Chapter XIX: Foreword (2)

Moreover, the theory that the interpreters did the translating, not the seer aided by them, is in conflict with the Lord's description of translation by means of Urim and Thummim; and if old conceptions respecting the part performed by Urim and Thummim are in conflict with God's description of translation, then the sooner we are rid of such conceptions the better.

"We are not able," say some of these objectors, "to harmonize the theory of translation, presented in our Manual, with the testimony of the Three Witnesses." The testimony of the Three Witnesses respecting the translation of the record, mentioned in the foregoing, is simply this: "We also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us."

This goes no further than the Prophet's description, already quoted. The only thing Oliver Cowdery ever said, outside of the official testimony of the Three Witnesses, was:

"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 Urim and
Thummim."

This is all that he has said on the subject, and that is in harmony, it will be observed with what the Prophet Joseph Smith said, and at no point contradicts the view of translation set forth in the Manual.

There remains, however, the statement of Whitmer and Harris, and it is claimed that the Manual theory of translation cannot be harmonized with what they have said. If that were true, and the Manual theory is more in harmony with what God has said upon the subject than what they have said, then all the worse for their theory--"yea, let God be true but every man a liar!" And, by the way, in passing, I want to ask those who stand up so stoutly for the vindication of what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have chanced to say on the subject of translation--What about the Lord's description of the same thing in the Doctrine and Covenants? Are they not interested in vindicating that description? I care very little, comparatively, for what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have said about the subject. I care everything for what the Lord has said about it. Whence did the two witnesses in question obtain such knowledge as they had about the manner of translation? Undoubtedly, from the Prophet Joseph; for they claim no revelation from the Lord upon the subject. And this knowledge they did not announce until in the later years of their lives; nothing was said about it, by them, until long after the death of the Prophet. They doubtless have given their recollection of what the Prophet had told them about the manner of translating; but experience and observation both teach us that there may be a wide difference between what is really said to men, and their recollection of it--their impressions about it; especially when that recollection or impression is not formulated into written statement until long years afterwards.

At the same time, it is proper to say, as the Manual suggests, that there is no necessary conflict between the statements of these two Witnesses and the Manual theory of translation. They say the Nephite characters, to be translated, appeared in Urim and Thummim. We say that may be true, or the Prophet may have looked through the interpreters--since they were transparent stones--and thus have seen the characters. They say the interpretation appeared in English, under the Nephite characters in Urim and Thummim; we say, if so, then that interpretation, after being wrought out in the Prophet's mind, was reflected into Urim and Thummim and held visible there until written. The English interpretation was a reflex from the Prophet's mind. (And may it not be that the peculiar quality of the Urim and Thummim was to reflect _thought,_ especially God-given or inspired thought, as other substances reflect objects?) All this is possible, and is not in conflict with what either the Prophet or Oliver Cowdery said upon the subject; nor in conflict with the Lord's description of translation. But to insist that the translation of the Book of Mormon was an arbitrary piece of mechanical work, wrought out by transparent stones rather than in the inspired mind of the Prophet, is in conflict with the Lord's description of translation, and all the reasonable conclusions that may be drawn from the known facts in the case. This theory--the Manual theory--accepted, accounting for errors in grammar and faulty diction, as pointed out in chapter vii, Part I of Manual, and in chapter xlvii of the Manual, Part III, is easy.

It is asked, however, "Shall we understand that Urim and Thummim are not what they have hitherto purported to be?" By no means; if by "purported to be," is meant what the seers, Mosiah of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith said of them. The former said of them that "he translated by means of them"--i. e., they were an aid to him in translating. Joseph the seer said that "through the medium" of Urim and Thummim, _he_ translated the Nephite record--i. e., they were an aid to him in the work of translation. But if by "purported to be" is meant that the Urim and Thummim did the _mental_ work of translating--that the instrument did everything, and the Prophet nothing, except to read off what the instrument interpreted--then the sooner that theory is abandoned the better; there is nothing in the word of God, or right reason, to warrant it; it is utterly untenable, and affords no rational explanation of the difficulties arising from the existence of verbal and grammatical errors in the translation of the Nephite record.

But the question is asked, "Why bring these matters up at all?" "I seriously question the expediency of any theory, beyond the facts that are definitely known and attested, to explain the details of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon," says one _Era_ correspondent. So say we all. I wish Messrs. Whitmer and Harris, and those who have worked out theories based upon their statements, had left the whole matter where the Prophet Joseph left it; but this they failed to do. Then opponents took up the question, and insisted that the theory of translation, hitherto commonly accepted, requires us to charge all the faults in diction and errors in grammar to the Lord; and also urge that we have no right, under this theory of translation, to change a single word of the translation, and some Latter-day Saints take the same view.

The correspondent last quoted also says: "It is enough for me to know that the Book of Mormon was translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, by the gift and power of God, through the means of the Urim and Thummim." The present writer might join in that simple, bigoted refrain, and say--"for me, too." But what of those for whom it is not enough? What of the many young men in the Church who hear the objections urged by the opponents of the Book of Mormon, based upon the hitherto popular conception of the manner in which the translation was accomplished--what of them? What of the earnest inquirers, in the world, whose knowledge of languages, and of translation, teaches them that the hitherto popular conception of the translation of the Book of Mormon is an absurdity, not to say an impossibility--what of them? What of the elders in the mission field who are constantly coming in contact with these questions involved in the manner of translating the Book of Mormon, and are asking--as they have been asking for years--for some rational explanation of these matters--what of them? It is not enough, in the presence of the controversies that have arisen out of Messrs. Whitmer and Harris's unfortunate partial explanations, to say that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and that is enough for one to know.

It is not a question involving merely the wisdom or unwisdom of setting up a "theory" of the manner in which the translation of the Book of Mormon was accomplished. A "theory" already existed, based upon the statements of Messrs. Whitmer and Harris, which, as generally understood, was untenable. This had to be corrected; and the truth, so far as possible, ascertained and expounded. It was not the desire to create a new theory respecting the translation of the Book of Mormon that prompted the writer of the Manual to advance such explanations as are there made. Indeed, the theory set forth in the Manual did not originate with him. The difficulties involved in the hitherto commonly accepted theory of translation have long been recognized by Book of Mormon students; and often have been the subject of conversation between this writer and Elder George Reynolds, President Anthon H. Lund, members of the Manual committee, and others; and this writer by no means regards himself as the originator of what is sometimes called the new theory of the Book of Mormon translation.

Meantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given. This is what, in an unpretentious way, is attempted in the Manual. The position there taken is intended to be not destructive, but constructive; not iconoclastic, but conservative; not negative, but positive; and the writer is of opinion that time will vindicate the correctness of the views therein set forth.

II.

I find it necessary to refer again to the matter of a "literal translation"--a word-for-word bringing over from one language into another, a thing which is practically impossible, if sense is to be expressed. Reference is again made to this subject because it seems to be the most stubborn obstacle in the way of the acceptance of the "Manual theory."

[IMAGE (SEE HTML FILE): GREEK AND ENGLISH TEXT OF LUKE]

Since writing the fore part of this article, a so-called "literal translation" of the Greek New Testament has fallen into my hands, extracts from which I think will help to illustrate the point at issue. It should be remembered in what is to follow, that this "literal translation" is only approximately so. The publishers themselves say, "We give the Greek text with an interlinear translation _as literal as may be to be useful."_ To show that the "literal translation" is not and cannot be literal, it is only necessary to call attention to a few facts which the publishers of the Greek text and its translation themselves call attention to; namely, The word "master" is used in the authorized version (our common English version) to translate six different Greek words, all bearing different shades of meaning. The word "judgment" stands for eight different Greek words in the original. Of particles, "be" represents twelve different words; "but," eleven; "for," eighteen; "in," fifteen; "of," thirteen; and "on," nine; and so with many other words. Where these facts obtain, to talk of "literal translation" is to talk of literal nonsense. Still, this so-called "literal translation" will be of assistance to us in this investigation, and I hope also somewhat convincing for the contention made here, and in the Manual, respecting the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon.

I give on the foregoing page the photograph of an entire page from the Greek New Testament. It will be observed that the Greek is given, and under each Greek word an English equivalent, "as literal as may be to be useful." Remember, not absolutely literal; and in the margin is the translation of our common English version.

Now, for purposes of comparison, I give Paul's account of himself before King Agrippa from the so-called Greek "literal translation," and Nephi's account of himself taken from the Book of Mormon.

PAUL'S ACCOUNT OF HIMSELF.

And Agrippa to Paul said, it is allowed thee for thyself to speak.
Then Paul made a defense, stretching out the hand: Concerning
all of which I am accused by Jews, King Agrippa, I esteem myself
happy being about to make defense before thee today, especially
acquainted being thou of all the among Jews customs and also
questions; wherefore I beseech thee patiently to hear me. The then
manner of life my from youth, which from commencement was among my
nation in Jerusalem, know all the Jews, who before knew me from the
first, if they would bear witness that according to the strictest
sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now for hope of thee
to the Father's promise made by God, I stand being judged, to which
our twelve tribes intently night and day serving hope to arrive;
concerning which hope I am accused, O King Agrippa, by the Jews.
Why incredible is it judged by you if God dead raises? I indeed
therefore thought in myself to the name of Jesus the Nazarine I
ought many things contrary to do.

NEPHI'S ACCOUNT OF HIMSELF.

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was
taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen
many afflictions in the course of my days--nevertheless, having
been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a
great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore
I make a record of my proceedings in my day; yea, I make a record
in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the
Jews, and the language of the Egyptians. And I know that the record
which I make, is true; and I make it according to my knowledge.
For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the
reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah, (my father Lehi, having dwelt at
Jerusalem in all his days;) and in that same year there came many
prophets prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the
great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.

In order that it may be seen that the difference between even an approximately "literal translation," and the translation of the Book of Mormon, holds good in other forms of composition as well as personal narrative, I place the following doctrinal explanations before the reader for purpose of comparison:

THE DOCTRINE OF PREACHING TO THE SPIRITS IN PRISON. PETER.

For better, doing good, if wills the will of God, to suffer, than
doing evil; because indeed Christ once for sins suffered, just
for unjust, that us he might bring to God; having been put to
death in flesh, but made alive by the spirit, in which also to the
imprisoned spirits having gone he preached, disobeyed sometimes,
when once was waiting the of God long suffering in the days of Noe,
being prepared ark, into which few, that is eight souls, were saved
through water, which also us figure now saves baptism, not of flesh
a putting away of filth, but of a conscience good demand towards
God, by resurrection of Jesus Christ who is at right hand of God,
gone into heaven, having been subjected to him, angels, authorities
and powers.

DOCTRINE OF THE FALL OF ADAM.--LEHI.

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he would not have
fallen; but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all
things which were created must have remained in the, same state
[in] which they were, after they were created; and they must
have remained forever and had no end. And they would have had
no children; wherefore, they would have remained in a state of
innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good,
for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the
wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be;
and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in
the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from
the fall.

This will doubtless be sufficient to show the difference between a somewhat "literal translation" and one which is evidently not a "literal," or word-for-word bringing over from one language into another. The difference between the two things as indicated here is very great. Still not so great as it would be if we were in possession of a real "literal translation." One other thing also should be remembered; namely, that however sharp the difference is between a somewhat "literal translation" of the Greek and the translation of the Book of Mormon, a "literal translation" from the Nephite reformed Egyptian language would undoubtedly indicate a still sharper difference, for the reason that our English idiom undoubtedly conforms more readily to the Greek than it would to the Nephite language; so that, great as the differences are in the foregoing illustrations, they would be still more sharply defined if the Book of Mormon were a word-for-word bringing over from the Nephite language into the English--if such a thing were possible. Enough, however, is here apparent to make it plain that the Book of Mormon is not a "literal translation" from the Nephite language, that is, in the sense of being brought over word for word and letter for letter from the Nephite into the English. The translation of the Book of Mormon is English in idiom, and the idiom of the time and locality where it was produced, as all must know who read it, and especially those who have read the first edition of it. It having been determined, then, that the translation of the Book of Mormon is in English idiom, the question remains, Whose is it? The Urim and Thummim's, the Lord's, or is it Joseph Smith's? And who is responsible for its palpable errors? The Lord, or man? With that question in mind, read the following few sample passages from among many that might be quoted of like character from the first edition. Speaking of Urim and Thummim the following occurs:

"And the things are called interpreters; and no man can look in
them, except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he had
not ought, and he should perish; * * * * but a seer can know of
things which has past, and also of things which is to come * * *
and hidden things shall come to light, and things which is not
known shall be made known by them." (Page 173.)

"Blessed are they who humbleth themselves without being compelled
to be humble." (Page 314.)

"Little children doth have words given unto them many times which
doth confound the wise and the learned." (Page 315.)

"But they had fell into great errors, for they would not observe to
keep the commandments of God." (Page 310.)

"Have mercy on me, who art in the gall of bitterness and art
encircled about by the everlasting chains of death." (Page 325.)

"I have always retained in remembrance their captivity, yea, and ye
also had ought to retain in remembrance, as I have their captivity;
* * * for ye had ought to know as I do know, that inasmuch as ye
shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land;
and ye had ought to know also that inasmuch as ye shall not keep
the commandments of God, ye shall be cut off from his presence."
(Page 326.)

"Behold I say unto you, that it is him that surely shall come to
take away the sins of the world." (Page 333.)

"My son, do not risk one more offense against your God* * * which
ye hath hitherto risked to commit sin; * * * for that which ye doth
send out shall return unto you again." (Page 337.)

"And thus ended the record of Alma, which was wrote upon the plates
of Nephi." (Page 347.)

"And this shall be your language in them days: But behold your days
of probation is past."

Are these flagrant errors in grammar chargeable to the Lord? To say so is to invite ridicule. The thoughts, the doctrines, are well enough; but the awkward, ungrammatical expression of the thoughts is, doubtless, the result of the translator's imperfect knowledge of the English language,[A] for which lack of knowledge he is not one whit blameable, since his lack of education was due entirely to his want of opportunity for acquiring learning. And, moreover, the errors are just such errors as one circumstanced as the translator was, would make. Again, I say for the translation, what Moroni says for the original Nephite record: "If there be errors, they are the errors of man," not God's errors. Let us rid ourselves of the reproach of charging error, even though it be of forms of expression, unto God, in whom and in whose ways there are no errors at all.

[Footnote A: Of course, inefficient proof-reading, and the fact that the publishing firm from whose press issued the first edition of the Book of Mormon was unfriendly to it, and, therefore, careless in its work, and, perhaps, even mischievously disposed towards it, may account for some of the verbal and grammatical errors of the first edition. On the probability of this being the case, the writer of the Manual said in that work: "The fact that the Book of Mormon was published in a country town, on a hand press, and by persons unfamiliar with book making, and the proofs were read by Oliver Cowdery, who was entirely without experience in such work, will account for many errors, verbal and grammatical. The further fact that the employees, at the printing establishment where the book was published, were unfriendly to it, and were more anxious to make it appear ridiculous than to turn out a good job, may account for other errors that crept into the first edition. But after due allowance is made for all these conditions, the errors are so numerous, and of such a constitutional nature, that they cannot be explained away by these unfavorable conditions under which the work was published."--_Manual_, page 494-5.]

One correspondent to the _Era,_ after making some objections to the "Manual theory" of the translation of the Book of Mormon, closes his communication with the following _post script:_

"P.S.--We don't think the writer of the Manual should answer this.
Give us better authority."

It would have pleased the writer of the Manual had the Editor of the _Era_ thought proper to have referred these questions concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon to someone else--to better authority--and there are many better authorities; but the Editors have seen proper to refer the questions to the Manual writer, and they have received such consideration as he is able to give them, within the compass of this article. Since the questions were referred to him, however, the _Deseret News_ editorially has taken up the subject, and I am very pleased with the opportunity of presenting to this _post script_ writer the better authority for which he longs; but he may be disappointed in the fact that the _News_ writer sees this matter of translation substantially in the same light in which it was presented by the Manual:

A CURRENT QUESTION.

"We have received from one of the wards in Idaho the following
question, which we are requested to answer through the columns of
the _Deseret News._ As it does not relate to any local matter which
would come under the immediate jurisdiction of the ward or stake
authorities, and is a subject that is receiving much attention just
now, we will respond to the desire of our friend on this matter, as
we are able. The question asked is as follows:

"'Did Joseph Smith the Prophet, in translating the Book of Mormon,
use his own language in translating the book into the English
language, or did he use what appeared to him in the Urim and
Thummim as the interpretation of the Nephite characters, and would
it pass away before it was correctly written?'

"We are of the opinion that the Manual for 1905-1906, prepared as
a guide to the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association in the
study of the Book of Mormon, will give a sufficient answer. But
there is some conflict of opinion, in consequence of statements
purporting to have been made by David Whitmer and Martin Harris,
concerning the manner in which the Prophet Joseph obtained the
interpretation of the characters inscribed upon the metallic
plates, which were in "reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics. The idea
conveyed by those statements was that when the Prophet Joseph
looked into the Urim and Thummim he saw the characters that were
on the plates, and underneath them their meaning in the English
language, and that when reading them to the scribe who wrote for
him, the line would not disappear and another take its place unless
it was copied correctly.

"The history of the Prophet Joseph Smith, prepared from his
diary, does not afford that information, nor do we know of
anything authentic as coming from him which gives a description or
explanation of the manner of translation of the Nephite record. One
thing, however, is very clear to us, and that is, that whether in
prophecy or preaching or translating, the man inspired of God is
not simply a talking machine, but one who is divinely impressed and
enlightened, and whose understanding is quickened and enlarged, but
who still possesses all his faculties and the free agency which God
has given to all mankind.

"If all that was necessary for the Seer was to look into the
instrument given to him as an aid in the work of translation, there
would have been no real necessity for his possession of the plates,
which he had to guard with such care. And if every word in English
was supplied to him in the way supposed, it is not likely that any
errors either in grammar or composition would be seen. We have
not the slightest doubt that with the aid of those stones, and by
the gift and power of God, Joseph was able to read the characters
on the plates and understand their full significance, and that he
expressed that in the ordinary language to which he was accustomed
and according to his knowledge in the use of it, just as a person
who translates anything from an ancient or modern language, the
understanding of which he obtains by the ordinary means, and who
would give it in English, according to the usual phraseology to
which he was accustomed.

"The prophets of old who spoke and wrote 'as moved upon by the
Holy Ghost,' though inspired by the same spirit, expressed that
which was given to them in their own way and with those distinctive
peculiarities they each possessed. They were not acted upon against
their own will, or as automatons. As Paul has it, 'The spirits of
the prophets are subject to the prophets.' Any one who has enjoyed
the spirit of revelation, either in prophecy, in testimony, in
preaching, in interpretation of tongues, or in other spiritual
gifts, knows what it is to receive light and truth by the power of
God, which he speaks in his own language and in his own manner-and
style. He who has not been thus inspired, may not be able to
understand how the meaning of the characters on the plates was made
clear to the translator so that he could express it in his own
language.

"But the important fact in this important matter is, that Joseph
Smith really received these ancient records, containing much of
the history of this continent and an account of the dealings of
God with the early inhabitants thereof; that he translated them
into the English language; and that, according to the testimony
of the three witnesses--Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin
Harris--the voice of the Lord declared that they were translated
"by the gift and power of God," and therefore they were translated
correctly. As to the exact _modus operandi,_ there is nothing on
record that we know of as coming from the Prophet himself.

"The great truth remains, that we have the Book of Mormon, written
in simple language, and that such imperfections as may be found in
it are, as it declares itself, 'the mistakes of men,' and these
are simply errors of language, of such small importance that the
meaning is not obscured, but whoever reads may also understand.
It gives a plain and succinct account of the manner in which
this continent was peopled in early times, shows the origin of
the present tribes of so-called Indians, unfolds the purposes of
the Almighty concerning this hemisphere, expounds the principles
of the everlasting gospel, by obedience to which mankind may be
saved, and testifies that Jesus of Nazareth was in very deed the
Son of the Eternal God and the Redeemer of the world. These great
truths are invaluable, and the question concerning the exact
manner of the translation of the Book is comparatively of little
moment."--_Deseret Evening News,_ January 31, 1906.

I think it proper at this point, also, to say, by way of personal explanation, and perhaps to some extent by way of defense against unkind criticisms that have been made of the writer of the Manual, because of the theory of translation therein advanced--I think it proper to say, I repeat, that the present writer did not upon his own responsibility, and without consultation with those somewhat the guardians of these matters, set forth the theory of the Manual on the translation of the Book of Mormon. Chapter VII of the Manual, the one setting forth the Manual theory of translation, was submitted to the First Presidency, and several of the Apostles met together to consider the chapter, and to listen to the reasons which, in the writer's opinion, demanded that such an explanation of the translation should be given. After listening to Chapter VII, and hearing the reasons for making such explanations therein contained, it was moved and carried that such chapter be published in the Manual, and it was published accordingly.

This statement is not made with a view of making the First Presidency and the Twelve, who were present and voted upon the subject, responsible for the ideas advanced; the motion then taken carried with it no such consequences. It meant only that the brethren then consulted were willing that the present writer should publish those views in the Young Men's Manual; but primarily he, the writer, stands responsible for the views there expressed--a responsibility, by the way, which he is very willing to carry; but he is anxious to have the Latter-day Saints understand, and especially the young men in Israel, that in setting forth the Manual theory of translating the Book of Mormon, the writer was not seeking to gratify his personal vanity by advancing some novel theory, and pushing it to the front regardless of the opinions of others, or the general interests of the work. The same correspondent also says:

"The theory of the Manual is having a bad effect upon our best Book
of Mormon students."

With all due respect to the gentleman's opinion, I desire to say to him that he is entirely mistaken. The "Manual theory" of translation is having no such effect; but, on the contrary, Book of Mormon students everywhere are rejoicing in the fact that the "Manual theory" of translation gives them a rational defense against the criticisms that are urged against the faulty language of the English translation of that book. Many errors, verbal and grammatical, have already been eliminated in the later English editions, and there is no valid reason why every one of those that remain should not be eliminated, since it is the thought, the facts of the book, that one should be concerned in preserving, not the forms in which they happen to be cast. There is no good reason why we should not have just as good a Book of Mormon in the English language as they now have in the French, the German, the Swedish and the Danish, and (since the recent revision of it) in the Hawaiian; for in these translations, it has not been thought necessary to perpetuate the English errors; nor do I believe it necessary to perpetuate them in our English editions. By making merely verbal changes, and changes in grammatical construction, without changing the shade of a single idea or statement, changes that could be legitimately authorized by the President of the Church--who is the recognized law giver in Israel, and guardian of the written word--the Book of Mormon could be made a classic in English, and the present writer hopes that he will live to see those verbal and grammatical changes authorized.

IV.

INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MANUAL THEORY OF TRANSLATION.

April 28, 1906.

_President B. H. Roberts, Salt Lake City:_

DEAR BROTHER:--As a subscriber to the _Era_ I have also received the _Manual_ from year to year, and I have perused them with much interest. I have carefully studied the lessons or chapters pertaining to the translation of the Book of Mormon, and have read your articles, published in the recent numbers of the _Era,_ written as a defense of your theory of translation as set forth in the _Manual._

It is not my intention to enter into any controversy with you in relation to this theory, this would be presumptuous on my part. Neither do I want to criticize, but inasmuch as we have no _sure_ authority, no word left us from the Prophet, neither anything revealed putting this matter beyond a doubt, the field is open for theorizing. I would readily accept your theory with just one amendment, and to propose that amendment I write you these lines. While reading one of your articles, a thought was suggested to me like this: May it not have been that the Prophet _did see,_ as related, through the Urim and Thummim the translation of each sentence from the plates into the English language, but in a so-called word for work or literal translation; and from this odd rendering, it became his task to put the sentence into readable English? Taking this view of it, we can account for how the language of the Book of Mormon is in part _modern_ and in part decidedly ancient. The Prophet having used partly the words as they appeared, and, in order to put it into proper form, used or supplied words of his own. This will account for all errors, and place the responsibility for them where it must belong, with man and not with God. It would give due importance and credit to the sacred instruments, and would leave ample scope for the Prophet to exercise his own mental powers. It would make the statements of Martin Harris and David Whitmer in relation to the translation substantially correct, and it would also be in perfect harmony with what the Lord made known to Oliver Cowdery in relation to the mode of translation.

I don't know, of course, what objections you may see to this idea, but shall be pleased, if you are not too busy to do so, if you will write me a line in relation to it.

With kind regards, your brother,

----------

THE REPLY.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, June 1, 1906.

DEAR BROTHER:--Your esteemed favor of April 28th duly to hand, and contents read with pleasure; but have not found opportunity to write you on the subject of your letter until now. The solution you suggest as to difficulties involved in the alleged manner of translating the Book of Mormon have been urged upon my attention by others, but, unfortunately, not always in the clear and temperate spirit of your communication. I have several letters before me now asking if the supposition you suggest is not tenable, and would it not relieve us of whatever remains of difficulties, after accepting the chief ideas advanced in the _Manual_ theory of translation. I have had a number of conversations with others on the same subject, and it may interest you to know that one of the prominent professors in one of our principal Church institutions of learning very earnestly entertains the same theory.

Your theory is so clearly and completely stated in your letter that it need not be restated by me. All you ask is my opinion of it.

Frankly, then, in the first place, I cannot see that it helps us out of our difficulties at all. In the second place, it still involves us in the absurdity of supposing some kind of intellectual or mental force in the transparent stones of the Urim and Thummim. And in the third place, all the supposed harmonizing effect of your suggestion is already found in the _Manual_ theory of translation.

Of course, however, the whole point at issue in my consideration of your suggestion, is the probability of its being true; for if we can but get at the truth of the matter for once, all other considerations, in time will take care of themselves,--the difficulties in which it might seemingly involve us, the harmonizing of all seeming inconsistencies, all seeming conflict of testimonies of the uncritical persons who were honored of God in bringing forth the work, etc. So now, as to the probability of the truth of your suggestion.

First, I must demur somewhat to your remark that we have nothing "revealed putting this matter beyond a doubt;" I am rather inclined to think we have. The more I think of the Lord's revelation to Oliver Cowdery describing the manner in which he might have exercised the gift of translation by means of Urim and Thummim, had his faith not failed him (Doc. and Cov. secs viii, ix), the more I am convinced that we have the Lord's description of the manner in which translation by means of Urim and Thummim is accomplished. That is the word of the Lord, to which all theories must conform, whatever becomes of merely human testimonies. Now with this as the premise, I hold that it is clear that the power which stands between the Nephite characters seen through the Urim and Thummim, and the English translation of these, is the inspired mind of the Prophet Joseph Smith; and not any intellectual or mental power in the transparent stones of the divine instrument. To suppose that Urim and Thummim, by some means, and necessarily it must have been intellectual means, some mental process, made a transliteration from the Nephite characters in exact though awkward and often meaningless English equivalents, which Joseph Smith constructs into his unlearned, yet plainly understood English, (your theory) is to transcend all human experience and knowledge which God has revealed, and lands us back into the midst of all the difficulties from which we are trying to escape. To explain: It nowhere appears from anything which man has discovered, or that God has revealed, that there is any substance, from street mud to radium, from a mountain to an atom, or an electron, aside from _mind,_ that possesses intellectual or mental force, the only force conceivable as translating the thought crystallized in the symbols of one language, into thought crystallized into the symbols of another language--intellectual or mental force alone, I say, must be supposed to be capable of doing such work as that. If the Urim and Thummim possessed that intellectual power it must have been conferred upon it of God, and under that supposition, we are brought face to face again with all our old difficulties, chief of which is the question: If God created such an instrument, and conferred upon it the power to give a transliteration of the Nephite characters, how is it that he did not give it the power to translate the meaning into reasonable and readable, not to say perfect English, at first hand, and relieve us of the awkward supposition that the instrument possessed the mental power to make the literal translation of words from the Nephite language into another--and which Joseph Smith was left to construct into imperfect English? What would be gained by the adoption of this cumbersome and, pardon me, I think, untenable theory? And again, what occasion for it, when we have the more simple and reasonable theory of the _Manual_ which is in accord with what God has revealed upon the subject, and not necessarily contradictory of what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have said upon the subject? In order that this may appear, I restate the _Manual_ theory: The Prophet saw the Nephite characters in the Urim and Thummim; through strenuous mental effort, the exercise of faith and the operation of the inspiration of God upon his mind, he obtained the thought represented by the Nephite characters, understood them in the Nephite characters, understood them in the Nephite language, and then expressed the understanding, the thought, in such language as he was master of; which language, as his mind by mental processes arranged it, was reflected and held to his vision in Urim and Thummim until written by his amanuensis. That leaves all the factors involved in the work of translation in their true relation: The Urim and Thummim an _aid_ to the Prophet in the work, yet not necessarily, and contrary to human experience and knowledge revealed of God, endowed with intellectual power; the mind of the Prophet, touched through his faith by the inspiration of God, the chief factor; the testimony of Messrs. Harris and Whitmer that both Nephite characters and the English translation appeared in the Urim and Thummim, undisturbed and unimpaired.

That I believe to be the truth of the matter, so far as it may be ascertained, and the certainty of it grows apace. The compromise suggestion you make--you recognize the fact, of course, that it is purely conjecture--I do not think can stand, but it indicates an advancement from the old untenable theory. That old theory cannot be successfully maintained; that is, the Urim and Thummim did the translating, the Prophet, nothing beyond repeating what he saw reflected in that instrument; that God directly or indirectly is responsible for the verbal and grammatical errors of translation. To advance such a theory before intelligent and educated people is to unnecessarily invite ridicule, and make of those who advocate it candidates for contempt.

Since receiving your letter I have received a communication from Ann Arbor, Michigan, written by Brother Francis W. Kirkham, of Provo, the body of which is as follows:

"A paper on 'Mormonism' was recently read before the seminary class
in American History at this university. The writer was very fair,
and I believe tried to be impartial. In the paper the manner of the
interpretation of the Book of Mormon as described by Martin Harris
was brought to its only logical conclusion. Our professor stopped
the reader and asked if 'Joseph Smith had made the statement which
seemed so incredulous.'

"'I am not sure,' was the reply, 'yet this appears to be the Mormon
explanation of the manner of interpretation.'

"Later I gave copies of the last _Manual_ to both our professor
and my fellow classmate. Both myself and another Mormon boy who
listened to the paper, heartily wished that the correspondents you
found it necessary to answer in the last two numbers of the Era
had been seated in the room. We believe a cure would have been the
result."

Desiring something more in detail on this circumstance, Edward H. Anderson, assistant Editor of the _Era,_ wrote to Elder Kirkham for further particulars. Following is the body of the letter received in reply to this request:

"The paper was on Mormonism. In discussing the Book of Mormon,
the reader followed largely the argument of Mr. Frank Pierce in
a number of the _American Archaeologist._ [I can get the exact
reference when I return to Ann Arbor.] I did not read the article
in full, but it quoted from the writings of Martin Harris, and
others. Mr. Pierce claimed he gave the Mormon account of the
interpretation of the golden plates, which is, he said, that Joseph
Smith, Jr., saw the exact words he was to write in the transparent
stone spectacles and that the words would not disappear until the
scribe had written them exactly as the Lord had given them. Mr.
Pierce also gave the testimony of the printer of the original
edition of the Book of Mormon in which he testified that the
'Smiths' would not allow him to change the manuscript in the least,
although he was aware of its crudeness.

"When the reader of the paper had made the above assertions
concerning the interpretation of the Book of Mormon, our professor
spoke up and said: 'Are you sure Joseph Smith said this was the
manner of the interpretation?' 'No,' was the reply, I am not
sure.' 'Well,' continued our professor, 'It is very important
that we know, for, if Joseph Smith did make the assertions you
speak of, there seems to me but one logical conclusion, either the
Lord intentionally made all the mistakes of the first edition and
colored the writings with the provincialisms of New York state, or,
that the Lord was unable to speak correctly or use other than the
phrases and mannerisms of the locality in which Joseph Smith lived.

"I wrote to Elder B. H. Roberts the letter because we regret
it, because we realize that the Martin Harris theory of the
interpretation is contrary to common sense and reason."

It is no use resisting the matter, the old theory must be abandoned. It could only come into existence and remain so long and now be clung to by some so tenaciously because our fathers and our people in the past and now were and are uncritical.[A] They have been and are now--and to their honor be it said--more concerned with the fact of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon and the great work it introduced than to the _modus operandi_ of its translation. Overwhelmed by a divine testimony of its truth they have paid little attention to the precise manner by which it was brought forth. It is doubtful if the Prophet Joseph himself was conscious of the mental and spiritual processes of translation. It was not his part in the great work to distinguish all the minutiae of the process by which the word of God came to him. It was his higher and nobler part to feel and know the word of God in his own soul; to receive that word through the aids and means provided of God, and to proclaim that word of God to the world, leaving to others the less important task of expounding it, unifying its parts, harmonizing it with previous revelations, proving it true, analyzing it, defending it when assailed. And in the process of attending to the part of the work of God the Prophet left to us, we meet with the necessity of explaining the manner of translating the Book of Mormon, so far as it can be ascertained, in order to defend the book from assaults made upon it by mocking unbelievers. One could wish that our own people would approach the consideration of the matter with less feeling and more reason than they do; for the whole effort on the part of those who put forth the _Manual_ theory of translation is merely to ascertain the truth respecting the matter, and with the view of finding a basis from which the work may be successfully defended and advocated.

[Footnote A: "It is no use trying to twist facts to suit theories derived from a past which was destitute of the knowledge we now possess; what we have to do is to adjust our theories to suit the facts."_--Hibbert Journal,_ April, 1907, page 197.]

These latter reflections bring to mind some observations I remember to have read some time ago in the philosophical works of John Fiske respecting two classes of disciples or partisans in the world of religious and philosophical opinion, which I think with profit may be reproduced here. By the way, I see the passage I refer to occurs in the introduction to _Fiske's Work,_ written by Josiah Boyce, and is as follows:

"Disciples and partisans, in the world of religious and
philosophical opinion, are of two sorts. There are, first, the
disciples pure and simple,--people who fall under the spell of a
person or a doctrine, and whose whole intellectual life thenceforth
consists in their partisanship. They expound, and defend, and
ward off foes, and live and die faithful to the one formula. Such
disciples may be indispensable at first in helping a new teaching
to get a popular hearing, but in the long run they rather hinder
than help the wholesome growth of the very ideas that they defend:
for great ideas live by growing, and a doctrine that has merely
to be preached, over and over, in the same terms, cannot possibly
be the whole truth. No man ought to be merely a faithful disciple
of any other man. Yes, no man ought to be a mere disciple even of
himself. We live spiritually by outliving our formulas, and by thus
enriching our sense of their deeper meaning. Now the disciples of
the first sort do not live in this larger and more spiritual sense.
They repeat. And true life is never mere repetition.

"On the other hand, there are disciples of a second sort. They are
men who have been attracted to a new doctrine by the fact that it
gave expression, in a novel way, to some large and deep interest
which had already grown up in themselves, and which had already
come, more or less independently, to their own consciousness. They
thus bring to the new teaching, from the first, their own personal
contribution. The truth that they gain is changed as it enters
their souls. The seed that the sower strews upon their fields
springs up in their soil, and bears fruit,--thirty, sixty, an
hundred fold. They return to their master his own with usury. Such,
men are the disciples that it is worth while for a master to have.
Disciples of the first sort often become, as Schopenhauer said,
mere magnifying mirrors wherein one sees enlarged, all the defects
of a doctrine. Disciples of the second sort co-operate in the works
of the Spirit; and even if they always remain rather disciples
than originators, they help to lead the thought that they accept
to a truer expression. They force it beyond its earlier and cruder
stages of development."

I believe Mormonism affords opportunity for disciples of the second sort; nay, that its crying need is for such disciples. It calls for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that development. Not half--not one-hundredth part--not a thousandth part of that which Joseph Smith revealed to the Church has yet been unfolded, either to the Church or to the world. The work of the expounder has scarcely begun. The Prophet planted by teaching the germ-truths of the great dispensation of the fulness of times. The watering and the weeding is going on, and God is giving the increase, and will give it more abundantly in the future as more intelligent discipleship shall obtain. The disciples of Mormonism, growing discontented with the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in sustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of the great doctrines committed to the Church; and, departing from mere repetition, will cast them in new formulas; co-operating in the works of the Spirit, until "they help to give to the truth received a more forceful expression, and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages of its development." Another has said:

"The ultimate Truth, no doubt, is one; but Truth as it enters the
world through human lips is always involved in temporary forms,
which subsequent experience enlarges or corrects. No historic
religion, therefore, can ever claim finality; and the work of
religious founders is not so much to create systems of thought as
to impart those impulses of moral endeavor and spiritual affection
which the Christian sums up under the term "life."[A]