Because of the large response to my discussions about the article in the March Liahona by Gerrit Dirkmaat about the translation of the Book of Mormon, and because of all the questions people are asking, I'm going to post a more detailed analysis of the article soon.
Read the original review here:
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2024/02/march-2024-liahona-articles-on.html
See the first interview here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5hnwF2qTgQ&t=5s
_____
When I originally read the article in the Liahona, I noticed the errors and omissions, but now that I've looked at it in more detail, the situation is even worse than I thought.
This is another example of why so many Latter-day Saints have come to mistrust the scholars and historians who are writing about Church history.
For example, in the first paragraph, Professor Dirkmaat quoted and cited from Wilford Woodruff's journal. He gave a citation but not a link, which is inexcusable for an online article that is purportedly intended to inform readers.
The Woodruff journal is not an easy reference to locate, even for English speakers, if you're not familiar with the Church History Catalog. By not providing a link, readers are left to conclude that the author (i) accurately presented the reference and (ii) didn't really want people to see the original material.
Below I'll give you the link and you will see that the original material includes items that our M2C and SITH scholars don't want people to know about, let alone consider.
[M2C=Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, SITH=stone-in-the-hat theory]
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/fc933be4-8671-4ca8-a4ed-69b74c820b46/0/158
While Professor Dirkmaat is one of the, if not the principal, promoters of SITH, he may or may not have a position on the setting of the Book of Mormon. Most LDS historians profess agnosticism on that topic. And because the topic of the article was translation, not setting, there would be no reason for Professor Dirkmaat to quote Woodruff's comments about the setting. But omitting the citation leaves readers unaware of what Woodruff wrote on that subject.
Of more concern is Professor Dirkmaat's omission of what Woodruff wrote about the translation.
_____
1. On the same page of Woodruff's journal that Professor Dirkmaat quoted from, Woodruff wrote this:
"it teaches the honest + humble mind of the great things of God that were performed in the land of promise now called America in Ancient days..."
Our M2C scholars will insist that Woodruff was referring to the "American continent" or "the Americas" when he wrote this. See my recent discussion of Kirk Magleby's parsing of terms here:
https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2024/03/kirk-magleby-and-i-discuss-continent.html
2. However, Woodruff was more explicit when he continued writing about the Book of Mormon on the next page.
"Also this precious treasure sets clearly before the honest reader the fate + destiny of the American nation and all the gentile Nations of the Earth unless they speedily repent of thare [sic] sins..."
I suppose the M2C scholars will find some way to rationalize that when Woodruff wrote "the American nation" he actually intended "the American hemisphere" or "the American continent" or something else to confirm their M2C worldview. They're excellent mind-readers, after all.
But most of us can read Woodruff's plain language in context and see exactly what he was talking about.
It gets worse.
3. Next, Woodruff reviews the history of the Book of Mormon.
"The Plates containing the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph Smith + delivered unto him by an angel of God in the month of September 1827 + translated through the urim + Thummim into the English language by Joseph Smith the Prophet seer + revelator…"
Obviously, this contradicts Professor Dirkmaat's theory that Joseph didn't really use the Urim and Thummim, and didn't really translate the engravings on the plates into the English language, but instead read words off a stone he put into a hat.
But if he's going to quote Woodruff's journal in an article about the translation of the Book of Mormon, professional ethics requires him to include Woodruff's specific explanation, in his same journal entry, about the translation.
Naturally, Professor Dirkmaat is entitled to share his opinion that Woodruff was actually referring to SITH when he made his journal entry. But because Woodruff's journal entry uses the same terminology as Joseph and Oliver always did, readers can make up their own minds whether Woodruff's statement corroborates what Joseph and Oliver said, or whether it repudiates what Joseph and Oliver said, as Brother Dirkmaat tries to persuade people.
To repeat: this is another example of why so many Latter-day Saints have come to mistrust the scholars and historians who are writing about Church history.
_____
Here's the first installment of my detailed review of Professor Dirkmaat's article, looking at only the first paragraph.
Liahona March 2024
The
Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon
By Gerrit
Dirkmaat, PhD
Associate
Professor of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University
Edited by Jonathan Neville
Original in blue, my comments in red,
original quotations from other sources in purple.
In November 1845, Elder
Wilford Woodruff (1807–98) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles reflected in
his journal on his love for the Book of Mormon. Thinking about how much he had
read the book since he joined the Church in 1833, he wrote: “My soul delighteth
much in its words, teaching, and prophesyings. And in its plainness. I rejoice
in the goodness and mercy of the God of Israel in preserving the precious Book
of Mormon and bringing it to light in our day and generation.”1
1.
Wilford Woodruff journal, Nov. 2, 1845,
Church History Library, Salt Lake City, [159], spelling and punctuation
standardized.
Inexplicably,
the article doesn’t provide a link, making this reference difficult to find, even for English readers. so here it is:
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/fc933be4-8671-4ca8-a4ed-69b74c820b46/0/158
The quotation in the article cuts off Woodruff’s sentence, which continues, “it teaches the honest + humble mind of the great things of God that were performed in the land of promise now called America in Ancient days and also the great things of God that are nigh even at the doors concerning the restoration of the Lamanites to the knowledge of their linage [sic] + forefathers when they will throw of [sic] the veil of ignorance darkness and superstition…
Also this precious treasure sets clearly before the honest reader the fate + destiny of the American nation and all the gentile Nations of the Earth unless they speedily repent of thare [sic] sins….
The Plates containing the Book of Mormon was
revealed to Joseph Smith + delivered unto him by an angel of God in the month
of September 1828 + translated through the urim + Thummim into the English
language by Joseph Smith the Prophet seer + revelator…
Readers naturally wonder why an article about the translation that cites Wilford Woodruff's journal would omit what Woodruff wrote about the translation in the very same journal entry.
Let's discuss why.
The end of the excerpt.
Images of the pages in Woodruff's journal (click to enlarge).
No comments:
Post a Comment