© 2025 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Very interesting article … first time I’ve been exposed to hapax legomena and the idea of transliterated words in the BoM … it’s so interesting to expand my understanding of Joseph Smith’s huge prophetic gift! Truly our BoM is a book of substantial beauty, depth and complexity!
How does this research impact your understanding of “tight” vs “loose” control in the BoM translation?
Also, how does this research shed light on the presence of Early Modern English in the BoM…. if at all?
Thanks, Blair Lucas
Thank you for your kind words!
To answer your first question regarding tight v. loose translation, I first want to say (as someone who has translated both ancient and modern texts) I believe it is occasionally easy to slip into a false dichotomy mindset between the two. I think it is more fruitful to view this as a spectrum. That is, varying languages have different rules of grammar that prohibit a 1:1 translation (i.e. a super-literal translation), but if a translation becomes too loose it loses all meaning as a translation. Really, translation work is a dynamic (and often difficult) task, and your strategy for translation is often determined by multiple factors that put you somewhere on the spectrum of tight and loose, but never is anyone at one pole or the other.
So, ultimately the presence of transliterations does reflect some measure of tightness as they reflect words that were actually on the plates without an attempt to translate them into more familiar terms. But they are only one data point in the broader discussion of how tight a translation it was. (For what it is worth, I personally believe the English translation reflects the contents of the plates very well, as Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using his own language and understanding as a Christian).
Answering your second question regarding Early Modern English, this neither relies on nor affects Skousen and Carmack’s thesis at all. One can either accept or reject their work independent of whatever they may think of my argument.
I hope this answered your questions!
ok … well thanks again for your response and your enlightening article …. I’ll add the “transliteration” puzzle piece to the expanding puzzle regarding how JS produced the BoM. Accessing “The gift and Power of God” turns out to be quite a complex process …
Blair Lucas
Great work, Spence!
Thanks so much Spencer!
I very much like this excellent essay.
Thank you for your kind words!