Chapter XVIII: Foreword (1)

Of late years the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated is a subject that has been much discussed. Through a misconception, as I think, in relation to the part taken in the work of translation by the Urim-Thummim, it is charged by anti-Mormon writers from first to last, that the verbal errors and errors in grammar which occur in the translation must be assigned to the Lord--a thing unthinkable. The popular understanding among the Latter-day Saints of the manner in which the translation was wrought out by means of Urim-Thummim has been such as to attribute the errors of the translation to equivalent errors in the Nephite original, which, it is held, were brought over literally and arbitrarily into the English translation--a thing most absurd. In view of these conditions the question arises, can such an explanation of the manner of translating the book be given as not to attribute either directly or indirectly these verbal and grammatical errors to the Lord, or to their existence in the original record from which the translation was made; and at the same time preserve as true and not inconsistent with reason, the statements that have been made, respecting the manner of the translation, by Martin Harris and David Whitmer, two of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. The writer is of the opinion that this may be done, and it is to such a task that the following papers are devoted.

I am not unmindful of the fact that this subject is treated in the Young Men's Manuals of 1903-1906; but here the subject is more fully considered, and in a manner quite distinct since some of the papers are controversial and have a value quite apart from the mere affirmative treatment in the Manuals.

I may be pardoned for urging these papers on the attention of the ministry of the Church, especially the foreign ministry, since I believe that the theory here advanced concerning the translation of the Nephite record is the only one at the same time tenable and in accordance with the statements made by those who, after the Prophet Joseph Smith, had the best opportunity of knowing in what manner Urim-Thummim aided in the marvelous work. The value of the Manual theory of translation will appear in the brief discussion on the Book of Mormon which appears in this series of papers.

I.

The Manner of Translating the Book of Mormon.[A]

[Footnote A: From the Y. M. M. I. A. Manual (Senior), 1905-6]

Relative to the manner of translating the Book of Mormon the prophet himself has said but little. "Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God,"[B] is the most extended published statement made by him upon the subject. Of the Urim and Thummim he says: "With the record was found a curious instrument which the ancients called a 'Urim and Thummim,' which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate."[C]

[Footnote B: Wentworth letter, Mill. Star, Vol. XIX., p. 118.]

[Footnote C: Wentworth letter, Mill. Star, Vol. XIX., p. 118.]

Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and the prophet's chief amanuensis, says of the work of translation at which he assisted: "I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages), as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, 'Holy Interpreters.'"[D] This is all he has left on record on the manner of translating the book.[E]

[Footnote D: Book of Mosiah viii: 13.]

[Footnote E: The above statement was made by Oliver Cowdery at a special conference held at Kanesville, Iowa, Oct. 21, 1948. It was first published in the Deseret News of April 13, 1859: Bishop Reuben Miller, who was present at the meeting, reported Cowdery's remarks.]

David Whitmer, another of the Three Witnesses, is more specific on this subject. After describing the means the prophet employed to exclude the light from the "Seer Stone," he says: "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."[A]

[Footnote A: From "An Address to all Believers in Christ," by David Whitmer, "A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon," published at Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12.]

There will appear between this statement of David Whitmer's and what is said both by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery a seeming contradiction. Joseph and Oliver both say the translation was done by means of the Urim and Thummim, which is described by Joseph as being "two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate;" while David Whitmer says that the translation was made by means of a "Seer Stone." The apparent contradiction is cleared up, however, by a statement made by Martin Harris, another of the Three Witnesses. He said that the prophet possessed a "Seer Stone," by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then [i. e., at the time Harris was acting as his scribe] used the Seer Stone. * * * * Martin said further that the Seer Stone differed in appearance entirely from the Urim and Thummim that was obtained with the plates, which were two clear stones set in two rims, very much resembling spectacles, only they were larger.[B]

[Footnote B: Harris' Statement to Edward Stevenson, Mill. Star, Vol. XLIV., p. 87.]

The "Seer Stone" referred to here was a chocolate colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum.[C] It possessed some of the qualities of a Urim and Thummim since by means of it as described above as well as by means of the "Interpreters" found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates.[D]

[Footnote C: Cannon's Life of Joseph Smith, p. 56.]

[Footnote D: Nearly all the anti-Mormon works dealing with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon speak of the "Seer Stone" and reiterate the falsehood that the prophet stole it from the children of Willard Chase, for who Joseph and Hyrum were digging a well.]

Another account of the manner of translating the record, purporting to have been given by David Whitmer, and published in the Kansas City Journal of June 5, 1881, says:

"He [meaning Joseph Smith] had two small stones of a chocolate
color, nearly egg-shape, and perfectly smooth, but not transparent,
called interpreters, which were given him with the plates. He did
not see the plates in translation, but would hold the interpreters
to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light,
and before his eyes would appear what seemed to be parchment on
which would appear the characters of the plates in a line at the
top, and immediately below would appear the translation in English,
which Smith would read to his scribe, who wrote it down exactly
as it fell from his lips. The scribe would then read the sentence
written, and if any mistakes had been made, the characters would
remain visible to Smith until corrected, when they would fade from
sight to be replaced by another line."

It is evident that there are inaccuracies in the above statement, due doubtless, to the carelessness of the reporter of the Journal, who has confused what Mr. Whitmer said of the Seer Stone and the Urim and Thummim. If he meant to describe the Urim and Thummim or "Interpreters" given to Joseph Smith with the plates--as seems to be the case--then the reporter is wrong in saying that they were chocolate color and not transparent; for the "Interpreters" given to the prophet with the plates, as we have seen by his own description; were "two transparent stones." If the reporter meant to describe the "Seer Stone"--which is not likely--he would be right in saying it was of a chocolate color, and egg-shaped, but wrong in saying there were two such stones.

Martin Harris' description of the manner of translating while he was the amanuensis of the prophet is as follows:

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by
the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say
'written' and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear
and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it
remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it
was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."[A]

[Footnote A: Statement of martin Harris, to Edward Stevenson, Mill. Star, Vol. XLIV, pp. 86, 87.]

On one occasion Harris sought to test the genuineness of the prophet's procedure in the matter of translation, as follows:

"Martin said that after continued translation they would become
weary and would go down to the river and exercise in throwing
stones out on the river, etc. While so doing on one occasion.
Martin found a stone very much resembling the one used for
translating, and on resuming their labors of translation Martin
put in place [of the Seer Stone] the stone that he had found.
He said that the prophet remained silent unusually and intently
gazing in darkness, no trace of the usual sentence appearing. Much
surprised, Joseph exclaimed: 'Martin! what is the matter? all is as
dark as Egypt.' Martin's countenance betrayed him, and the prophet
asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, to stop the mouths
of fools, who had told him that the prophet had learned those
sentences and was merely repeating them."[A]

[Footnote A: Harris' Statement to Edward Stevenson, Mill. Star, Vol. XLIV, pp. 78, 79; 86, 87.]

The sum of the whole matter, then, concerning the manner of translating the sacred record of the Nephites, according to the testimony of the only witnesses competent to testify in the matter, is: With the Nephite record was deposited a curious instrument, consisting of two transparent stones, set in the rim of a bow, somewhat resembling spectacles, but larger, called by the ancient Hebrews "Urim and Thummim," but by the Nephites "Interpreters." In addition to these "Interpreters" the prophet Joseph had a "Seer Stone," possessed of similar qualities to the Urim and Thummim; that the prophet sometimes used one and sometimes the other of these sacred instruments in the work of translation; that whether the "Interpreters" or the "Seer Stone" was used the Nephite characters with the English interpretation appeared in the sacred instrument; that the prophet would pronounce the English translation to his scribe, which when correctly written would disappear, and the other characters with their interpretation take their place, and so on until the work was completed.

It should not be supposed, however, that this translation, though accomplished by means of the "Interpreters" and "Seer Stone," as stated above, was merely a mechanical process; that no faith, or mental or spiritual effort was required on the prophet's part; that the instruments did all, while he who used them did nothing but look and repeat mechanically what he saw, as one might look into a mirror, and say what objects in the room he saw reflected there. Much has been written upon this manner of translating the Nephite record, by those who have opposed the Book of Mormon, and chiefly in a sneering way. On the manner of translation they have bottomed much of--not their argument, but their ridicule--against the record; and as in another part of this volume I am to meet what they consider their argument, and what I know to be their ridicule, I consider here a few other facts connected with the manner of translating the Book of Mormon, which are extremely important, as they furnish a basis upon which can be successfully answered all the objections that are urged, based on the manner in which the translation was accomplished, and also as to errors in grammar, the use of modern words, western New York phrases, and other defects of language which it is admitted are to be found in the Book of Mormon, especially in the first edition.

I repeat, then, that the translation of the Book of Mormon by means of the "Interpreters" and "Seer Stone," was not merely a mechanical process, but required the utmost concentration of mental and spiritual force possessed by the prophet, in order to exercise the gift of translation through the means of the sacred instruments provided for that work. Fortunately we have the most perfect evidence of the fact, though it could be inferred, from the general truth that God sets no premium upon mental and spiritual laziness; for whatever means God may have provided to assist man to arrive at the truth, He has always made it necessary for man to couple with those means his utmost endeavor of mind and heart. So much in the way of reflection; now as to the facts referred to.

In his "Address to All Believers in Christ," David Whitmer says:

"At times when Brother Joseph would attempt to translate he would
look into the hat in which the stone was placed, he found he was
spiritually blind and could not translate. He told us that his mind
dwelt too much on earthly things, and various causes would make
him incapable of proceeding with the translation. When in this
condition he would go out and pray, and when he became sufficiently
humble before God, he could then proceed with the translation.
Now we see how very strict the Lord is, and how he requires the
heart of man to be just right in his sight before he can receive
revelation from him."[A]

[Footnote A: Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 30.]

In a statement to Wm. H. Kelley, G. A. Blakeslee, of Gallen, Michigan, under date of September 15th, 1882, David Whitmer said of Joseph Smith and the necessity of his humility and faithfulness while translating the Book of Mormon:

"He was a religious and straightforward man. He had to be; for
he was illiterate and he could do nothing of himself. He had to
trust in God. He could not translate unless he was humble and
possessed the right feelings towards everyone. To illustrate so
you can see. One morning when he was getting ready to continue the
translation, something went wrong about the house and he was put
out about it. Something that Emma, his wife, had done. Oliver and
I went up stairs and Joseph came up soon after to continue the
translation, but he could not do anything. He could not translate
a single syllable. He went down stairs, out into the orchard, and
made supplication to the Lord; was gone about an hour--came back to
the house, asked Emma's forgiveness and then came up stairs where
we were and then the translation went on all right. He could do
nothing save he was humble and faithful."[B]

[Footnote B: Braden and Kelley Debate on Divine Origin of Book of Mormon, p. 186. The above debate took place in 1884, several years before the death of David Whitmer, and the statement from which the above is taken was quoted in full.]

The manner of translation is so far described by David Whitmer and Martin Harris, who received their information necessarily from Joseph Smith, and doubtless it is substantially correct, except in so far as their statements may have created the impression that the translation was a mere mechanical process; and this is certainly corrected in part at least by what David Whitmer has said relative to the frame of mind Joseph must be in before he could translate. But we have more important evidence to consider on this subject of translation than these statements of David Whitmer. In the course of the work of translation Oliver Cowdery desired the gift of translation to be conferred upon him, and God promised to grant it to him in the following terms:

"Oliver Cowdery, verily, verily, I say unto you, that assuredly as
the Lord liveth, who is your God and your Redeemer, even so surely
shall you receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask
in faith, with an honest heart believing that you shall receive
a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records, which are
ancient, which contain those parts of my scripture of which have
been spoken by the manifestation of my spirit. Yea, behold, I
will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost,
which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart,
Now, behold, this is the Spirit of revelation; behold this is the
Spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the
Red Sea on dry ground. * * * * Ask that you may know the mysteries
of God, and that you may translate and receive knowledge from all
those ancient records which have been hid up, that are sacred, and
according to your faith shall it be unto you."[C]

[Footnote C: Doc. & Cov., Sec. viii.]

In attempting to exercise this gift of translation, however, Oliver Cowdery failed; and in a revelation upon the subject the Lord explained the cause of his failure to translate:

"Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would
give it [i. e., the gift of translation] unto you, when you took no
thought save it was to ask me; but, behold. I say unto you, that
you must study it out in your mind, then you must ask me if it be
right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn
within you; therefore you shall feel that it is right; but if it be
not right, you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a
stupor of thought, that shall cause you to forget the thing which
is wrong; therefore you cannot write that which is sacred Save it
be given you from me."[D]

[Footnote D: Doc. & Cov., Sec. ix]

While this is not a description of the manner in which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, it is, nevertheless, the Lord's description of how another man was to exercise the gift of translation; and doubtless it describes the manner in which Joseph Smith did exercise it, and the manner in which he translated the Book of Mormon. That is, the Prophet Joseph Smith looked into the "interpreters" or "Seer Stone," saw there by the power of God and the gift to him, the ancient Nephite characters, and by bending every power of his mind to know the meaning thereof, the interpretation wrought out in his mind by his effort-by studying it out in his mind, to use the Lord's phrase--was reflected in the sacred instrument there to remain until correctly written by the scribe.

In further proof that translation was not a merely mechanical process with the Prophet Joseph, I call attention to the evident thought and study he bestowed upon the work of translating the rolls of papyrus found with the Egyptian mummies, purchased by the Saints in Kirtland, of Michael H. Chandler, about the 6th of July, 1835. "Soon after this," says the prophet, "with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt,"[A] etc. Speaking in his history of the latter part of July, he says: "The remainder of this month I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language."[B] In his journal entry for November 26, 1835, is the following: "Spent the day in translating the Egyptian characters from the papyrus, though suffering with a severe cold."[C] Under date of December 16th, this: "I exhibited and explained the Egyptian characters to them [Elders M'Lellin and Young], and explained many things concerning the dealings of God with the ancients, and the formation of the planetary system."[D] Thus he continued from time to time to work upon this translation, which was not published until 1842, in the "Times and Seasons," beginning in number nine of volume three. It should be remembered in connection with this "preparing an alphabet" and "arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language" that the prophet still had in his possession the "Seer Stone" (or at least Oliver Cowdery had it, for on completing the translation of the Book of Mormon the prophet gave the Seer Stone into Oliver Cowdery's keeping, (David Whitmer's Address to All Believers, page 32), which he had used sometimes in the translation of the Book of Mormon, yet it seems from the circumstances named that he had to bend all the energies of his intellectual powers to obtain a translation of the Egyptian characters.

[Footnote A: History of the Church, Vol. II, p. 236.]

[Footnote B: Ibid, p. 238.]

[Footnote C: Ibid, p. 320.]

[Footnote D: Ibid, p. 334.]

There can be no doubt either but what the interpretation thus obtained was expressed in such language as the prophet could command, in such phraseology as he was master of and common to the time and locality where he lived; modified, of course, by the application of that phraseology to facts and ideas in the Nephite Scriptures he was translating--ideas new to him in many respects, and above the ordinary level of the prophet's thinking; and also the phraseology was superior to that he ordinarily used, because of the inspiration of God that was upon him.

This view of the translation of the Nephite record accounts for the fact that the Book of Mormon, though a translation of an ancient record, is, nevertheless, given in English idiom of the period and locality in which the prophet lived; and in the faulty English, moreover, both as to composition, phraseology, and grammar, of a person of Joseph Smith's limited education; and also accounts for the same-ness of phraseology and literary style which runs through the whole volume.

Nor are we without authority of high standing in these views for the verbal style of inspired writers. In "The Annotated Bible," published by the "Religious Tract Society," London, 1859, the following occurs in relation to the explanation of the words "prophet" and "prophecy:"

"That the prophets were more than foretellers of things future is
apparent from their history as well as from their writings. It
must also be remembered that, although prophecy contains many very
circumstantial allusions to particular facts and individuals, yet
these are referred to chiefly on account of their relation to those
great, general principles with which it has to do. Prophecy is
God's voice, speaking to us respecting that great struggle which
has been and is going on in this world between good and evil.

"The divine communications were made to the prophets in divers
manners; God seems sometimes to have spoken to them in audible
voice; occasionally appearing in human form. At other times he
employed the ministry of angels, or made known his purposes by
dreams. But he most frequently revealed his truth to the prophets
by producing that supernatural state of the sentient, intellectual,
and moral faculties which the Scriptures call 'vision.' Hence
prophetic announcements are often called 'visions,' i. e. things
seen; and the prophets themselves are called 'seers.'

"Although the visions which the prophet beheld and the predictions
of the future which he announced were wholly announced by the
divine Spirit, yet the form of the communication, the imagery in
which it is clothed, the illustrations by which it is cleared up
and impressed, the symbols employed to bring it more graphically
before the mind--in short, all that may be considered as its
garb and dress, depends upon the education, habits, association,
feelings and the whole mental, intellectual and spiritual character
of the prophet. Hence the style of some is purer, more sententious,
more ornate, or more sublime than others."

Also the Reverend Joseph Armitage Robinson, D. D. Dean of Westminster and Chaplain of King Edward VII of England, respecting the manner in which the message of the Old Testament was received and communicated to man, as late as 1905, said:

"The message of the Old Testament was not written by the divine
hand, nor dictated by an outward compulsion; it was planted in the
hearts of men, and made to grow in a fruitful soil. And then they
were required to express it in their own language, after their
natural methods, and in accordance with the stage of knowledge
which their time had reached. Their human faculties were purified
and quickened by the divine Spirit; but they spoke to their time
in the language of their time; they spoke a spiritual message,
accommodated to the experience of their age, a message of faith in
God, and of righteousness as demanded by a righteous God."[A]

[Footnote A: From a report of the Dean's Lecture, as published in the _St. Louis Globe-Democrat,_ Sunday, March 19, 1905.]

Because a writer or speaker is under the inspiration of God it does not follow that in giving expression to what the Lord puts into his heart he will always do so in grammatical terms, any more than the orthography of an inspired writer will always be accurate. We have many illustrations of this fact among the inspired men that we have known in the Church of Jesus Christ in these last days. Those of us who have listened to the utterances of Prophets and Apostles cannot doubt of their inspiration, and at the same time some of those who have been most inspired have been inaccurate in the use of our English language. The same seems true of the ancient Apostles also. The writer of the Acts, at the conclusion of a synopsis of a discourse which he ascribes to Peter, says, "Now, when they [the Jews] saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men,[A] they marveled." The commentators upon this passage say that the listening Jews perceived that Peter and John were uninstructed in the learning of the Jewish schools, and were of the common sort of men, untrained in teaching.[B] And again, "Their language and arguments prove that they were untaught in the Rabbinical learning of the Jewish schools."[C] But in what way could the Jews have discerned the ignorance and absence of learning in Peter and John except through the imperfections of their language? And yet those imperfections in language may not be urged in evidence of the absence of inspiration in the two apostles. Surely with God it must be that the matter is of more consequence than the form in which it is expressed; the thought of more moment than the word; it is the spirit that giveth life, not the letter. "He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord."[D]

[Footnote A: Acts iv: 13.]

[Footnote B: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary, Acts iv: 13.]

[Footnote C: International Commentary of the New Testament, Acts iv.]

[Footnote D: Jeremiah xxiii: 28.]

The view of the manner of translating the Book of Mormon here set forth furnishes the basis of justification for those verbal changes and grammatical corrections which have been made since the first edition issued from the press; and would furnish justification for making many more verbal and grammatical corrections in the book: for if, as here set forth, the meaning of the Nephite characters was given to Joseph Smith in such faulty English as he, an uneducated man, could command, while every detail and shade of thought should be strictly preserved, there can be no reasonable ground for objection to the correction of mere verbal errors and grammatical construction. There can be no reasonable doubt that had Joseph Smith been a finished English scholar and the facts and ideas represented by the Nephite characters upon the plates had been given him by inspiration of God through the Urim and Thummim, those ideas would have been expressed in correct English; but as he was not a finished English scholar, he had to give expression to those facts and ideas in such language as he could command, and that was faulty English, which the prophet himself and those who have succeeded him as custodians of the word of God have had and now have a perfect right to correct.

II.

Accounting For Evident Transcriptions of Bible Passages in the Translation of the Nephite Record.

It is objected to the Book of Mormon that there are found in it whole chapters, besides many minor quotations from King James's English translation of the Bible. Since these chapters and passages in some cases follow the "authorized English version" verbatim, and closely resemble it in others; and as it is well known that in translating from one language into another almost infinite variety of expression is possible, the question arises, how is it that Joseph Smith, in translating from the Nephite plates by divine assistance, follows so closely an independent translation made in the ordinary way, by dint of scholarship and patient labor, and by diligent comparison of former translations.

Nearly all the Anti-Mormon writers raise this objection, though perhaps John Hyde,[A] 1857, makes the most of it. Following him the Revelation M. T. Lamb,[B] 1887, and last, but not least, Linn,[C] 1902.

[Footnote A: Hyde's "Mormonism," Chapters 9, 10, 11.]

[Footnote B: "Golden Bible," Chapter 7.]

[Footnote C: Linn's "Story of the Mormons," Chapter 11.]

This objection was most carefully and intelligently stated recently (October 22, 1903), by Mr. H. Chamberlain, of Spencer, Iowa, U. S. A., in a letter of inquiry on the subject to President Joseph F. Smith, of Salt Lake City, in the course of which he said:

"I find that Christ in quoting to the people on this side of
the water, the third and fourth chapters of Malachi, quotes,
according to the Book of Mormon, in the identical text of King
James' version, not missing a word. I find chapters of Isaiah
quoted practically in the same way. I find that in many instances,
in his talks with the people, and to his disciples here, he used
the identical language of King James' version, not omitting the
words supplied by the translators. Now, I know that no two parties
will take the same manuscript and make translations of a matter
contained therein, and the language of the two translators be
alike; indeed, the language employed by the two parties will widely
differ. These translations are from different manuscripts, and from
different languages, and still it appears in the Book of Mormon as
King James' translation. I can conceive of no other way in which
such a coincidence could have occurred, within the range of human
experience, except where one writing is copied from another, and
then it takes the utmost care to get them exactly alike, word for
word, and letter for letter as this is. * * * * * Now, what I
want to know is, how do you as a Church account for these things
appearing in the Book of Mormon in the identical language of King
James' version, when we know his version is faulty, and the same
translators could not have made it twice alike themselves? Did
Joseph copy it from the Bible, or did the Lord adopt this identical
language in revealing it to Joseph?"[D]

[Footnote D: _Improvement Era,_ Vol. viii, 1904, pp. 180, 181.]

This communication was referred to the writer by President Smith for an answer, from which I quote:

The difficulty which you point out of course has been recognized
by believers in the Book of Mormon, but I do not know that I can
say that the Church as yet has settled upon any explanation which
could be regarded as an authoritative view on the subject. Each
one has been left to settle the matter upon the lines which seem
most reasonable to him; as a matter of fact, though our opponents
have frequently called attention to the difficulty in question,
it has not occasioned any particular anxiety in the minds of our
own people. Accepting the overwhelming evidences that exist for
the truth of the Book of Mormon, we have regarded that difficulty,
with some others, as of minor importance which would in time be
satisfactorily settled. Still, I realize the reasonableness of
the objection that may be urged against the Book of Mormon from
the point of view from which you present it, and realize that it
constitutes a real difficulty, and one, too, in which we have no
word from the Prophet Joseph Smith, or those who were immediately
associated with him in bringing forth the Nephite record, to aid us
in a solution of the matter. We are left, therefore, very largely
to conjecture, based on the facts in the case, which facts are most
tersely put in your esteemed communication; viz.:

First. It is a fact that a number of passages in the Book of
Mormon, verses and whole chapters, run closely parallel in matter
and phraseology with passages in Isaiah, Malachi and some parts of
the New Testament.

Second. It is a fact that no two persons will take the same
manuscript and make translations from one language into another,
and the language of the two translations be alike.

Third. It is a fact that the translations of the words of Isaiah,
of Malachi, and the words of the Savior, in the Book of Mormon, are
generally supposed to be independent translations from different
manuscripts or records and from different languages.

Then, of course, comes your question: how can the strange fact be
accounted for, viz., that the 'translation in the Book of Mormon
Corresponding to Isaiah, Malachi and the words of the Savior, are
in the language of King James' translation?

Of course, you will remember that according to the Book of Mormon,
the Nephite colony carried with them to America so much Of the Old
Testament as was in existence at the time of their departure from
Jerusalem (600 years B.C.). The prophecy of Malachi, chapters 3 and
4, quoted in the Book of Mormon, was supplied by the Savior, and
that the Nephites engraved portions of these scriptures in their
records, and this both in the Hebrew, and what the Nephites called
the reformed Egyptian. I simply mention this in passing, that you
may remember afresh how these passages came to be in the Nephite
record, and that you may remember that the Nephites had the Jewish
scriptures in much the same form as they were to be found in Judea,
600 B.C. When the Savior came to the western world and appeared to
the Nephites, he had the same message to present to them that he
had presented in Palestine; the same ordinances of the gospel to
establish, a similar church organization to found, and the same
ethical principles to teach. The manner of the Savior's teaching
would doubtless lead him to present these great truths in the same
forms of expression he had used in teaching the Jews, so that in
substance what he had taught as his doctrines in Judea he would
repeat in America. This is mentioned also, by the way, that it may
appear reasonable to you that in a general manner the Savior must
have taught the people in the western hemisphere substantially
the same things that he taught the people in Palestine. With
this remembered, I think we find a solution of the difficulty
you present in the following way: When Joseph Smith saw that the
Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi,
or the words of the Savior, he took the English Bible and compared
these passages as far as they paralleled each other, and finding
that in substance, in thought, they were alike, he adopted our
English translation; and hence, we have the sameness to which you
refer.

It should be understood also, in this connection, that while Joseph
Smith obtained the facts and ideas from the Nephite characters
through the inspiration of God, he was left to express those facts
and ideas, in the main, in such language as he could command; and
when he found that parts of the Nephite record closely paralleled
passages in the Bible, and being conscious that the language of
our English Bible was superior to his own, he adopted it, except
for those differences indicated in the Nephite original which
here and there make the Book of Mormon passages superior in sense
and clearness. Of course, I recognize the fact that this is but a
conjecture; but I believe it to be a reasonable one; and indeed the
only one which satisfactorily disposes of the difficulty you point
out.

Such was the answer made to Mr. Chamberlain's inquiries, and as the reader will doubtless be interested to know how this answer was received by this intelligent, un-prejudiced gentleman, I quote the following from his letter in response to the explanation.[A]

[Footnote A: The correspondence in full is to be found in the _Improvement Era_ for January, 1904, pp. 197-196.]

"Of course, I realize that if the Book of Mormon was not just
what it purported to be, the whole fabric [of Mormonism] must
fall to the ground, so far as being an inspired religion, and
would then only be worth what good one could get out of it as the
best organization or controlled religion on earth; * * * * upon
studying the Book of Mormon, I, of course, found these portions of
King James' version of our Bible, and judging it by the applied
law of human experience, as we lawyers learn to judge everything,
I could account for it in no other way, than that Joseph Smith
copied it therefrom, and I am free to say that your reasons for
his so doing are not only probable, but the only solution that can
be given. * * * * * I believe and think that your suggestion is
the only theory upon which it is possible to advocate its divine
character. It seems to me that God, so far as I know, has never
supplied man with what he already possessed, and Joseph Smith
already had language with which to express his ideas, and all that
was required in addition from God was, that he furnish him with
the thought, and then let him express it in his own language. I
never could for a moment believe that God is interested in placing
his approval on King James' translators' style of translating, nor
upon the composition of the English language therein adopted. I
do not see wherein your theory. detracts in any manner from the
value of the Book of Mormon, as an inspired work acknowledged by
God as authentic, nor makes more impracticable the manner of its
introduction."

III.

Answers to Questions Respecting the Manual Theory of Translating the Book of Mormon.

I.

A number of questions from their correspondents have been submitted to the writer, by the Editors of the _Era_ respecting the manner of translating the Book of Mormon, as set forth in the Senior Manual for 1905-6.

In one communication, a president of an association, an aid in a M. I. A. Stake Board, and a bishop's counselor, join in saying:

We are not able to harmonize the theory of translation presented in
our Manual with the testimony of the Three Witnesses, especially
Harris and Whitmer. We are not able either to harmonize the
theory of the Manual with the following passages of scripture
regarding the interpreters: Ether 3:22-25; Mosiah 8:13-18; Mosiah
28:11-15;D&C Section 130:8-10.

To answer the matter in the above quotation, it is necessary to ask: What is the Manual theory of translating the Nephite record? It is a theory based upon the only statement made by the Prophet Joseph Smith on the subject, _viz.,_ "Through the medium of Urim and Thummim _I_ translated the record by the gift and power of God;"[A] and the Lord's own description of the manner of translating in general by means of Urim and Thummim, contained in his revelation to Oliver Cowdery in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections viii and ix.

[Footnote A: Wentworth's Letter, Mill. Star, vol. 9, page 118.]

That is the only theory the Manual has upon the subject. The foregoing quotation from the prophet is all he has said with reference to the manner of the translation, and we could wish that all other persons, necessarily less informed upon the subject than the prophet himself, had been content to leave the matter where he left it. In this, however; they did not follow his wise example; but must needs undertake to describe the manner of the translation; and, from such description has arisen the idea that the Urim and Thummim did all, in the work of the translation, the prophet, nothing; except to read to his amanuensis what he saw reflected in the seer-stone or Urim and Thummim, which the instruments, and not the prophet, had translated. The men responsible for those statements, on which said theory rests, are David Whitmer and Martin Harris. The former says:

A piece of something resembling parchment did appear, (i. e., in
Urim and Thummim), and on that appeared the writing, one character
at a time would appear, and under it was the translation in
English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Brother
Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and then it was
written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was
correct; then it would disappear and another character with the
translation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by
the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.[A]

[Footnote A: Address to all Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, page 12.]

We have no statement at first hand from Martin Harris at all, only the statement of another, Edward Stevenson, as to what he heard Martin say was the manner of translation. This was as follows:

"By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear, and were read by
the prophet, and written by Martin, and when finished he would say
"written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear,
and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly, it
remained until corrected so that the translation was just as it was
engraven on the plates precisely in the language then used."[A]

[Footnote A: Millennial Star, vol. 24, page 86-87.]

These statements have led to the assumption of the theory, I repeat, that the Urim and Thummim did the translating, not Joseph the Seer. Accordingly, it is held that the translation was a mechanical, arbitrary, transliteration; a word for word bringing over from the Nephite language into the English language, a literal interpretation of the record. The prophet, therefore, it is urged, was in no way responsible for the language of the translation, it was not his, but the divine instrument's, and if there are errors of grammar, or faults of diction, (modern words for which in the nature of things there could be no exact equivalents in an ancient language) New England localisms, modern phrases from the English translation of Hebrew scripture, and other sources--all these must have been in the original Nephite record, say the advocates of this theory, and are arbitrarily brought over into the English language.

This theory of translation led opponents of the Book of Mormon and some who were not opponents of it, but sincere investigators of its claims--to suggest certain difficulties involved in such a theory of translation.

First. The impossibility of such a thing as a word-for-word bringing over from one language into another. Such a procedure could only result in producing an unintelligible jargon--a fact well known by those who are at all acquainted with translation.

Second. The fact that the language of the English translation of the Nephite record is in the English idiom, and diction of the period and locality when and where the translation took place, and is evidently but little influenced by any attempt to follow the idiom of an ancient language.

Third. The fact that such errors in grammar and diction as occur in the translation are just such errors as might reasonably be looked for in the work of one unlearned in the English language.

From this data the following argument proceeds: It is impossible that the alleged translation, whether by divine or human media, could be a word-for-word bringing over from the Nephite language into the English; and if the translation is not such a word-for-word bringing over affair, then it cannot be claimed that the Nephite original is responsible for verbal inaccuracies and grammatical errors. If the Book of Mormon is a real translation instead of a word-for-word bringing over from one language into another, and it is insisted that the divine instrument, Urim and Thummim, did all, and the prophet nothing--at least nothing more than to read off the translation made by Urim and Thummim--then the divine instrument is responsible for such errors in grammar and diction as did occur. But this is to assign responsibility for errors in language to a divine instrumentality, which amounts to assigning such errors to God. But that is unthinkable, not to say blasphemous. Also, if it be contended that the language of the Book of Mormon, word for word, and letter for letter, was given to the prophet by direct inspiration of God, acting upon his mind, then again God is made responsible for the language errors in the Book of Mormon--a thing unthinkable.

Rather than ascribe these errors to Deity, either through direct or indirect means, men will reject the claims of the Book of Mormon; and, since the verbal errors in the Book of Mormon are such as one ignorant of the English language would make, the temptation is strong, in the minds of those not yet converted to its truth, to assign to the Book of Mormon an altogether human origin.

In the presence of these considerations, it is but natural to ask, "Is there no way by which such a conclusion may be avoided?" Most assuredly. Set aside the theory based upon the statements made by David Whitmer and Martin Harris, (mark you, _I say the theory_ based on these statements, not necessarily the statements themselves) and accept the more reasonable theory based upon what the Lord has said upon the subject in sections viii and ix of the Doctrine and Covenants, where, in describing how Oliver Cowdery might translate by means of Urim and Thummim, the Lord said:

"I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost
which shall come upon you, and it shall dwell in your heart."

Then, Oliver only having partially succeeded, and that to a very limited extent, in his effort to translate, the Lord, in explaining his failure, said:

"Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would
give it [i. e., the power to translate] unto you, when you took no
thought, save it was to ask me; but, behold, I say unto you, that
you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be
right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn
within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right; but if it
be not right, you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a
stupor of thought, that shall cause you to forget the thing which
is wrong."

This is the Lord's description of how Oliver Cowdery _could_ have translated with the aid of Urim and Thummim (see context of the revelation quoted), and it is undoubtedly the manner in which Joseph Smith _did_ translate the Book of Mormon through the medium of Urim and Thummim. This description of the translation destroys the theory that Urim and Thummim did everything, and the seer nothing; that the work of translating was merely a mechanical process of looking at a supplied interpretation, in English, and reading it off to an amanuensis. This description in the D&C implies great mental effort; of working out the translation in the mind, and securing the witness of the Spirit that the translation is correct. In all this, Urim and Thummim are helpful. They are an aid doubtless to concentration of mind. They may have held at the time just the characters to be translated at the moment, and excluded all others; the translation thought out in the seer's mind may also have been reflected in the interpreters and held there until recorded by the amanuensis, all of which would be incalculably helpful. But since the translation is thought out in the mind of the seer, it must be thought out in such thought-signs as are at his command, expressed in such speech-forms as he is master of; for, man thinks, and can only think coherently, in language; and, necessarily, in such language as he knows. If his knowledge of the language in which he thinks and speaks is imperfect, his diction and grammar will be defective. That errors of grammar and faults in diction do exist in the Book of Mormon (and more especially and abundantly in the first edition) must be conceded; and what is more, while some of the errors may be referred to inefficient proof-reading, such as is to be expected in a country printing establishment, yet such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proofreading, or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the "typos," or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character; they are of the web and woof of the style, and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed the first edition of the Book of Mormon is singularly free from typographical errors.

In the presence of these facts, only one solution to the difficulties presents itself, and that is the solution suggested in the Manual, viz., that the translator is responsible for the verbal and grammatical errors, in the translation; as it is said of the original Nephite record, so let us-say of the translation of that record, "If there be faults, they are the faults of man;" not of God, either mediately or immediately. Nor does this solution of the difficulties presented cast any reflections upon Joseph the Seer. It was no fault of his that his knowledge in the English language was so imperfect. His imperfect knowledge was due entirely to his limited opportunity to acquire such knowledge; to environment, not at all to neglect of opportunities or to mental laziness.

But it is objected that this theory unsettles former conceptions of the part taken by Urim and Thummim, in the work of translation. It upsets somewhat the marvelous that has been associated with the translation of the Nephite record. "Shall we understand," writes with some feeling one objector, "that Urim and Thummim are not what they hitherto purported to be?" and cites somewhat indefinitely the testimony of the Three Witnesses; refers, but not definitely, to the _History of the Church,_ and to a sermon by Brigham Young; also to the following passages in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants: Mosiah 28:11-15; Ether 3:22-25; Mosiah 8:13-19; Doctrine and Covenants, section 130. We assure this writer and other correspondents of the _Era_ that there is no conflict between the Manual theory of translation and these passages of scripture. The strongest passage cited as suggesting a conflict is Mosiah 28:13-16, as follows:

"And now he translated them (i. e., the Jaredite records) by the
means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of
a bow.

"Now these things were prepared from the beginning, and were handed
down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting
languages; * * * * And whosoever has these things, is called seer,
after the manner of old times."

Emphasizing and insisting upon a rigid construction of the words, "Now these things were handed down * * * for the purpose of interpreting languages," may seem to fix the power of interpretation in the divine instruments, not in the seer; but when these words are considered in connection with all that one may learn upon the subject, we know better than to insist upon a severely rigid construction. It should be observed in the opening sentence of the very passage quoted that these words occur:

"And _he_ [Mosiah] translated them [the Jaredite records] by means
of those two stones, which were fastened to two rims of a bow."

In other words, Mosiah, the seer, did the translating, aided by Urim and Thummim; it was not the Urim and Thummim that did it, aided by Mosiah.