the title page of the Book of Mormon, that it is not a composition of mine or of any other man’s who has lived or does live in this generation, but that it is a literal translation taken from the last leaf of the plates, on the left hand side of the collection of plates, the language running same as the <all> Hebrew <wr[i]ting> language <in general>. And that no error can henceforth possibly exist I give here the Title so far as it is a translation.”

With some wording changes, the same passage appears in History, circa June 1839-circa 1841 [Draft 2], here.

“I wish also to mention here, that the Title Page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated; and not by any means the language of the whole running same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that, said Title Page is not by any means a modern composition either of mine or of any other man’s who has lived or does live in this generation. Therefore, in order to correct an error which generally exists concerning it, I give below that part of the Title Page of the English Version of the Book of Mormon, which is a genuine and literal translation of the Title Page of the Original Book of Mormon, as recorded on the plates.”

In History, circa 1841, fair copy, in the handwriting of Howard Coray, Joseph Smith’s history reads:

“I wish to mention here that the title page of the book of Mormon is a literal translation taken from the last leaf on the left hand side of the collection of plates which contained the record that has been translated. The language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writings writings; and that said title page is not a modern composition. Therefore in order to correct an error which generally exists concerning it I give below that part of the title page which is a genuine and literal translation of the title page of the book of Mormon recorded on the plates.”

Those who have read Whatever Happened to the Golden Plates? know the significance of the phrase “Original Book of Mormon.” It was not in the 1839 draft, but it was in Draft 2. Howard Coray omitted it, but it appears in the Times and Seasons, Oct. 15, 1842, here.

“I wish also to mention here, that the title page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated; the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that, said title page is not by any means a modern composition either of mine or of any other man’s who has lived or does live in this generation. Therefore, in order to correct an error which generally exists concerning it, I give below that part of the title page of the English version of the Book of Mormon, which is a genuine and literal translation of the title page of the Original Book of Mormon, as recorded on the plates.”
_______________

This is significant for two reasons. First, it refutes the idea that Joseph merely read the words off the stone in the hat. He was making a “literal translation” from the plates themselves.

Second, it implies that the rest of the translation may not have been literal. I’ll discuss this more in upcoming posts.
_______________

2. Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon translation.

The essay, found here, is a good overview. Unfortunately, it starts off with the inaccurate quotation of Joseph Smith, which was actually Wilford Woodruff’s summary of a day’s teaching and not a direct quotation. I’m working on an annotated version of the essay.
_______________

3.. Conference in Logan.

In March 2017 there was a conference at Utah State (Logan, Utah) titled “New Perspectives on Joseph Smith and Translation.” I had a conflict so I couldn’t attend, but videos from the session are now available. Info is here: http://religionnews.com/2017/05/03/mormon-scholars-debate-joseph-smiths-role-in-translation/

I’ll have more to say on this soon, but I just wanted to give the information now.

Where is Cumorah?

The answer, of course, is in western New York, where Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said it was. If someone tells you it’s somewhere else, or that there are “two Cumorahs,” you know they are repudiating Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

For me, there’s no point in considering geography theories that put Cumorah anywhere else but in New York. This also applies to the “abstract maps,” including those being taught at BYU.

You will find dozens, even hundreds, of different maps if you look online. You can assess them easily by seeing how they treat Cumorah.

One of the best known is the one at BYU Studies, here. https://byustudies.byu.edu/

Scroll to the bottom of the page. The first item under “Popular Pages” is “Charting the Book of Mormon.” Click on that.

You’ll find some useful material here, but there is also some misleading material. Scroll to

Section 13: Geography in the Book of Mormon

Here’s the direct link: https://byustudies.byu.edu/charts/13-149-ten-essential-features-book-mormon-geography

This entire section is a disaster, IMO, Look at this one, for example.

13-149 Ten Essential Features of Book of Mormon Geography

These “Essential Features” have little if anything to do with the text. They are pure Mesomania, an effort to persuade people that the text actually described Mesoamerica.

The first one says “A narrow neck (isthmus) separated the land northward from the land southward and was flanked by an east sea and a west sea.”

Of course, the text never uses the term isthmus. This is classic for Mesomania. The text doesn’t describe anything about Mesoamerica–no jungles, no volcanoes, no huge stone pyramids, and even no Mayans–so the Mesoamerican advocates have to change the wording in the text to make it work.

You can go through all of the items in Section 13, and you’ll see how they use this substitution technique throughout to justify their Mesoamerican theory.
________________

This is just one example of how far afield people can get when they ignore what Joseph and Oliver said about Cumorah in New York.

You’ll find plenty more. But you can avoid all of that by going to http://moronisamerica.com/

As always, I’m interested in anyone who can come up with a better explanation of Book of Mormon geography with Cumorah in New York.

“In February 2012, Jeremy experienced a crisis of faith, which subsequently led to a faith transition in the summer of 2012. In the spring of 2013, Jeremy was approached and asked by a CES Director to share his concerns and questions about the LDS Church’s origins, history, and current practices. In response, Jeremy wrote what later became publicly known as Letter to a CES Director.”

Although the letter was originally written in 2013, the controversies it spawned continue. I’ve seen discussions about it as recent as within the last month. Often when I speak, people ask what I think because they know someone who has been influenced by the letter.

In my view, it’s not the CES letter that is the problem. Runnells raises good questions that I think many people have, whether they are active LDS, inactive LDS, former LDS, or never LDS (whether they are investigators or antagonistic to the Church).

The problem is the responses given by LDS apologists.

The responses are unsatisfactory for many–including me–because they focus on the Mesoamerican setting and some of the traditional interpretations of Church history that are based on historical mistakes.

The CES letter is a fairly comprehensive list of common objections to LDS claims about Church history, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and various doctrines. Runnells is using it as a fundraiser at this point, but that’s irrelevant to the merits of the questions he raises.

There have been many responses to the CES letter. Here is a compilation of some:
http://debunking-cesletter.com/?page_id=3964

Two of the most prominent responses were provided by FairMormon and Dan Peterson. Runnells has addressed them here and here, respectively. I think Runnells has done a good job sorting through the sophistry of the citation cartel, but the gist of his objections is this: he raises subjective expectations and then is disappointed when reality doesn’t meet his expectations. I think his conclusions are understandable given his assumptions and expectations, and those assumptions and expectations are themselves understandable given what he’s been taught, but because what he has been taught is driven by Mesomania and related interpretations of Church history, the questions he raises have answers that have not been provided yet, so far as I can determine.

Readers of this blog know that I think FairMormon and the rest of the citation cartel are ineffective because of their obsession with the Mesoamerican setting (which I call Mesomania). Mesomania leads them to embrace and promote the two-Cumorahs theory, to distort the text of the Book of Mormon, to repudiate Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and to provide interpretations of Church history designed to justify their Mesomania that have the perverse effect of creating doubt out of what should be faith-sustaining statements and events. In each case, Mesomania undermines faith, just as Joseph Fielding Smith warned.
_____________

I don’t know how much interest there really is in yet another analysis of the CES letter. Those who are familiar with the issues, however, will understand the significance of a few of the main points I’ve been addressing on this blog and in my books. I’ll list them here. If people ask for more detail, I’ll address these points in future posts as time permits.

1. There is only one Cumorah and it really is in New York.

2. There were two departments in the hill Cumorah. One contained the stone and cement box that Moroni prepared for the plates and the breastplate. The other contained Mormon’s repository of Nephite records.

3. In North America, right where Joseph indicated, there is abundant evidence of civilizations that match the text of the Book of Mormon, and the text itself describes the North American setting.

4. Joseph translated two separate sets of plates. The plates he originally obtained from Moroni he translated in Harmony. The plates he translated in Fayette came from the repository in Cumorah. He actually translated the plates; they were not merely a talisman as some scholars claim today. (Related to this, he may have referred to the Bible in Fayette when he translated the Isaiah passages on the Fayette plates.)

5. Joseph never once linked the Book of Mormon to Central or South America.

6. Joseph was merely the nominal editor of the 1842 Times and Seasons and numerous articles have been incorrectly attributed to him.

7. The Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories were based on a mistake in Church history.

In the context of Church history and Book of Mormon geography, the “crumbling of one fundamental assumption” has also had reverberations throughout the whole underpinning of long-held beliefs.

The fundamental assumption was that Joseph Smith linked the Book of Mormon to Central America. That assumption, based on mistakes in history, is crumbling in the face of detailed historical analysis. The entire Mesoamerican theory is crumbling along with it, as are the various rationalizations made by LDS scholars who promoted the Mesoamerican theory for so long.

Terry Givens has been one of the greatest proponents of the Mesoamerican theory. He wrote the Foreword to Mormon’s Codex, calling it “the high-water mark of scholarship on the Book of Mormon.”

In By the Hand of Mormon, Givens described the Stephens and Catherwood books about Central America. Then he wrote: “Joseph was quick to see how the Book of Mormon had arrived on the scene of this mystery with impeccable timing. Responding immediately to the Stephens account, Joseph wrote back to Bernhisel, thanking him for the “kind present” and ecstatically declaring that it “corresponds with & supports the testimony of the Book of Mormon” … Picking up the thread of Stephens’ remarks, he wrote (or sanctions) these remarks in a subsequent article.” Givens then cites the anonymous Times and Seasons articles before claiming “Joseph’s enthusiasm for the service that antiquities could render the cause of Book of Mormon historicity” in the context of Central America was the case for the establishment of a museum at Nauvoo.

In reality, the only enthusiasm Joseph expressed was about Cumorah in New York. He didn’t write the Bernhisel letter. He didn’t write or endorse the anonymous Times and Seasons articles. He never once made or approved of a link between the Book of Mormon and Central America.

Givens is far from the only LDS scholar who embraced the false assumptions about Mesoamerica, but he is one of the most prominent. He and like-minded LDS scholars have given us a series of cascading assumptions that have led to the conclusion that Joseph and Oliver didn’t know what they were talking about when the said Cumorah was in New York. This has led to all kinds of mischief, as I’ve discussed throughout this and other blogs, as well as books and articles.

Crumbling is one of many possible metaphors for what is happening. As the erroneous assumption crumbles, the entire foundation of the Mesoamerican theory will collapse. Along with it, the idea that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church will dissipate. The idea that Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and Heber C. Kimball misled the Church about the repository in the Hill Cumorah in New York will also dissipate. The various rationalizations given by the scholars for events in Church history that contradicted their Mesomania will be exposed for what they were. We’ll understand Church history better, and we’ll have a greater appreciation for the Book of Mormon as an actual history of actual people that took place in an actual, real-world setting that makes sense and is consistent with what Joseph and Oliver said all along.

We can be happy that this one fundamental assumption is finally crumbling.

I’ve previously discussed the problem of including the Mesoamerican paintings in the missionary and foreign language editions in this post. As people told me in France last week, they’ve always been told the Church is neutral about geography issues, but including those misleading paintings in the official editions of the Book of Mormon is anything but neutral.

The paintings are pretty bad. Imagine an investigator reading the Book of Mormon for the first time and wondering, when am I going to read about the Mayans? The volcanoes and jungles and jaguars? The massive stone pyramids?

Of course, the answer is never.

The artwork not only does not reflect the text, it defies the text and what Joseph and Oliver said about the geography.

As bad as the paintings are, there’s an even bigger problem.
_________

When I recently translated the pocket edition of Moroni’s America into French, I discovered something I hadn’t noticed before.

The translation of the Book of Mormon into French was done with Mesoamerica in mind.

Look at Alma 22:27. In English, it says

the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west

In French:

les régions frontières du désert qui était au nord près du pays de Zarahemla, à travers les régions frontières de Manti, près de la source du fleuve Sidon, allant de l’est vers l’ouest

This is not a literal translation!

Instead, it’s an interpretation.

If you don’t read French, look at this phrase:

English: by the head of the river Sidon
French: près de la source du fleuve Sidon

The literal translation of the French would be: near the source of the river Sidon.

Of course, that’s the Sorenson translation, meaning, that’s the translation that Mesoamerican advocates wish Joseph Smith had used, and the one they prefer. They think Joseph should have written “headwaters” instead of “head” of Sidon.

I’ve discussed this several times on this blog. You can find the posts by searching for “head of Sidon.” Here is one example:
http://bookofmormonwars.blogspot.com/2015/12/head-of-sidon-still.html

Basically, “head of Sidon” does not mean “headwaters or source of Sidon.” The Mesoamerican activists simply change the text to suit their preferred geography. They need the Sidon river to flow northward because the only two rivers in Mesoamerica that they can possibly identify as Sidon flow northward. The tail of their theory wags the dog of the text.

The Mesoamerican activists have successfully educated people throughout the Church about the Sorenson translation (i.e., headwaters of Sidon), and the translator used Sorenson’s translation, not Joseph Smith’s, when he/she translated the Book of Mormon into French.

A literal translation into French would be: À la tête de la rivière Sidon.

There are several more examples in the French Book of Mormon that I’ll discuss in a later post, but first, I want to look at some other languages.
_______________

Alma 22:27 in German reads:

entlang der Grenzen der Wildnis, die im Norden beim Land Zarahemla war, durch das Grenzgebiet von Manti, am Ursprung des Flusses Sidon vorbei, von Osten nach Westen verlaufend—und so waren die Lamaniten und die Nephiten voneinander getrennt.

The key phrase in German, in bold above, is literally translated into English as “at the origin of the river Sidon.”

A literal translation into German would be: “Durch den Kopf des Flusses Sidon.”

The translator would probably argue that this doesn’t make sense in German. But the meaning in English is ambiguous, so why pick the Sorenson interpretation for other languages? This deprives readers in other languages of the meaning Joseph Smith gave us in English.

Alma 22:27 in Spanish reads:

y los límites del desierto que se hallaba hacia el norte, cerca de la tierra de Zarahemla, por las fronteras de Manti, cerca de los manantiales del río Sidón, yendo del este hacia el oeste; y así estaban separados los lamanitas de los nefitas.

A literal translation of the Spanish phrase into English is “near the springs of the river Sidon.”

A literal translation of Joseph’s English version into Spanish would be “Por la cabeza del río Sidón.”

So in English, we have “the head of the Sidon River.”
In French, it’s “the source of the Sidon River.”
In German, it’s “the origin of the Sidon River.”
In Spanish, it’s “the springs of the Sidon River.”

I could show more, but in most languages I’ve checked, this passage is translated into something meaning the “origin of the Sidon River.”

This is how it is translated in Korean, for example. This is of special interest to me because years ago I was in Seoul, Korea, and I met the person who was revision the Korean translation of the Book of Mormon. Translators have a special edition of the Book of Mormon with an interpretive guide at the back. At the time, I wasn’t focused on Book of Mormon geography so I didn’t look up what the guide said about Alma 22:27, but apparently it uses the Sorenson translation to lead readers into reaching the conclusion that the “head of Sidon” means the “source of Sidon,” which is how the Mesoamerican activists have construed the passage to demonstrate that the river Sidon flows northward.

The irony of this is that translator told me the Brethren had instructed him to do as literal a translation as possible. Yet now I read the Korean translation and find it also says “the origin of the Sidon River” instead of the “head of the Sidon River.”

As you’ll see in my future posts, this problem is pervasive. Church members and investigators who read these translations are not getting what Joseph translated. They are getting a translation of the Sorenson translation. So far, I haven’t found a reference to a volcano in any foreign language edition, but I’ll let you know if I do.

🙂

Consider this post my plea for a literal translation of the Book of Mormon into these foreign languages.