Translation or revelation? A storm in a teacup

A while ago, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made a small but noticeable change to the introduction of the Book of Mormon. Where we used to mainly read about a 'translation', it is now emphasized more strongly that the book was given to us by 'revelation'.

Wait a minute, it was translated, wasn't it? That's the reaction you hear left and right now. Critics and opponents immediately see conspiracies in it. According to them, the church leadership is trying to cover itself against critical questions about anachronisms or a lack of archaeological evidence. "See," they say, "they're changing the story."

Honestly, I think it's a storm in a teacup. To me, it has always been clear that the prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon  by means of revelation. The fuss about this, in my opinion, stems from a misunderstanding of what the word 'translate' actually means in this context.

What does 'translate' really mean?

If we use the word 'translate' in the academic sense, we mean that someone studies a language for years (such as Latin or Greek) and then uses that knowledge and a dictionary to convert a text. Joseph Smith absolutely did not do that. He knew no Egyptian or Hebrew.

Let's go back to the core. The word comes from the Latin  translatio, which literally means 'transfer' or 'convey' (trans = over,  ferre/latum = carry). You take the  meaning from one bank (the source language) and transfer it to the other bank (the target language). The cargo must arrive, not necessarily the packaging.

If you look at how texts come into being, there are actually three ways to do this:

1. Literal translation: You convert word A into word B. This often results in awkward sentences because grammar and expressions don't match (think of 'Steenkolenengels' - broken English: 'Make that the cat wise').
2. Dynamic equivalence: Professional translators do this. You translate the  thought. If it says in Hebrew 'his nose became hot' (an idiom for anger), you translate that as 'he became furious'.
3. Revelatory translation: This is a unique category applicable to Joseph Smith. Because he did not master the source language (Reformed Egyptian) and had no dictionary, his work does not fit into the first two categories. In his case, 'to translate' means: receiving the meaning through divine inspiration and articulating it in your own language.

Tools or the source?

“Okay,” I hear you thinking, “but he did use tools like seer stones in a hat and the Urim and Thummim, didn't he?”

That's correct. But then my question is: how do those things work, unless by the power of our Heavenly Father? Is it easier to believe that God makes words appear on a stone than that they are revealed in the prophet's mind? We accept today that our current prophet and apostles are seers, revelators, and prophets. Do we only believe that if they possess the right stone? Of course not. The stone was a tool to focus faith, but the source was always revelation.

The context of 1820

It is also fascinating to see how language changes. In the 1820s, when the church was founded, the word 'translate' probably had a broader meaning than it does now. Nowadays, when we think of translation, we immediately think of an intellectual process with dictionaries and grammar. For Joseph, it was probably more the figurative definition: the  conversionof a spiritual reality (the plates) into a physical reality (the English text).

Stephen Smoot, a researcher who has delved deeply into this topic, explains that these concepts were often used interchangeably in the early days. “Joseph Smith and other early members called the Book of Mormon both a translation and a revelation,” he says. These two terms are therefore not contradictions; they describe the same miraculous process from a different perspective.

A complex process

Everything we know points to a process of very concentrated revelation. That there were tools to channel that 'storm of information' seems to me no more than normal.

I have said it before: if you accept that God is perfect, and He wants to convey very complex, spiritual matters to our limited human understanding, then you must understand that this does not work as a simple 1-on-1 translation. It is a process that requires time and space. This also explains why it states at the beginning of the Book of Mormon that if there are errors in it, these are the 'errors of men'. At the same time, academics are discovering more and more evidence that the texts have a clear Hebrew origin (such asspecific sentence constructions) and that the language in the book evolves as time progresses in the story.

Conclusion

In short, the change in the text is not a 'cover-up', but a good clarification. It emphasizes that revelation played the main role. Those who are now trying to 'gaslight' the church with this change are, in my opinion, wrong. This nuance indicates that God clearly has a hand in this Scripture. Without His help – and His revelation – we would be deprived of the truths we need to make progress.