Joseph Smith, p. 114.
There must be something important about the difference between the "translation" process used by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon (1830) and the "revelatory" process used by Joseph Smith in the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C; 1835). Both books began as oral dictations, yet there were large differences in the kind of editing the works needed before being finalized for publication by Joseph Smith. This difference in editing begs the question whether there was a difference in the underlying "creative" process as well.
Editing in the D&C
The D&C shows much evidence of having been extensively revised, especially from its early beginnings as the Book of Commandments (1833). Consider carefully the following quotation:
Marlin K. Jensen, “The Joseph Smith Papers: The Manuscript Revelation Books,” Ensign, July 2009, p. 51.
The editing and updating of revelation texts in the early years of the Church demonstrate the process of continuing revelation to Joseph Smith. … In some instances, when a new revelation changed or updated what had previously been received, the Prophet edited the earlier written revelation to reflect the new understanding. Thus, as his doctrinal knowledge clarified and expanded, so did the recorded revelations. They were characterized by the changing nature of his understanding of the sacred subject matter. The Prophet did not believe that revelations, once recorded, could not be changed by further revelation.
To Joseph Smith, recorded revelations were sacred but provisional, subject to future knowledge and insight. This is certainly true in the 1835 D&C, which contains extensive editing, cutting, and elaborations upon the 1833 Book of Commandments, which preceded it. For more details about changes in the D&C, see my essay entitled, "Visions and Revisions."
Editing in the Book of Mormon
By contrast to the D&C, the Book of Mormon was dictated as a whole with very minor changes or alterations in the original manuscript ("O"). The majority of these changes were attributable to transcription errors by Oliver Cowdery as he listened to Joseph Smith's dictation. Royal Skousen, a BYU scholar who is the foremost expert on "O," describes these changes:
Royal Skousen, "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon: Evidence for Tight Control of the Text," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 1998, 7(1): 22-31.
The clear majority of changes in the original manuscript were made immediately; that is, the scribe caught the error during Joseph Smith's initial dictation. Evidence for these immediate corrections include: corrections following on the same line, erasures showing ink smearing (since the ink had not yet dried), or corrections above the line or insertions in the line with no change in the level of ink flow or difference in the quill.
Comparisons of "O", the printer's manuscript ("P") and the 1830 published version of the Book of Mormon show very little editing, except for minor "friendly" corrections. For a review of these manuscripts, see my essay "Alterations in the Book of Mormon."
If one examines the photo at the top of this essay, then one will see a page from "O," the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, handwritten by Oliver Cowdery as dictated by Joseph Smith. Notice that the page simply consists of a series of words with little or no punctuation marks. The manuscript "O" is page after page of continuous, unpunctuated, and largely unaltered words.
The Problem
The dominant changes made in the D&C might be described in current terminology as "cutting and pasting" in which entire phrases or sentences were removed or added. The dominant changes in the Book of Mormon were spelling changes with occasional word insertions (occurring when the transcriber discovered a missing word during the dictation). Both the D&C and the Book of Mormon are complex books. Why does this difference in editing exist??
Authors cannot dramatically alter the manner in which they generate text, especially with respect to the need for revision. To be blunt: the original Book of Mormon required minor revisions, and the D&C required major revisions. Why would the same author produce these books differently?
Tentative Conclusions
Latter-day Saints recognize that scripture is NOT inerrant. Human beings struggle to hear God's communications, make records of them, and then maintain those records. This perspective is NOT meant to devalue scripture. On the contrary, Latter-day Saints recognize scripture as a foundation. The foundation, however, can be built upon as errors are detected and new knowledge is gained.
The LDS view is that God speaks to humans using their own language for plainness and understanding. As Nephi wrote on the plates that became the Book of Mormon, he stated, "And now, if I do err, even did they [the ancient prophets] err of old" (1 Nephi 19:6). Further, Nephi taught:
2 Nephi 31:3
3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.
The title page of the Book reads: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God… ."
Concerning the manuscripts that became the D&C, Elder Marlin K. Jensen wrote:
Marlin K. Jensen, “The Joseph Smith Papers: The Manuscript Revelation Books,” Ensign, July 2009, p. 49.
Joseph seemed to regard the manuscript revelations as his best efforts to capture the voice of the Lord condescending to communicate in what Joseph called the “crooked, broken, scattered, and imperfect language” of men. The revealed preface to the published revelations also seems to express this principle: “I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language” (D&C 1:24).
Consider the following written by a noted LDS scholar:
Philip L. Barlow, The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Metzger and Coogan, Editors), 1993, Oxford: OUP – "Mormonism and the Bible," p. 527-528.
The Mormon prophet [Joseph Smith] considered scripture to be sacred yet provisional, subject to refinement and addition… . For Mormons, the record of God's actions with humankind is… subject to expansion, clarification, and correction. Mormon leaders further observe that not all of holy writ applies beyond the local and temporal context for which it was formulated.
Thus, Latter-day Saints are not perturbed by the existence of error in scripture. Error is simply part of human life. But, we can go a step farther. Editing changes made in the Book of Mormon and the D&C seem to be qualitatively different. Does this difference imply a difference in the creative process? I suspect this is the case.
The Book of Mormon claims to be an ancient record by ancient American prophets. The D&C claims to be a record of the strokes of inspirational intelligence received by Joseph Smith (or other authorized individuals) in the early 19th century, not an ancient record. Do proclaimed differences in source provide an account for the editing differences here discussed?
Unfortunately, concrete conclusions cannot be made until trained linguists and psycholinguists conduct systematic research on this issue. Even so, the untested hypotheses are interesting.
Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
4 comments:
My experience as a translator is very limited. As a missionary, I was involved in helping the committee charged to translate the Book of Mormon into Vietnamese. I also have served as interpretor to various church leaders and military medical staff, while serving a mission and afterwards. Translation (or interpretation) is NOT of course limited to a word by word substitution from one language to another. One also attempts to capture the meaning that is conveyed in the words. And sometimes one searches for suitable metaphors or comparisons to explain the sense of a passage. For example, I could not translate a story about baseball into Vietnamese both because I lacked the language skills and because the Vietnamese people had no understanding of baseball. A "grand slam" and "striking out" were literally meaningless concepts. They could only be explained by detailed explanations of baseball, or by using another example (soccer, for example).
I had to draw on my own language and background to translate to the best of my ability. As I learned more and grew in experience, I could translate more effectively.
I'm confident that Joseph Smith faced some of the same difficulties and had to do the best he could with what he knew in trying to translate the engravings. Were there good "translations" for Joseph for 'horse' and 'steel' and "cimeter" and other terms? Or was Joseph limited in trying to explain things as best as he could?
I know debates rage about the translation process and anachronistic terms in Joseph's translations. I cannot resolve these and won't try. My point is that I have some understanding and empathy about how ragged the process of translation can be to someone young and inexperienced.
I wasn't much younger when I was translating than was Joseph when he was translation. I am amazed at what he accomplished.
Dee:
As usual, you have made many excellent and insightful points. I agree.
What amazes me is the lack of conceptual editing in the production of the 1830 Book of Mormon. It needed punctuation and spelling, but NO rearranging of sentences or phrases, and NO cutting. How is that possible? Scholars must face this fact.
No other writing or dictation that Joseph produced was as free from error as the Book of Mormon. This is the point of my essay. I am unaware of any scientific/behavioral theory that could explain this finding.
To me, this finding is just one more data point for making the argument that the Book of Mormon is a sophisticated work worthy of deep scholarly analysis. The Book of Mormon has a richness that is often missed by outsiders.
Thanks for reading and responding.
Not only is it interesting that the Book of Mormon needed so little revision, it is also interesting that Mormon (and later Moroni) did such a good job of engraving it. No white-out, no erasers available, so they had to rephrase and try again.
The answer seems very clear to me (coming from one who believes the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be it) the Book of Mormon was written by the hand of a prophet and then later compiled by a prophet editor. It was also the distillation of hundreds of years of Gods dealings with his prophets and people. The granularity that we see in the Doctrine and Covenants is not evidenced in the Book of Mormon. Like a detail from a photo seen under magnification. Much can be learned from the detail but the composition and clarity can be obscured in this view. Our view of the The Doctrine in Covenants is like that in that the detailed view. Maybe in hundreds of years a prophet editor will compile and distill all of the words of the restoration and the clarity that we see in the Book of Mormon will be evidenced.
Post a Comment