Do Mormons consider every word in the Book of Mormon to be literally true?

[RMGuy]

A portion of the plates were supposedly "sealed" and this portion of the plates were not translated. As for why the seer stone was used as opposed to the Urim and Thummim the only explaination I have seen in official church sources is that which I included in the quote above....for convenience. We do know from some contemporary accounts that during some portions of the translation that the plates were not even in the room.

My understanding is that the Urim and Thummim were not taken, as it is their use which constitutes a seer.

-RM

[Shelly200]

RM-

I also read about the plates not being in the room during translation. Which makes zero sense to me.

One: Joseph wouldn't really be a "translator" then, would he? The U&M/stones didn't help him translate, they just told him what to write. How would he even know that's what the plates said if he wasn't looking at the plates?

Two: Why have the plates at all, if they aren't needed? Without using the plates, it's really just one long revelation from God in a way, right? The plates seem superfluous.

Three: Aren't there records of Joseph doing translating notes? Like, papers with Egyptian-looking symbols on them, and notes on translations? (I might be remembering something wrong.) If that's the case, then, he really *would* be actively translating things... but at the same time, then, the U&T would be superfluous, because they're not telling him what the words mean, he's just learning it on his own?

[Just_A_Guy]

Those were the two ways I remember being described: the Urim and Thummim, and a seer stone. I'm just confused as to why Smith would use a seer stone if the Urim and Thummim were purposely buried with the plates for that purpose. (Also- how did Moroni know to bury them together? Did he just know that the language they were written in would die out?)

For lack of a more erudite term, the Urim and Thummim apparently "worked better". Joseph Smith found the seer stone as a teenager. His mother recalls that when Smith received the Urim and Thummim, he was astonished at how much more clearly he could see through them.

I know that the plates were taken away from Smith for a time, and then given back. Were the Urim and Thummim taken away and given back as well? Should they all be a package deal?

They were taken away. We generally assume that they were given back when Smith received the plates back, though I've known some Mormons who suggested that Joseph never got the Urim and Thummim back after the lost pages fiasco and was left to translate the remainder with solely the seer stone.

And can someone please explain to me one more time why we only have 1/3 of the translation? I thought we had all of the translation from all of the plates that Smith had. Except that he just didn't re-translate the pages that were stolen (but it didn't matter, because the abridgment was translated later). Where does it mention the other 2/3? I have a BofM, D&C, and POGP, and I'd be interested in looking this up.

At least partly, the sealed portion seems to contain Moroni's transcription of the vision of the Brother of Jared. For the reason why that has not yet been translated, see Ether Chapter 4.

One: Joseph wouldn't really be a "translator" then, would he? The U&M/stones didn't help him translate, they just told him what to write. How would he even know that's what the plates said if he wasn't looking at the plates?

Semantically, yes. We call it "translating" because that was the end result: writings that were in another language were converted into English; but it's probably not a technically accurate term for what was going on.

Two: Why have the plates at all, if they aren't needed? Without using the plates, it's really just one long revelation from God in a way, right? The plates seem superfluous.

That is a really, really interesting question. Perhaps to provide an additional testimony (at least to the translator) that he was writing about real people and events that left a tangible legacy.

Three: Aren't there records of Joseph doing translating notes? Like, papers with Egyptian-looking symbols on them, and notes on translations? (I might be remembering something wrong.) If that's the case, then, he really *would* be actively translating things... but at the same time, then, the U&T would be superfluous, because they're not telling him what the words mean, he's just learning it on his own?

I think Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith (Rough Stone Rolling) reviews this. We don't know the mechanics, but it seems that at one point Joseph did transcribe a number of characters he saw on the plates (one of the transcriptions still exists). But I don't think he ever developed a Reformed Egyptian/English lexicon or anything. (He apparently did later develop an "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar", but it's hazy as to how or why he developed this--it doesn't line up with any written Egyptian language of which scholars are aware.)

Incidentally: While it's unclear whether the Church still has the Urim and Thummim, it does still have the seer stone. However, it hasn't been shown publicly in over a century.

[Shelly200]

Thanks for all of your explanations, they were pretty helpful.

The whole thing with the seer stone is what gets me, I guess. If God endowed the U&T with the ability to help someone translate the plates, and Moroni buried them for that reason, then how could anything else be used in their place? Especially a stone that Smith found before he even got to see the plates? How is it possible that something unrelated to Moroni, God, Smith, or the plates at all had the power to tell him what the plates meant?

And didn't Smith condemn one of his followers for also using a seer stone to receive revelation? How do we know that Smith's seer stone (which wasn't in any way related to the plates) was able to give him revelation, but another stone wasn't able to give him or anyone else a revelation?

If Smith had used strictly the U&T that were buried with the plates to translate the plates I think I'd have a less difficult time with the BofM.

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks for all of your explanations, they were pretty helpful.

The whole thing with the seer stone is what gets me, I guess. If God endowed the U&T with the ability to help someone translate the plates, and Moroni buried them for that reason, then how could anything else be used in their place? Especially a stone that Smith found before he even got to see the plates? How is it possible that something unrelated to Moroni, God, Smith, or the plates at all had the power to tell him what the plates meant?

What you're assuming here is that the power of God did not work through the seer stone. Joseph did not share your assumption. He always regarded his ability to work with the stone (even before the translation process, when he used the stone primarily to find lost items) as a gift from God; and it was his discomfort at trifling with this gift that ultimately led him to give up "treasure seeking", as his detractors called it. Again, Rough Stone Rolling gives an excellent discussion of this issue.

And didn't Smith condemn one of his followers for also using a seer stone to receive revelation? How do we know that Smith's seer stone (which wasn't in any way related to the plates) was able to give him revelation, but another stone wasn't able to give him or anyone else a revelation?

Smith received a revelation that remains in our Doctrine and Covenants refuting Hiram Page's use of a seer stone as a conduit to receive revelations purporting to apply to the church as a whole. By then, the Church structure had been set up. Smith was authorized to receive such revelations; Page was not.

We don't talk about it much, but early Mormons did use seer stones and other similar objects. Joseph Smith was aware generally that other Mormons were doing this and had no objection generally, except to the extent that 1) such individuals attempted to usurp his authority as Prophet; or 2) the individuals were receiving false revelations from supernatural powers other than God.

If Smith had used strictly the U&T that were buried with the plates to translate the plates I think I'd have a less difficult time with the BofM.

Unfortunately, we don't have much to go on historically. Smith apparently thought it capable of providing a reliable translation; and as he was the only person who used both options I'm inclined to defer to his judgment. It may be helpful to note that Smith's spiritual sensitivity seems to have "grown" as time went on, eventually reaching the point where he no longer needed tangible objects to get revelation from God. By the late 1830s he wasn't using the seer stone at all, and he wound up giving it away.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[annewandering]

I know this is off topic but using Smith for Joseph's Smiths name is grating on me. It would be polite to say Joseph Smith or even JS.

Maybe I am touchy on this but antis call Joseph Smith things like Joe or Smith a lot and maybe thats what it brings to my mind.

I dont want to offend anyone but I doubt I am the only one that it bothers. (most are just nicer than I am) :)

[Just_A_Guy]

I understand, Anne; but referring to people by their last name pretty standard both in historical circles and in my field of work. No offense intended. ;-)

[Dravin]

I understand, Anne; but referring to people by their last name pretty standard both in historical circles and in my field of work. No offense intended. ;-)

General academic circles too not just historical.

[annewandering]

Well that may well be but this isnt a university forum. :) Honestly it sounds mildly offensive anywhere speaking about historical figures but particularly religious.

If I were to say Paul urged his people to remember Christ on Christmas, what would you assume I am saying? If I added Pope John Paul would it be not only clearer but more respectful. I dont ever remember any one referring to Pope John Paul by Paul.

How is that different?

Edited December 10, 2011 by annewandering

[Just_A_Guy]

But "John Paul" was a (newly chosen) Christian (i.e. "first") name. It wasn't two names; it was one name like "Mary Lou" or "Bobbi Jo". It isn't that we avoid shortening the Pope's name to "Paul" because it would be disrespectful; we avoid it because doing so would be linguistically misleading/confusing.

This isn't an academic forum; but it is geared towards people who aren't used to Mormon naming conventions. Within our culture, using the full name when referring to an ecclesiastical leader (including at least the middle initial--e.g., "Thomas S. Monson") repeatedly even though we all know exactly which "Monson" we're talking about is a mark of respect. Outside of our culture, I've found non-Mormons tend to find it somewhat off-putting. To Shelly200, I imagine this whole tangent must seem very bizarre indeed.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[rayhale]

Getting back on topic, no I don’t believe every word in the Book of Mormon to be literally true. Here are a few reasons why:

* No translation is perfect, there will always be untranslatable words, concepts, or phrases.

* God, for reasons that I don’t know why, doesn’t always correct prophets when the prophet is wrong about something, this would include the translation process.

* None of the stories of the translation of the Book of Mormon have I ever heard Joseph Smith, or any of his scribes, using a dictionary, or that anyone was a master of English, and none of them knew Hebrew, Greek, or any other Biblical language, which means that there is plenty of room for error.

[skalenfehl]

Joseph Smith said the following about the book:

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

I am reading it for the fifth time this year and thoroughly enjoying the Spirit and power that it brings into my life. I consider every word to be the gospel truth. Joseph Smith translated it with the use of seer stones passed down through time from the brother of Jared, who with his family and friends, during the time of the tower of babel, traveled to the promised land. They were passed on to King Mosiah, who translated the plates of Ether, and then passed them on until Moroni hid them up with the plates for Joseph Smith to find and use.

Is every word accurate? Did the Nephite authors have correct and proper grammar? No. They admitted that they didn't and inquired of the Lord about their shortcoming and imperfection in their language.

Ether 12:25-27

25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

When Joseph Smith translated from the plates, he dictated the very words, which the Lord would have him dictate. If you research the history of it, you will learn that he could not begin the next sentence until he had correctly finished the current sentence. In this way, as the Lord said Himself in the Book of Mormon, "I am able to do mine own work."

Not all that is written is literal. Some is symbolic. Isaiah's writings, which Nephi expounded, were mostly symbolic and limited to understanding of his own culture and surrounding area. Whether literal, spiritual, temporal, symbolic or otherwise, every word as expressed by each author is as true as they were able to express while sharing their accounts and bearing witness of truth.

Edited March 13, 2012 by skalenfehl

[skalenfehl]

Thanks for all of your explanations, they were pretty helpful.

The whole thing with the seer stone is what gets me, I guess. If God endowed the U&T with the ability to help someone translate the plates, and Moroni buried them for that reason, then how could anything else be used in their place? Especially a stone that Smith found before he even got to see the plates? How is it possible that something unrelated to Moroni, God, Smith, or the plates at all had the power to tell him what the plates meant?

And didn't Smith condemn one of his followers for also using a seer stone to receive revelation? How do we know that Smith's seer stone (which wasn't in any way related to the plates) was able to give him revelation, but another stone wasn't able to give him or anyone else a revelation?

If Smith had used strictly the U&T that were buried with the plates to translate the plates I think I'd have a less difficult time with the BofM.

If I remember my church history, he used the Urim and Thummim until he defied the Lord and allowed Martin Harris to take the 116 page manuscript, which he lost. Thereafter he lost his power to use the Urim and Thummim, whereupon the Lord provided a seer stone to continue his work after much repenting. All answers are found in the church history books, journals, etc.

[Guest]

Smith doesn't offend me if we're all on board with which Smith we are talking about. Neither does Monson.

Paul, to refer to Pope John Paul II, doesn't make sense because his name is not John Paul. His name is Karol Józef Wojtyła. John Paul II is his papal name. If you call him Wojtyla, it doesn't offend Catholics either... they probably won't know who you're talking about though because their given name is not used often, if at all, so it's easily forgotten by most Catholics, especially since John Paul II was pope for a very long time. Calling him Wojtyla would be too confusing.

But, Pope Benedit XVI (Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger) is called Ratzinger a lot by non-Catholics because he has been popular both within and outside Catholic circles before he became Pope and started carrying his papal name. He became Pope at an old age so he was Cardinal Ratzinger for a very long time. None of the Catholics I know is bothered by him being called simply Ratzinger.

Carry on...

Edited March 13, 2012 by anatess

[Vort]

If I remember my church history, he used the Urim and Thummim until he defied the Lord and allowed Martin Harris to take the 116 page manuscript, which he lost. Thereafter he lost his power to use the Urim and Thummim, whereupon the Lord provided a seer stone to continue his work after much repenting. All answers are found in the church history books, journals, etc.

To be clear, Joseph did not defy the Lord. Rather, he continued pestering the Lord after having gotten several very clear answers of "No", until the Lord finally relented and gave permission on certain conditions -- conditions which were not met. Joseph thought he was condemned because he had not accepted the Lord's first answer and then did not insure that the Lord's conditions were met.

[usar]

I agree Man wasnot perfect when translating the bible and the book of Mormon But if you pray with all sincerity to heavenly father he will reveal things to you like never before, he will open your eyes and your spirit to understand the word !

[skalenfehl]

To be clear, Joseph did not defy the Lord. Rather, he continued pestering the Lord after having gotten several very clear answers of "No", until the Lord finally relented and gave permission on certain conditions -- conditions which were not met. Joseph thought he was condemned because he had not accepted the Lord's first answer and then did not insure that the Lord's conditions were met.

Well, to defy means to openly resist, which Joseph did, "pestering the Lord" as you wrote, until the "Lord finally relented" as you wrote. Your clarification is definitely more accurate than my brief explanation.

Edited March 15, 2012 by skalenfehl

[Zeno_X]

I don't know about the BoM, but I was taught in a religion class that reading the Bible is better if you go by paragraph symbol, rather than (sometimes arbitrary) chapter breakups.

[Blackmarch]

I don't know about the BoM, but I was taught in a religion class that reading the Bible is better if you go by paragraph symbol, rather than (sometimes arbitrary) chapter breakups.

probably depends wheree at in the bible altho i can definitely see some of the letters in the new testament would probably be better off read that way.

but for the most part for both books I think they've done a decent job in finding stopping points for chapter insertions.

[Zeno_X]

For the Old Testament, at least, I totally agree.

[Gargantuan]

The translation from the gold plates to English was perfect. Joseph Smith had a limited background in grammar and he dictated what he saw as the translation was by means of the Urim and Thummin or Seer stones.

This will clarify what I have said about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I hope this helps any who may have questions how Mormons feel about the Book of Mormon. Make no mistake, there are no errors in its translation and Mormons do take every word of it to be the word of God.

Elder Hugh B Brown stated:

"I ask you to remember that the man who translated the Book of Mormon was a young man who hadn't had the opportunity of schooling that you have had, and yet he dictated that book in just a little over two months and made very few, if any, corrections. For over one hundred years some of the best students and scholars of the world have been trying to prove from the Bible that the Book of Mormon is false, but not one of them has been able to prove that anything he wrote was not in strict harmony with the scriptures—with the Bible and with the word of God." (Hugh B. Brown, Brigham Young University, 4 October 1955)

The Book of Mormon came through, but not from, Joseph Smith!

Eighth Article of Faith:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Gargantuan
Adding relative facts corrected

[bytebear]

Here is a very comprehensive and interesting article about the history of the various manuscripts and transcripts of the Book of Mormon.

Zarahemla Research Foundation