From Kevin Graham on the current discussion about the idea of translation and scriptures. I am finding Graham to be one of the freshest breaths of air and coherence I have seen for a very long time...... And so it seems the new approach which was only started for apologetic purposes, is finally gaining strength in the Church. So now translation doesnt really mean translation after all. On facebook Pedro Olivarra and David Bokovoy have been getting excited about this development. Ive [Kevin is speaking of himself here] tried to explain my position as best as I can without coming across like an A-hole. I consider many of these Mormons my friends and so I get no joy out of pouring cold water all over their excitement. However, at the same time it really annoys me when I see so many people buying snake oil by the gallons. Here is what I posted last night in one Facebook thread, responding to Pedros reference to the 1828 definition for Translation, as well as the claim that Joseph Smith never needed a source document to produce a translation, because that is what he did with the JST. Pedro, in the context of language and manuscripts the word translate meant in 1828 precisely what it means today. I think this translate didnt really mean translate position doesnt hold water and will go down as one of the many, many apologetic theories that eventually lost its flavor. (Facebook User) makes the same point I used to make to William Schryver years ago, when he insisted the translations had absolutely nothing to do with a preexisting ancient text - in his attempt to completely divorce the Book of Abraham from the papyri. Well, lets think about this for a second. Following this logic the Book of Mormon people fought endlessly, sacrificing life and limb for centuries just to preserve a record which, according to the new apologetic paradigm, wasnt at all necessary since Joseph Smith could have just translated the Book of Mormon without those plates in the first place! So why go through all that trouble if the centuries long process of preserving a physical record for translation purposes, was ultimately superfluous? This is just one of the many examples in which these new paradigm shifts cause more problems than they intend to solve. Because in the end youre left throwing the early LDS leaders under the bus, effectively ignoring all their comments that undermine said theory. So were now supposed to believe that the guy responsible for revealing this stuff from God, also has to be the guy who understood it the least?!?! That it took nearly two centuries before Church apologists (not appointed leaders) finally figured this all out? You see, it seems more logical to me that Smiths references to translating things like the JST was the EXCEPTION, and the word he chose was probably for lack of a better term. It makes no sense at all to say this exception became the RULE, therefore none of the literal translations were really literal translations. The way apologists have tried to spin this as the rule doesnt work logically. Even with the early 19th century dictionaries, one cannot just pick a variant definition and apply it just because it is something unusual, and then say ah ha, Joseph Smith meant it THIS way! You still have to follow the rules of context in languages, and translation in the context of languages doesnt mean moving things around, or teleporting people to heaven or what not. It means deciphering one language into another, the same way we understand the term today.
Posted on: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:22:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015