Translate

To operate under the power of the Spirit through revelation to restore that which has been lost and to clarify that which is in the Lord’s own bosom. In all of the revelations that deal with the Scriptures, the fullness of the Scriptures, and the revision of the Bible by inspiration through Joseph Smith under the direction of the Lord, which imparted the Scriptures as they are in the bosom of the Lord, the word that gets used continually to describe that effort is translate, and it has a highly particularized meaning. It does not mean taking an ancient text and re-working it through Hebrew or New Testament-era Greek to make it more accurate (as moving it from one language into another).¹ The intent of those who labored on the 1611 Translation of the King James Version of the Bible in transforming ancient texts into understandable prose was similar to Joseph’s intent to bring ancient, dead words to life. They wrote in their original Preface: “Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water.”

Joseph Smith was not looking at a Greek or a Hebrew text or some other source material and then figuring out that there was a better way to convert it into English. What he did was accomplished through pure revelation. There was no source material that existed that allowed for the Book of Moses material to spring out of the text of Genesis. He had the text of Genesis, and he altered, augmented, supplemented, and elaborated upon it by revelation. The Lord always referred to this as translation. Joseph was looking at the text, getting a revelation, and then expanding the text. That is translation, according to the way in which the language is used in these texts.² It’s likely that that very same use of the word translate was used when it comes to the Book of Abraham. What Joseph was doing was to operate under the spirit of inspiration in order to render what had been lost back into something that was now in a language that modern readers could comprehend.³

Because Joseph did not explain how the Book of Mormon, the Bible, or the Book of Abraham texts were translated, that issue has been left to conjecture. However, Joseph did not use the term translation as would a scholar. One example illustrates the difference: While Oliver Cowdery was acting as scribe during the Book of Mormon translation, he and Joseph discussed whether the Apostle John died or continued on Earth. The question was answered by a revelation, and the written account in the RE Scriptures includes this explanation: A revelation given to Joseph Smith Jr. and Oliver Cowdery in Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829, when they desired to know whether John, the beloved disciple, tarried on earth. Translated from parchment, written and hid up by himself (JSH 13:17). Joseph did not have the parchment; there was no parchment source for the revelation. It came as Joseph received it from God through the Urim and Thummim. The Bible project was also consistently referred to as a translation of the Bible, even though it would be more correctly called an “inspired revision.” On December 7th, 1830, the commandment was given to Sidney Rigdon that he should write for him, and the scriptures shall be given, even as they are in my own bosom, to the salvation of my own elect (T&C 18:6). This helped explain what the term translated meant for the Bible revision project. It clearly referred to something different than how the term is currently used and understood.

When Enoch’s City was taken to Heaven, it was described as being translated or as a translation. For Enoch, translated meant moving someone from Earth into Heaven and changing him or her so they could survive there. This meaning can also be understood for the translation of the parchment of John. It means taking something recorded and preserved in Heaven and moving it back to Earth where it has been lost. The word translated as it refers to the Book of Abraham should also be understood in this sense: it was something recorded in Heaven that was moved back to the Earth, where it had been lost. Regardless of whether or not conveying Abraham’s testimony from Heaven back to Earth required a surviving papyrus scroll, that question is not as important as the accuracy and truthfulness of the Book of Abraham account that originated with Father Abraham. Only if the text is true, accurate, and legitimately Abraham’s would it be worthy for canonizing as Scripture. Joseph Smith clearly intended for the Book of Abraham to be Scripture.⁴