© 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.
I thought the jury was still out on Oliver Cowdery translating. It seems there are about 10 words in Joseph Smith’s handwriting (Alma 45:22). Some think Oliver did translate those ~10 words. After all, he did begin properly.
I think it is worth mentioning the ancient technique of harmonization here. Because there are ~ 10 variants from the Dead Sea Scrolls in the book of 2 Nephi (that are absent in the KJV “copytext”) one cannot assume it is a pure KJV citation. Why vary in places in ways that happen to be in other textual traditions? To me this is proof that multiple textual traditions were incorporated. Does the translation pay tribute to past scribes that transmitted the scriptures?
I love what you said about Pauline language. I agree and it is a shame you have to spell it out so thoroughly. Thank you for the French and Spanish examples. An example of how the Pauline language can affect an interpretation is given with the example “o wretched man that I am.” Nicholas Frederick makes the case the translator is linking Paul’s and Nephi’s feelings. Paul seems to be lamenting that he is losing the law of Moses and now must rely on revelation. Similarly, Nephi has lost a guide (Lehi) and now has the full responsibility of leading the people. Without that link it seems Nephi is just self-deprecating. Perhaps this would fall into the conceptual model of translation. Do we think the translator was linking passages?
I can’t tell you how important I think your paper is. The method of translation can affect everything. My whole life I thought Nephi wanted us to “feast” on the words of Christ. Many people compare this to a Thanksgiving meal… eat until you can’t or something. However, a feast in Nephi’s day was probably more of a week-long event that one could plan for and such. Perhaps similar to a conference today? We can never know what Nephi meant unless we know the translation method. We just have to consider different meanings from different translation techniques and pray about it.
Thank you for your article. It is a long needed topic. I think every verse should be viewed from each of the models you share.
Martin, on Oliver translating, I follow Skousen. He knows the manuscripts better than anyone else alive. His reading of that text is that Oliver had to leave temporarily and Joseph wrote down the translation at that point so it. I forget the reasoning for why it wasn’t Oliver translating, but on that point I take Skousen’s word (I may differ on other things 🙂 ).
The presence of NT quotations and allusions is a different topic that the changes in the Isaiah chapters. Frederick’s work is essential for understanding that. I followed up on his work in a chapter in a recent book.
Thank you. Another interesting Brandt Gardner contribution to BoM complexity & beauty. I like your concept of “translating up … localization” … in the case of JS it would actually be “translating WAY up!”
Now I understand better why JS used his huge prophetic gift as a “seer” to “read the words” he saw on a prepared transcript or saw in vision. Your analysis show clearly that JS couldn’t translate the plates and prepare the English version of the text himself.
Not sure what your footnote 19 is meant to convey or contribute to the translation issue, “Blake Ostler … suggested that Joseph Smith “provided unrestricted and authoritative commentary, interpretation, explanation, and clarifications based on insights from the ancient Book of Mormon text and the King James Bible.” Isn’t Ostler’s 1987 research somewhat out of date in light of the last 30 years of Royal Skouson and Stan Carmack’s research? As well as Nick Frederick’s KJV/ BoM connectivity research? Not to mention what we now know about the speed of the translation/ transmission? In my view, JS wasn’t providing, “unrestricted… authoritative commentary, interpretation, explanation, and clarification [of the KJV]…” JS was reading/ seeing the words using his huge prophetic gift! Someone else prepared the transmission text.
You didn’t mention the Early Modern English (EME) elements of the translation … When you say, “In this case, the dominant language (English) [EME?] is the one into which the original is translated, or a translation “up.”” … does this include EME? Wouldn’t an EME translation be a translation “down” or backwards? Where do the EME elements of the BoM publication fit in your translation studies? Or do you generally push back on the EME arguments put forth by Carmack?
Your paper once again reminds me why average latter-day Saints should stick to the basic (and still best) explanation that, “the BoM was translated by the gift & power of God by means of the U&T that came with the plates.” Truly, it was not given for the world to understand the particulars of the translation.
Thanks again. I’ve enjoyed reading your insights about the BoM over the last many years.
Blair Lucas
Blair, there is still nothing settled about how Joseph translated. Oster’s ideas still have the possibility of explanatory power over certain aspects of the text. Skousen and Carmack’s work shows that there are EME elements, but Skousen has specifically said that he can’t date it to a particular time period or person. That leaves lots of things open for interpretation. The Skousen/Carmack definite conclusion that Joseph didn’t contribute to the translation isn’t as strong as they declare it to be, at least to some of us.
I agree that the only save conclusion is the one Joseph gave–that it was translated by the gift and power of God. However, I do think that it is important to learn what we can about the process from the available evidence.
Thank you. Do you have an article you’ve written indicating areas in the BoM where you believe JS “contributed to the translation” other than downstream edits? I’d like to consider other examples. I’ve pretty much been pulled into the Skousen/ Carmack EME gravitational orbit showing that JS read the words. A prepared text/ transcript transmitted to JS thru the U&T seems to me now as the only plausible Occam’s razor explanation, based on the hundred+ “translation” scholarly articles I’ve read. JSmith’s huge prophetic gift is preeminent. For me the translation issue is settled … but my mind is not closed.
Blair Lucas
Blair, you have company among those who accept the EME hypothesis. There are a few of us outliers. Unfortunately, I don’t have an article that you can read for free. I have a chapter in Engraven Upon Plates that looks at the question of evidence for Joseph’s participation. I think the evidence is actually very strong. In particular, I look at places where there are incomplete sentences and what caused them. I believe that the best explanation for why we have the kind of incomplete sentences we find in the text is that Joseph is translating on the fly and the sentences tax memory. Those mistakes don’t happen if you are reading from a text. They would be rare if one is writing because it is easy to return to what was written.
I also look at Joseph’s other translation projects. Those show similarities to the Book of Mormon translation, but (at least in the case of the revelations) don’t have/shouldn’t have a pre-written, pre-translated text from which Joseph read. In those cases, we also see Joseph’s mind present.
That means that we have to find a way to either reconcile what appears to be strong evidence of Joseph’s participation with the EME evidence that also appears strong. Obviously, I find it easier to explain EME within Joseph’s participation than to suggest that he had nothing to do with it and that the text was ghost-translation.
Hi Brother Gardner … I’ve been on vacation but I’m back and still thinking about your paper …
I read the 1st chapter in your book “Engraven on Plates” on Amazon … and just purchased the book … I’ll look forward to reading it … especially the chapter showing evidence for Joseph’s participation in the BoM translation … I’m skeptical but open minded … to me, there is simple no time for JS to “participate” much … he’s just reading a prepared text …
In the meantime you mention above … “Joseph’s other translation projects. Those show similarities to the Book of Mormon translation, but (at least in the case of the revelations) don’t have/shouldn’t have a pre-written, pre-translated text from which Joseph read. In those cases, we also see Joseph’s mind present.” I’ll be interested in these examples in your book. However as I’ve studied the D&C this year (up thru 83 so far) there seems to be much evidence of a “pre-written, pre-translated text from which Joseph read.” I’ve been focusing on how JS received the D&C revelations .. D&C 7 clearly indicates JS read from an Eternal transcript of some kind … a good hand full of other sections were received thru the U&T … in at least one section (?) I remember the commentary said JS stood by the window and spoke slow enough for an average person to record the revelation in long hand … for me JS is seeing/ reading something he “sees” … Then there is (D&C 67) where the brethren (esp. W.E. McLellin) questioned JS writing & language skills, so the Lord invited anyone to attempt to receive a revelation … McLellin failed miserably … JS can “see” things other can’t see …
My lens for viewing the D&C revelations is more along the lines of Lehi’s experience in 1 Ne 1 … Lehi is given a book to read from … or Micaiah’s experience in 1 Kgs 22 … where Micaiah is invited to witness events during his Divine Council experience …. for me JS is simply able to “see” things/ transcript and read from it .. or “see” things in vision … I’ll be interested to read the insights in your book showing JS involvement in the D&C and BoM wording …. but I hope I’m not going to find that the examples in your book argue for moving clear over to the Jonathan Neville end of the translation theory spectrum … where JS Smith is responsible for 100% of the words! To be continued …
Thanks for your lifelong commitment to examining the BoM and uncovering many astonishing insights …
Blair Lucas
As you have explained above, if Joseph was the translator he would have to have been familiar with the Nephite culture, and particularly the Nephite locations in order to describe them to us.
Only if he wrote the text without a Nephite original. I won’t restate the arguments here. I laid them out in The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon translation from Nephite into English was obviously done by someone who knew both languages and cultures, as well as being intimately familiar with the original text. As the resurrected Moroni was the custodian of the plates, he would be the most probable translator.
If Moroni could so easily learn English as a Celestial Being, so could any other learn English and/or Nephite. Moroni has skin in the game, but there is no evidence that he participated in the translation. The evidence Skousen and Carmack have assembled suggests that if there were a single divine translator, they somehow learned English over maybe 200 years, using some elements that were that old, some newer, and some consistent with Joseph’s time. As Skousen has said, he cannot place either a person or a time as one who created the translation.
Of course, I have my reasons for believing that Joseph as translator is a sufficient answer.