ISSN: 1579-9794
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
El mormonismo desde la óptica de los Estudios de la
Traducción
GABRIEL GONZÁLEZ NÚÑEZ
gabriel.gonzaleznunez@utrgv.edu
Universidad de Texas del Valle del Río Grande
Fecha de recepción: 12/09/2023
Fecha de aceptación: 04/12/2023
Abstract: Most religious movements often have an invisible relationship to
translation. This is the case for major religious traditions, such as Christianity.
Among the Christian denominations, Mormonism is perhaps particular due to
a quite visible relationship with translation. As a religious tradition that is very
much rooted in and experienced through translation, it has caught the eye of
translation scholars who have studied it to theorize on the nature of
translation. However, much of this scholarship seems somewhat uninformed
as to what scholars in the field of Mormon Studies have also been exploring
regarding translation. And the opposite seems to also be true. Thus, in what
could be an obvious space for interdisciplinary exploration, these two
disciplines, for the most part, do not engage each other. This paper will explore
that common space, the intersection of translation and Mormonism, in an
attempt to highlight possible areas for better collaboration.
Keywords: Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Bible, Mormonism,
Translation
Resumen: La mayoría de los movimientos religiosos tienen alguna relación,
por lo general invisible, con la traducción. Esto se aplica a las principales
tradiciones religiosas, como el cristianismo. Entre las confesiones cristianas,
el mormonismo destaca en este sentido por tener una relación muy evidente
con la traducción. Al considerarse como una tradición religiosa arraigada y
transmitida por medio de la traducción. Esto ha despertado el interés de
estudiosos en la materia que han centrado sus investigaciones en el análisis
de las traducciones que se han llevado a cabo con el fin de elaborar nuevas
teorías que logren explicar su naturaleza. No obstante, muchas de estas
investigaciones parecen carecer de una sólida fundamentación,
especialmente en lo que respecta a los avances realizados por los
académicos especializados en el campo conocido como Estudios Mormones.
En consecuencia, se trata de un ámbito idóneo para llevar a cabo una
2 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
exploración interdisciplinaria por sus convergencias, ya que no es frecuente
que estas disciplinas entablen un diálogo. Por ende, el presente trabajo
procura explorar ese espacio común –la intersección entre la traducción y el
mormonismo– con el fin de resaltar los aspectos en los que podrían colaborar
de una forma más clara.
Palabras clave: Libro de Mormón, Libro de Abraham, Biblia, Mormonismo,
Traducción
INTRODUCTION
Religion, especially in the case of major religious traditions such as
Christianity, has some kind of (often) invisible relationship to translation,
including interpreting. Among the Christian traditions, Mormonism1 is perhaps
particular in that it has a very visible relationship to translation, from the live
interpreting of regular international broadcasts to the origin of the religious
movement itself. Indeed, this is rooted in founder Joseph Smith’s unusual
translation projects, including that of the Book of Mormon. It comes as no
surprise, then, that some scholars would become interested in different
translational aspects of Mormonism. In fact, the volume of articles about, for
example, the translation of the Book of Mormon is considerable. It is however
surprising that most of these articles are not produced by translation scholars.
Even so, Mormonism, as a religious tradition that is very much rooted
in and experienced through translation, has caught the eye of a few translation
scholars. As a rule, these scholars have explored the nature of translation by
considering the implications of Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon. In
this sense, Translation Studies has something to offer in terms of the nature
of translation generally and the translation of the Book of Mormon specifically.
However, much of that scholarship seems slightly uninformed in terms of what
scholars in the field of Mormon Studies have been exploring. Therefore, in
what could be an obvious space for interdisciplinary exploration, these two
disciplines for the most part do not engage each other.
This paper will explore that common space between translation and
Mormonism, in an attempt to highlight possible areas for better collaboration.
To achieve this goal, it will review how Translation Studies has approached
translation in Mormonism, critically pointing out some places where the
scholarship may be lacking. It will then review the extent to which Mormon
Studies has engaged with the scholarship produced in Translation Studies, if
at all. Finally, the combination of these two reviews will lead to some
1 In this paper, the term Mormonism will be mostly understood as pertaining to The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it should be noted that it can be applied to the broader
Latter-day Saint restorationist movement.
Gabriel González Núñez 3
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
conclusions about Mormonism as a fruitful object of study for Translation
Studies.
1. WHAT TRANSLATION STUDIES HAS TO SAY ABOUT MORMONISM
Early theorists of translation were themselves translators, and at times
they engaged in the translation of sacred texts. Thus, it was not unusual for
early reflection on translation to focus on the experience and concerns of
translating texts such as the Bible. While this tendency weakened over time,
even as late as the 1960s, Bible translation continued to play an important role
in the conceptual and methodological development of Translation Studies.
However, as the field grew more extensive and more academic, concerns
revolving around the translation of sacred texts became less central, to the
point one might currently consider them peripheral, even if still present (cf.
Israel, 2023).
Despite the decidedly secular concerns of current Translation Studies,
some of its scholars have taken note of Mormonism. This should come as no
surprise given that the Mormon tradition originates in a series of religious
projects that were presented to the world as having important, even defining,
translational activities at their core. Thus, a small number of translation
scholars, including some that were very influential in the field, have studied
translation through the prism of the Mormon experience. It should be noted at
the outset that these scholars were not so much interested on the question of
what translation can teach about Mormonism but rather on what the Mormon
experience can teach about translation. Thus, concerns about truth, doctrine,
or practice that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or other
groups in the broader Latter-day Saint movement might have from a religious
standpoint become more or less immaterial to translation scholars. To these
scholars what matters is not religion but rather translation. Thus, Mormonism
is only interesting because it can be used to say things about translation.
For the most part, when translation scholars have looked at
Mormonism, they have been interested in the Book of Mormon, particularly in
founder Smith’s claims about translation in relation to the production of that
book in English. Very few scholars have considered the translation of the Book
of Mormon into other languages. This is why, even though Spanish is the
second most spoken language in the Church, there are only a handful of
studies concerned with the book’s translation into Spanish. Zarandona (2011)
compares five different translations of the Book of Mormon into Spanish to
draw some conclusions about the level of control the sponsoring institution
(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) held over the translation
4 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
process. In turn, López Alcalá2 (2014) writes about the first translations of the
Book of Mormon into Spanish, which were carried out by a former military
officer from Spain named Melitón González Trejo. López Alcalá (2017) has
also explored the habitus–or set of dispositions, tendencies, and inclinations–
of LDS (Latter‑day Saints) translators who translate Mormon sacred texts from
English into the world’s many languages. Even so, the production of
translations in languages other than Spanish has failed to draw the attention
of translation scholars.3 What these isolated studies indicate is that there is
no scholarship within Translation Studies concerned with ongoing efforts to
translate the Book of Mormon or other LDS scripture. One might surmise that
these are perhaps deemed similar enough to the efforts of Bible translators,
and thus they have not proven sufficiently interesting.
What is particularly interesting, however, is the account of Smith and
his production of the Book of Mormon in English. What makes it remarkable
in Translation Studies is not that it involves angelic visitations, buried ancient
gold, or even the birth of a religion, but rather that it provides a case study for
the depth of the concept of translation. The implications of Smith claiming that
the book was a translated text (as opposed to an inspired text or even a
fantastical text) provide translation scholars with the opportunity to explore the
role of translation in society. Again, the story is interesting because it can show
something about translation. In essence, the account of the coming forth of
the Book of Mormon is seen as valuable in developing translation theory.
In so doing, translation scholars tend to reject the supernatural
elements of Smith’s story and focus on the Book of Mormon as a product of
the culture in which it emerged. In other words, translation scholars are not
interested in trying to find evidence for or against the Book of Mormon as an
ancient text but rather treat it as an early 19th-century, American text that was
presented as a translation. Toury (2005, pp. 11-14) argues that the
presentation of the Book of Mormon as a translation was an act of deliberate
cultural planning intended to strengthen the position of the book. His interest
2 Samuel López Alcalá is a translation scholar at Brigham Young University whose academic
training is in Translation and whose publications are in the field of Translation Studies. His
research interests are found in translation history and translation theory, lenses through which at
times he explores Mormon issues. This is evident in his bemoaning the lack of attention paid to
translation “in the historiography of Mexican Mormonism” (López Alcalá, 2020, p. 56) and his
subsequent exploration of the role that translation played in early LDS proselytizing in Mexico
(López Alcalá, 2020, pp. 58-63).
3 The translation of the Book of Mormon into languages other than Spanish has garnered the
attention of scholars in Mormon Studies. For example, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies
published a series of articles that describe the book’s translation into French (McClellan, 2002),
German (Scharffs, 2002), Italian (Homer, 2002), and Welsh (Dennis, 2002). The same journal
later published two articles regarding translation into Japanese (Gessel, 2005; Takagi, 2009).
None of these articles are situated in the field of Translation Studies.
Gabriel González Núñez 5
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
in the book comes from the idea that scholars can learn about translation by
studying not only translations themselves but any original texts that were
passed off as translations within a culture, what he refers to as
pseudotranslations (p. 48). This author considers pseudotranslations as a
way for an author to introduce changes to a culture with the relative safety of
claiming that one is merely the messenger. In this view, claiming that the Book
of Mormon is a translation allowed Smith to introduce “novelties” into “the
American (Christian) culture of the first third of the 19th century” which could
not have been introduced through an original work of fiction (Toury, 2012,
p. 49).
While the claim is intriguing, a critical reading of Toury (2012) might ask
the question of why Smith could not have, to the same effect, presented the
Book of Mormon as direct revelation from God, sans a source text. That is the
strategy, for example, adopted by Muhammad when introducing his proposed
cultural changes–that he received the Quran as revelation from the archangel
Gabriel. In fact, Smith produced several texts which he pronounced as
revelation, and these were later published in two volumes accepted as sacred
scripture by the faithful: Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
Thus, it is not clear what the advantage was to Smith in presenting the Book
of Mormon as a translation per se and not some other type of divinely
originated knowledge, as he did with other texts. Toury’s use of the Book of
Mormon in this way may reflect a lacuna in the understanding of the role the
book played in Smith’s theological project. Or, at the very least, it fails to
address the key question of what the advantage was of the book being a
translation. The book was clearly meant to introduce theological innovations,
in this Toury is correct. Even so it is unclear that presenting the book as a
translation was more advantageous to that end than presenting it as some
other type of text. After all, what made the book powerful, to believers at least,
was the claim that it came about through divine intervention, i.e., that it was
God who was speaking through Smith. In a way, that is the understanding that
was and continues to be key for Latter-day Saints who give credence to
Smith’s claims–not that he could translate but that he spoke for God.
Even so, Toury (2012) finds the Book of Mormon to be a good example
toward the point he is making, namely, that pseudotranslations hold a cultural
position that is similar to that of “genuine translations” (p.52). He believes this
idea might be useful to Mormon scholars, as indicated in this footnote:
It is interesting to note that a few years ago, Mormon scholars,
mostly believers interested in theological issues, started turning to
the notion of ‘pseudotranslation’ in an attempt to appease the many
tensions between their strong wish to stick to their belief and various
phenomena of a historical, linguistic and textual nature which have
6 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
long been presented as stumbling blocks. (See especially Shepherd
2002; Tvedtnes and Roper 2003.) (Toury, 2012, p. 49)
However, it is unclear that the idea of pseudotranslation is useful to that
particular group of Mormon scholars. Specifically, the Shepherd (2002) article
that Toury (2012) cites was produced by an Evangelical (not Mormon) scholar
in a collected work whose aim is to rebut or discredit the claims of Mormonism
(Beckwith et al., 2002). In turn, the Tvedtnes and Roper (2003) article cited is
a review by Mormon scholars of the Shepherd (2002) article. The review
praises Shepherd for his scholarly approach but disagrees with Shepherd’s
conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a pseudotranslation (Tvedtnes &
Roper, 2003).
Nonetheless, the idea that the Book of Mormon does not need to be an
actual translation for it to offer some perspective that can be used for
theoretical postulation has been fruitful. Hermans (2007) takes this approach
in his book The Conference of the Tongues. In this work, Hermans develops
a theory of authentication, namely, that a translation can gain the same status
as the original text through the intervention of some authority. To develop this
idea, he retells the account of how the Book of Mormon came to be: an angel
called Moroni visited Smith; following angelic direction, Smith recovered a set
of plates; Smith translated these using Urim and Thummim spectacles while
dictating to several scribes (Emma Smith, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery)
from behind a screen;4 several witnesses bore testimony of seeing the plates;
and the Book of Mormon was finally published in English (Hermans, 2007,
pp.1-2). Importantly, once the translation was finished, the angel took the
plates away, and no one has seen them since; nonetheless, the translation is
as good as the original because the voice of God himself indicated that the
translation was good (Hermans, 2007, p. 3). A translation thus authenticated
by God for all intents and purposes replaces the original in every sense
(Hermans, 2007, p. 3). The translation is fully equivalent to the original
(Hermans, 2007, p. 4). This becomes possible through authoritative verbal
statements that make the original plates redundant (Hermans, 2007, p. 4). In
other words, it does not matter what Smith did when translating the text,
because a higher authority has turned the translation into an original anyway
(Hermans, 2007, p. 4).
In terms of Hermans’ analysis of the Book of Mormon as a translation,
what matters is that an authentication procedure took place which made the
4 Delabastita and Grutman (2021), based on Hermans (2007) description of the process, argue
that the “the magic disks” (i.e., the Urim and Thummim) used by Smith to translate where like the
Babelfish technology used for instant translation in the novel The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
(pp. 20-21).
Gabriel González Núñez 7
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
translation fully equivalent to the original.5 This particular example of the Book
of Mormon as an authenticated translation that replaces the original has been
criticized by Chesterman (2010), who protests that “at no point in this story
does Hermans refer to the fact (for non-Mormons) that we must surely be
dealing with a pseudotranslation here” (p. 356). Thus, Chesterman finds the
example unsatisfying because, unless one is a Latter-day Saint, there was
never an original to be replaced, and thus the entire authentication analysis
fails. One might argue, of course, that Hermans did not need to address the
issue because for at least one group of people (believing Latter-day Saints)
there is an original. All that Hermans (2007) is doing here is explaining how
authentication works.6 The point is that the pronouncement of some person
or institution in authority can make a translation’s original text irrelevant and
unnecessary. In this case, for example, what makes the English version of the
Book of Mormon a reliable source text from which to translate into other
languages is that it was authenticated. The translation’s validity is, therefore,
a result of its authentication.
Another scholar who finds the account of the Book of Mormon’s
translation fruitful for theorizing about translation is Douglas Robinson in Who
Translates? Translator Subjectivities Beyond Reason (2001). The main thesis
developed here by Robinson (2001) is that human translation is often seen as
a process where a translator channels “the voices and writings and ideas and
knowhow and plans and desires of other people […] from various sources,
through their own bodies” (p. 187). He finds that this process “strikingly
resembles spirit-channeling, and indeed some of the most famous translations
in Western history were once believed to have been channeled, or ‘divinely
inspired’” (p. 193). He calls this belief the Spirit-channelling Model of
translation, which he develops in part by relating the account of how the Book
of Mormon was translated into English (pp. 54-65). After describing the
translation process, Robinson (2001) asks:
was Smith translating? […] He had no ancient Egyptian; how could
he be translating? The divine instrumentalities, a.k.a. the ‘seer
stone,’ a.k.a. the Urim and Thummim, served as a spiritualistic MT
5 Some translation scholars have found Hermans insightful on this matter. He has been echoed,
for example, by Vidal Claramonte (2010, pp. 15-19), who summarizes him in her development of
the idea that equivalence is an illusion that cannot be ever truly realized because translators
actively shape the text they are translating.
6 In addition, Hermans (2007) provides other examples of authentication. One is the Septuagint,
or the ancient translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, where 72 translators translated
the text in 72 days, each one sitting independently in his cell (pp. 3-4). When they compared
versions, they were all exactly the same, word for word, which provides evidence that the Spirit
guided the translation, thus authenticating it (pp. 3-4). Another more secular example is provided:
in the Vienna treaties, the contracting parties declared certain language versions to be authentic
and thus eliminated the “original” in favour of equal versions (pp. 7-11).
8 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
[Machine Translation] program, doing the translation for him. He was
only the human channel of an essentially divine act of translation.
Who translates? God does, or the Angels Mormon and Moroni (the
mediate source authors) do, using the instrumentalities of both the
Urim and Thummim and Joseph Smith. This is classic spirit-
channeled translation. (p. 58)
It should be noted that Robison (2001) is not claiming that the Book of
Mormon has a divine origin. He communicates at different points that he does
not believe this story and that to believe it “strains rationalist credibility to the
breaking point” (p. 55). Even so, he relies on the account of how the Book of
Mormon was translated into English to make the point that one way in which
translation has been historically understood is as a process of spiritually
channelling the voices of others.7 Once that point is made, Robinson sets the
Book of Mormon aside and moves on to develop his model by exploring how
translation has historically also been understood as the channelling of
ideological forces (pp. 67-138).
Ultimately, Robinson (2001) finds that these models are lacking. He
argues that cognitive science helps us understand that the translator’s inner
self is “scattered, fragmentary, ‘pandemoniac’” (pp. 143-144) and that,
additionally, the translator is subjected to outside influences from a number of
agents, including “the translation market, clients, agencies, initiators,
freelancers, helpers, editors, end-users” (p. 187). Robinson’s basic argument,
therefore, is that in translating, the translator sifts through all of these inner
“demons” and outer “invisible hands” to arrive at the target text. He finds this
model to be a more accurate description of translation than one where people
channel spirits (including authors) or ideologies.
The way the account of the Book of Mormon’s translation into English
is used to develop the model has been the object of an interesting critique by
Hague8 (2009). He does not argue against Robinson’s model but rather
explains that it could be expanded by a more nuanced consideration of the
actual translation process followed by Smith. In order to develop his critique,
Hague explains that it is immaterial whether Smith actually was the conduit of
7 Even though the Book of Mormon is presented as key evidence for his argument, Robinson
(2001) builds said argument relying on other examples as well. He describes the translation of
the Septuagint as an example of the translator-as-spirit-channeler view, even though he is careful
to signal that the story of 72 translators who were inspired by the Spirit to write exactly the same
text independently of each other counters the actual historical description of the translation
process (pp. 49-54). He also points to Paul’s writings on glossolalia, where the apostle calls for
speaking in tongues to be interpreted by an interpreter who presumably is not a learned
professional but someone who channels the same spirit as the speaker of tongues (p. 64).
8 Daryl Hague is a translation scholar at Brigham Young University whose academic training is in
Law and in Translation, and his publications are in the field of Translation Studies.
Gabriel González Núñez 9
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
divine revelation, but it needs to be assumed that “Smith sincerely believed
he was transforming an ancient text into an English text” (p. 23). With this
assumption in place, Hague (2009) argues that the Book of Mormon is a
problematic example for translation-as-spirit-channelling because Smith
needed to “study things out” in his mind, which implies some level of
subjectivity, and because the copious editorial changes he made to the text in
1837 and 1840 suggest that he considered several possible renderings for
different instances (pp. 23-24).
Ultimately, this author argues that a closer look at Smith’s account
reveals the presence not only of spirit channelling but also of Smith’s own,
complex inner self. In essence: “Smith may be a channeler, but he is a
channeler whose subjectivity remains intact and makes a significant
contribution to text creation” (Hague, 2009, pp. 24). He provides further
examples of Smith applying his own subjectivity to these channelling
experiences. Hague explains that Smith made changes when editing the Book
of Commandments, a collection of revelations he received, and rendered
Matthew 26:26 in two different ways when producing his own revision of the
Bible (pp. 24‑25). One might argue that Robinson (2001) is not completely
against the idea that Smith also had some say in the form of the translation.
The model, where the translation is handed by some divine being or spirit to
the translator, does not completely eschew the possibility of the translator
exercising some level of individual agency or subjectivity. Robinson (2001)
argues that Smith had to have been more than a passive instrument,
otherwise God or some angel could just have issued the translation, or some
other individual could have been assigned the task, but the fact that Smith
himself was chosen to do this implies he had something himself to contribute
(pp. 60-61). Even so, Robinson never explores what it is that Smith was, in
fact, contributing and places the whole process under the spirit channelling
banner. Hague’s contribution arrives from looking more closely at what Smith
actually did during the translation process, which leads him to place Smith as
both a spirit channeller and an active subject who contributed in complex ways
to the text’s creation.
Hague’s contribution is interesting, in part, because it considers
elements from Smith’s translation projects beyond the Book of Mormon.
Another author who does this is Valdeón (2014). Instead of exploring the role
of Smith as a translator, Valdeón picks up where Toury (2012) left off, that is,
with the observation that the Book of Mormon being presented as a translation
offered certain advantages to Smith’s project. This is the starting point from
which Valdeón sets out to explore the use of the concept of translation, but he
does not limit his analysis to the Book of Mormon. He considers two additional
10 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
projects: what is now dubbed the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible9 and
the Book of Abraham, now published as part of the Pearl of Great Price. He
nuances his approach to these three texts by pointing out that they are
different as regards the type of translation that they represent. Specifically,
Valdeón relies for his exploration on Jakobson’s (1959/2012, p. 127)
classification of translations as interlingual translation (i.e., “translation
proper”, or translation between languages), intralingual translation (i.e.,
“rewording”, or translation within a language), and intersemiotic translation
(i.e., “transmutation”, or translation between non‑verbal sings and a verbal
language):
In fact, when we write about the use of translation in the creation of
a Mormon canon, we can speak of, at least, three distinct types of
transformations. First, the golden plates claim to record the origins
of the Nephites (one of the Middle Eastern groups believed to have
emigrated to the Americas), who were seeking the Promised Land.
Smith allegedly translated these plates into English. After the
completion of The Book of Mormon, Smith undertook the
retranslation of the Bible following another revelation that compelled
him to do so. This could be regarded as a case of intralingual
translation as Smith was not familiar with Hebrew or Greek. Finally,
Smith performed the intersemiotic translation of some Egyptian
papyri that the new Church had purchased in Ohio. This gave way
to the Book of Abraham. (Valdeón, 2014, p. 224)
As regards the Book of Mormon, Valdeón (2014) points out that its
being presented as a translation created both problems and advantages. On
the one hand, its nature as a supernatural translation made obtaining funding
for publication difficult (p. 226). On the other hand, its nature as a supernatural
translation made it similar to the foundational text of Christianity, namely, the
Bible (p. 226). This would be an immediate advantage to the Book of Mormon
being more than a revealed text. Inasmuch as it was a translation, it was
similar in nature to the Bible, which was generally held in high regard and
authoritative by 19th century Americans. Valdeón (2014) also considers what
the Book of Mormon’s status as a translation offered generations of Latter-day
Saints after Smith’s lifetime, namely, that the text itself was found to have
“foreignizing elements” that were seen as textual evidence of its nature as a
translation, which makes the book a sort of self-authenticating text (pp. 226-
227).
9 During Smith’s lifetime, the project was known as the New Translation (Jackson, 2010, p. 56).
It later became known as the Inspired Version because it was published under that name starting
in 1867 by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, now Community of Christ
(Jackson 2010, p. 56). The title Joseph Smith Translation was created by The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 1970s (Jackson, 2010, pp. 56, 72).
Gabriel González Núñez 11
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
A further advantage is that the lack of a source text, i.e., of the plates,
places the text above the scrutiny of those who might wish to address the
problems of equivalence that are present in every translated text of any import
(Valdeón, 2014, pp. 226–227). Valdeón also infers that this inaccessibility to
any source text is what raised the Book of Mormon to its status as “the
canonical text of the new Church, the one by which all standards were to be
measured” (p. 227). That last inference should probably be qualified. There is
evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon was not always the text “by
which all standards were to be measured” (p. 227). Research indicates that it
was not until the 20th century that the Book of Mormon became the
centrepiece of the Latter‑day Saint scriptural cannon (Reynolds, 1999,
pp. 7‑30). Reasons that have been identified for its raise to prominence
include calls from Church leaders to give the book more prominence, the
introduction of a Church-wide and correlated curriculum that gave the book a
more central role, the publication of new editions of LDS scriptures, and
increased scholarly and apologetic publications about the book (Reynolds,
1999, pp. 30‑37). The fact that it was presented as a translation has not been
identified by scholars as a reason, let alone the single reason, why the Book
of Mormon rose to a central position in the LDS scriptural cannon.
Valdeón (2014, pp. 229-231) moves on to discuss the Joseph Smith
Translation of the Bible, which he presents as an example of an intralingual
translation. He argues that this revision of the Bible was called translation by
Smith because “as with the transcription of the golden plates first and the
interpretation of the Egyptian papyri later, the concept of translation provided
his work with the element of veracity and respectability he desired for his
divine mission” (p. 229). He acknowledges that referring to this text as a
translation, intralingual or otherwise, is problematic because of some large
additions to the Book of Genesis which are now published as the Book of
Moses (p. 230). In fact, the types of changes that Smith made to the Bible
includes not only these lengthy additions but also fixing perceived errors,
commenting on the meaning of certain passages, harmonizing contradictory
passages, making specific changes to meaning, and updating or clarifying
word choice and grammatical structures (Barlow, 1991, pp. 51‑53). The most
common type of change in the Joseph Smith Translation is the latter, which
means that the argument could be made that this is mostly an intralingual
translation (as Valdeón seems to be doing), but the commentary,
harmonization, changes in meaning, and lengthy additions present a
challenge to the idea of the project being a translation at all. In that light, it
makes more sense to refer to it as a version of the Bible built in part, and only
in part, through intralingual translation. Of course, the reason a translation
scholar would focus on this text at all is that Smith himself referred to it as a
12 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
translation. The project nonetheless presents some basic challenges in
understanding how exactly it fits the definition of translation.
Valdeón (2014, pp. 232‑233) then moves on to the Book of Abraham,
which he presents as an example of intersemiotic translation. This
categorization, however, can be challenged. According to Jakobson
(1959/2012), who created the categories in question, intersemiotic translation
is specifically the “interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal
sign systems” (p. 114). While he does not elaborate on the definition too much,
he offers as an example the transposition “from verbal art into music, dance,
cinema, or painting” (p. 118). This is not what is taking place with the Book of
Abraham. What has been published as the Book of Abraham was presented
by Smith as the translation of some fragments of ancient Egyptian papyri that
he purchased in 1835. The project was never concluded, but the portions that
were published include both text and images. The text is presented as
A TRANSLATION / Of some ancient Records that have fallen into
our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the
writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF
ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (“A Translation”,
p. 704.)
These papyri were written in Egyptian hieroglyphs, which is an
established, albeit defunct, writing system. Thus, inasmuch as Smith
presented the Book of Abraham as containing material translated from one
writing system into another, the project would be more correctly branded as
interlingual, and not intersemiotic, translation.
Even so, there may be a sense in which a part of the Book of Abraham
could be considered to a certain extent an example of intersemiotic
translation. Alongside the text, the Book of Abraham contains three facsimiles
of partially reconstructed illustrations from the papyri. These facsimiles include
a set of explanations that are printed under the illustrations. Such
explanations, since they are verbal expressions of non‑verbal symbols, could
be considered intersemiotic translation. Thereby, it could be said that the Book
of Abraham includes some intersemiotic translation but claiming the whole of
it is an intersemiotic translation is somewhat of a stretch.
Such a categorization assumes that Smith in fact interlingually
translated the Egyptian language into English and also intersemiotically
translated the symbols into written English. If one assumes that such is not
the case, that Smith simply created the text in his mind and then dictated it,
this would be better categorized as a case of pseudotranslation. Valdeón
(2014, p. 232) argues, however, that the Book of Abraham cannot be a
Gabriel González Núñez 13
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
pseudotranslation because the original papyri, or part of them at least,10 are
extant. Thus, insofar the papyri represent Egyptian funerary texts (Ritner,
2011), the Book of Abraham is not a “fictitious translation” but rather an
“erroneous translation” (Valdeón, 2014, p. 232). This is a euphemistic way of
saying that Smith made the Book of Abraham up but claimed it was a
translation of an existing text, in which case it would still not be an intersemiotic
translation.
Classifications aside, Valdeón (2014) makes an important contribution
in that he addresses the issue as to why Smith would engage in a series of
translation projects in the process of establishing a new religion. Specifically,
“by resorting to the concept of translation he was lending authority to the new
Christian faith he was creating” (p. 234). This makes sense intuitively because
the Christian faith holds the Bible, a translated text, as its most authoritative
text, so by claiming to be called of God to produce translated scripture, Smith
was engaging in a type of religious activity that Christians had long respected.
Valdeón (2014, pp. 234‑235) further argues that such “resorting to the concept
of translation” helped the new faith become accepted by mainstream
American society. This latter assertion, however, is rather questionable. One
of the arguments often made to discredit Mormonism is, precisely, its
acceptance of non-biblical scripture–translated or otherwise. Further, the
gradual acceptance of Mormonism as part of mainstream American society
seems to have taken place mostly because the religion embraced
conservative American values and “seemingly effaced all traces of otherness”
(Givens, 2012). In short, the fact that Latter-day Saints believe that their
scriptural cannon was produced to a large extent by translation does not seem
to be the reason Mormonism became tolerated in mainstream American
culture. Therefore, what continues unanswered is this question: what was the
exact advantage for Smith in employing the concept of translation? That this
was advantageous is assumed by most translation scholars who consider the
Book of Mormon, but why that would be an advantage over other options
Smith remains an open question.
Further, Valdeón’s attempts at finding a traditional categorization for the
Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Abraham, as well as Chesterman’s
protest against Hermans’ considering the Book of Mormon a translation at all,
illustrate that translation scholars struggle with the very nature of Smith’s
translation projects. While they have found his projects helpful for theorizing,
trying to understand them within a Translation Studies framework has proven
a challenging task. This seems to be the case because Smith’s translation
10 A total of 12 fragments from the original papyri have been recovered and are in possession of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Todd, 1968, p. 12).
14 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
projects push the concept of translation to the limit, and thus, traditional
understandings of translation seem to be unable to account for the complexity
of Smith’s project of scriptural production. This does not imply that translation
scholars have not provided worthwhile insights, as the paragraphs above
should illustrate.
2. HOW MORMON STUDIES HAS ENGAGED WITH TRANSLATION STUDIES
2.1. On the Nature of Mormon Studies
One might wonder to what extent the previous insights have reached
beyond the field of Translation Studies. In essence, do they inform scholarship
and understanding in other fields? A logical place to begin exploring that
question is by considering the impact of Translation Studies scholarship on
another field that might be interested in Mormonism and translation, namely,
Mormon Studies. This is a field, the contours of which are difficult to define,
ranging from apologetic studies that seek to provide evidence in favour of the
claims made by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (e.g., Parry
et al., 2002) to scholarly explorations of the Latter-day Saint movement as a
religious, social, cultural, and historical phenomenon (e.g., Bushman, 2005).
Wherever one might draw the field’s boundaries, scholarly study of
Mormonism began taking place in the 20th century, with the publication of
works about Mormon history and culture (e.g., Neff, 1918). 11 In turn, scholarly
studies specifically about the Book of Mormon began appearing in the mid-
20th century (Becerra et al., 2022, pp. 15-17). Much like Translation Studies,
the field of Mormon Studies arises from interest in a specific object, in this
case Mormonism, and is largely interdisciplinary in nature.
2.2 Translation Studies in Mormon Studies
One would therefore expect that the scholarship provided by translation
scholars into translation within Mormonism would to some extent be reflected
in Mormon Studies. As to this, the starting observation would be that the
amount of scholarship that has been produced around the Book of Mormon,
the Book of Abraham, and to a lesser extent the Joseph Smith Translation is
staggering (e.g., Becerra et al., 2022, pp. 131‑163), yet very little of it
considers work done within Translation Studies. This is true even of works that
directly address translation. For example, a book titled Producing Ancient
Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon
Christianity (MacKay et al., 2020) makes no mention of any of the insights
provided by translation scholars.
11 While Neff’s (1918) scholarship is now outdated, it represents a major, early scholarly
endeavour to consider Mormonism beyond its theological claims.
Gabriel González Núñez 15
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
There are some exceptions to this general layout. For example, the
book Envisioning Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Revelations in Their Early
American Contexts (Townsend, 2022) is a collected volume of articles that
explore different aspects of Smith’s scriptural production. It contains an
updated version of Valdeón’s (2014) article on Smith’s three major translation
projects. This reproduction is interesting in that an entire Translation Studies
article is recontextualized for a Mormon Studies audience, which could
potentially result in fruitful cross-pollination.
The more usual pattern, however, is that the few authors who do
engage with Translation Studies scholarship do so rather briefly. Consider The
Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Gardner, 2011). This book-
length treatment of the history, process, and nature of the Book of Mormon’s
translation into English only cites one translation scholar, i.e., Robinson
(2001). Gardner (2011, p. x) first mentions Robinson as an example of how
dismissive scholars tend to be of the supernatural origins of the Book of
Mormon. Robinson is referenced a second time to support the idea that Smith
“must have contributed something” to the translation process (Gardner, 2011,
p. 255). Of course, as stated above, Robinson’s main thrust is quite the
opposite: while Smith surely contributed something, he was in essence a
spirit-channeller. Gardner was apparently unaware of Hague’s (2009) critique
of Robinson, which would have proved to be more on point for the argument
Gardner was developing–that Smith was not simply parroting words but that
he was an active participant in a translating process.
Another author who engages Robinson is Brown (2012). He finds that
the way Robinson uses Smith as an example of purported spirit channelling is
“accidentally useful” (p. 54). It is unclear what Brown means by that, except
perhaps that Robinson serves to exemplify the way many individuals and
scholars interpret Smith’s translation process to be “xenoglossic”, i.e., “the
supernatural ability to speak a known human language” (pp. 62-63). In 2012,
Brown explains that Hague’s critique of Robinson is an example of Smith’s
translation process as “glossolalic” (p. 69), i.e., “an ecstatic experience
whereby a worshiper is caused to speak (or sing) syllables that belong to no
known human language” and “another believer is often called upon to
‘interpret’ the glossolalia into familiar human language” (p. 63). Brown (2012)
finds Hague’s approach to theorizing Smith’s translation projects helpful in that
it “correctly draws attention to the multivalence of human experience and
translation” (p. 70). Clearly, Brown finds contemporary translation theories to
be of value in developing an understanding of what Smith was doing when
translating. He calls for exploration of such theories, arguing that “[t]here are
important insights to be gained from these schools of thought that will need to
inform a credible account of Smithian translation” (Brown, 2012, p. 70).
16 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
Unfortunately, he does not follow up on this invitation, and his book length
treatise on Smith’s scriptural production, titled Joseph Smith’s Translation
(Brown, 2020), draws on a wide range of scholarship but not on Translation
Studies.
CONCLUSIONS
If we consider how scholars in Mormon Studies have approached
translation, two observations become evident. The first is that a vast amount
of writing has been published. The second is that it generally ignores the
contributions found in Translation Studies. This might be evidence, at some
point, of the effects of compartmentalized academia. Nonetheless, hastily
giving a pass due to territoriality will not do. Given that Mormon Studies is
interdisciplinary in nature, one would expect perhaps more exploration of the
ideas found within Translation Studies. As stated above, Brown (2012) has
called on scholars in Mormon Studies to more fully engage with current
translation theories.12 This would no doubt enrich the work of scholars in the
field by providing additional models to understand their object of study.
Something similar seems to happen at the other end. Some translation
scholars have engaged Mormonism. They seem to be fascinated by the story
of the translation of the Book of Mormon. They have explored this particular
aspect of Mormonism as a way to theorize about translation. In this sense,
there has been serious engagement with the story. And yet, the story proves
problematic. Its validity as a way to substantiate certain claims about
translation comes into question, and how to even understand its very nature
is a source of difficulty.
Part of the problem is once again the compartmentalization of the
Academy. Even so, translation scholars who are willing and able to delve into
the labyrinthine amount of scholarship produced around Smith’s translations
in the field of Mormon Studies might there find models and insights that can
be enriching to understanding translation. This was made evident above in
how Hague (2009) benefitted from his familiarity with Mormon Studies by
drawing on a fuller understanding of Smith’s other translation projects. To
further illustrate this point, this essay will close by considering some insights
12 Some works in Mormon Studies have begun to do this. Terryl Givens with Brian Hauglid relied
partially on Schleiermacher (1813/2012) to develop their claim that the Egyptian papyri held by
Smith acted as a catalyst for the creation of a new, inspired text (Givens & Hauglid, 2012,
pp. 195‑196). In turn, Vogel (2021) relies in part on Venuti (1995/2018) to claim that the Book of
Abraham as translated from the papyri was a “conventional and straightforward” translation
(pp. 204‑13). Because neither Schleiermacher nor Venuti were actually discussing Smith’s
translations, this section will not explore their theories further.
Gabriel González Núñez 17
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
gleaned from Mormon Studies that can enrich translation scholars’
consideration of Smith’s translation projects.
One way in which Mormon Studies can enrich Translation Studies has
to do with the question of what really was the advantage of presenting the
Book of Mormon as a translation. As explained above, in Translation Studies
it has been assumed that Smith presented the book as a translation because
this was helpful in some way, but the question remains unanswered as to why
exactly it might have been helpful. Insights gleaned from Mormon Studies can
help fill in that gap. Bushman (2004) addresses exactly the issue of why Smith
would present “a volume of translated reformed Egyptian as his initial claim
on the public’s attention” (p. 233). This question needs to be addressed,
particularly because of how unusual it is. After all, “religious young men of that
time” who felt called by God, or claimed to be so called, saw their path forward
as preachers (p. 234). This was a time and a place where only “the most
learned” among the “college-educated class would undertake a translation of
scripture” (p. 237). In short: “In conventional Protestant Christianity, learned
men translated the Bible, and pious young people became preachers like
Finney or Lorenzo Dow, not translators” (p. 242). Bushman argues that
Smith’s unusual role as a translator is in a way the product of his being caught
between two world views. He was raised in a culture where many people
believed in magic, including the “practice of divining with a stone” (pp. 241–
242). At yet, his was also a time when “Christian apologists vented their anger
on the remnants of magic carried down from an earlier time when magic and
religion mingled” (p. 242). Thus, Smith’s bringing forth of the Book of Mormon
as a translation is evidence that he still believed in “the magic culture of his
early life” and yet did not want to become “a target for attacks that would
cripple the work” he had engaged in (Bushman, 2004, p. 242). Thus, what was
helpful about presenting the Book of Mormon as a translation was that it
allowed Smith to position himself in a space between world views. Its nature
as a translation provided the religious project with a measure of secular
erudition, while the process of inspired divination rooted the project in long-
held religious tradition.
Of course, these insights highlight just how unusual Smith’s activity
was. He continued working on translation projects throughout his life, and in
many ways bound his prophetic call to his translation activity (see Brown,
2022). Every translation project that Smith engaged in was designed to further
his role as God’s mouthpiece to the word. This makes Smith an outlier as a
translator, at least until evidence can be found that translators commonly see
themselves as the oracles of God. It also makes his translation projects highly
unusual in the world of translation. This begs the question as to whether his
work can be categorized as that of translation at all. As stated above, the
18 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
difficulties in trying to understand Smith’s translation output are made clear
when seeing how Valdeón struggles to pack the Book of Mormon, the Bible,
the Book of Abraham into preexisting translation categories.
Here too, insights from Mormon Studies can help. Scholars in that field
have increasingly come to qualify the term translation when describing what
Smith was doing. For example, Flake (2007) argues that the verb translate
means something quite unique in the context of Smith’s ministry. She points
out that “[e]ach of Smith’s works is an elaboration on climactic moments in the
Bible story” (pp. 508-509). When he translated, he was in practice reading the
biblical text and reacting to it; thus, his translating was “his experience of
creative agency before a text and, simultaneously, his sense of being bound
by the text as an account of events or as history” (pp. 507-508). In this sense,
Smith can be understood to translate only in a metaphorical sense: his activity
is similar to translation in that it requires the study of a source text and a
reaction to it, but it is dissimilar to translation in that it is an expansion of the
source text (Flake, 2007, p. 508).
In other words, what Smith was doing is not what translation scholars
would really consider translation, whether that be intralinguistic, interlinguistic,
or intersemiotic. Increasingly, scholars who work for The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints point this out too. For example, in the presentation
to the Revelations and Translations series of The Joseph Smith Papers, a
clarification is made about how to understand the word translation in the
context of Smith’s output:
Translation refers to works such as the Book of Mormon that Joseph
Smith said were based on sacred, ancient texts and translated “by
the gift and power of God,” that is, by a revelatory or inspired process
and not by natural means. As used in this series, translation does
not refer to conventional translations. (Jensen et al., 2011, p. XIX)
Thus, translation in the case of Smith refers to a process where a text
of some sort–metallic plates, a printed Bible, Egyptian papyri–served as the
catalyst for the inspired or revealed dictation of a text. This process has been
compared, in Mormon Studies, to other religious experiences. In particular,
McAlister (2022) argues that the way Smith produced his translations is similar
to how gter ma Tibetan scripture is produced, namely, in that
both are said to have been authored by ancient religious figures,
buried with the anticipation of future discovery, discovered by
visionaries with the help of supernatural beings, and ‘translated’ from
an obscure language into the discoverers’ native tongue by
supernatural, revelatory means”. (pp. 41-43)
Gabriel González Núñez 19
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
Taking a less scholarly and more devotional approach, Richard Turley
and William Slaughter, who work for the LDS Church History Department, put
forward that “the translation came by revelation. Joseph could not read the
language on the plates by himself. He needed God’s help. With that help, he
could translate, even if he wasn’t looking directly at the record [source text]”
(Turley & Slaughter, 2011, p. 14). Perhaps, then, Latter-day Saints would be
better served by adopting a qualified term such as revealed translation to
describe Smith’s translation projects. This need for a different term may apply
to scholars as well. Terms such as metaphysical translation have been put
forth to move away from an understanding of Smith as a linguistic translator
(see Hickman, 2020).
Translation scholars too may benefit from understanding the non-
linguistic and expansive or even transgressive usage of translation by Smith.
The benefits may be in the expansion of a theoretical understanding of the
limits of the concept of translation. Another, more practical benefit, may be the
inclination to move beyond Smith when studying translation within
Mormonism. Scholars like López Alcalá have begun doing this by considering
other translation projects that involve other translators during other stages of
Mormon history. Translation, including interpreting, seems to be a constant
presence in the Mormon experience, not just because of Smith but because
its largest denomination, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is
experienced by most of its adherents through translation: its scriptures, its
magazines, its current teachings, its church-wide broadcasts, all emanate
mostly out of English into the languages of the world. Surely, many interesting
things can be learned about translation by looking beyond Joseph Smith. That
may no doubt be a fruitful way forward.
REFERENCES
A Translation. (1842, March 1). Times and Seasons, pp. 703–718. Retrieved
from https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-
abraham-and-facsimiles-1-march-16-may-1842/2
Barlow, P. L. (1991). Mormons and the Bible: The place of the Latter-day
Saints in American Religion. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199739035.001.0001
Bassnett, S., & Lefevere, A. (Eds.). (1990). Translation, history and culture.
Pinter.
Becerra, D., Easton-Flake, A. A., Frederick, N. J., & Spencer, J. M. (2022).
Book of Mormon Studies: An introduction and a guide. Religious
Studies Center, Brigham Young University.
20 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
Beckwith, F., Mosser, C., & Owen, P. (Eds.) (2002). The new Mormon
challenge: Responding to the latest defenses of a fast-growing
movement. Zondervan.
Brown, S. M. (2012). The language of heaven: Prolegomenon to the study of
Smithian translation. Journal of Mormon History, 38(3), 51‑71.
https://doi.org/10.2307/23291616
Brown, S. M. (2020). Joseph Smith’s translation: The words and worlds of
early Mormonism. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190054236.001.0001
Bushman, R. L. (2004). Joseph Smith as translator. In R. L. Neilson, & J.
Woodworth (Eds.), Believing history: Latter-day Saint essays
(pp. 233-247). Columbia University Press.
Bushman, R. L. (2005). Joseph Smith: Rough stone rolling. Alfred A. Knopf.
Chesterman, A. (2010). Book review. Theo Hermans. The conference of the
tongues. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies, 22(2),
356‑362. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.22.2.10che
Delabastita, D., & Grutman, R. (2021). Fictional representations of
multilingualism and translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series
– Themes in Translation Studies, 4, 12‑34.
https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v4i.124
Dennis, R. D. (2002). Llyfr Mormon: The translation of the Book of Mormon
into Welsh. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 11(1), 4549.
https://doi.org/10.5406/jbookmormstud.11.1.0045
Flake, K. (2007). Translating time: The nature and function of Joseph Smith’s
narrative canon. Journal of Religion, 87(4), 497-527.
https://doi.org/10.1086/519770
Gardner, B. A. (2011). The gift and power: Translating the Book of Mormon.
Greg Kofford Books.
Gessel, V. C. (2005). “Strange characters and expressions”: Three Japanese
translations of the Book of Mormon. Journal of Book of Mormon
Studies, 14(1), 32‑47.
https://doi.org/10.5406/jbookmormstud.14.1.0032
Givens, T. (2012, November 14). How Mormons became American. Religion
& Politics. Retrieved from
https://religionandpolitics.org/2012/11/14/how-mormons-became-
american/
Gabriel González Núñez 21
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
Givens, T., & Hauglid, B. (2019). The pearl of greatest price: Mormonism's
most controversial scripture. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190603861.001.0001
Hague, D. R. (2009). Prophets and pandemonium: creativity in the translating
self. New Voices in Translation Studies, 5(1), 16‑28.
https://doi.org/10.14456/nvts.2009.3
Hermans, T. (2007). The conference of the tongues. St. Jerome Publishing.
Hickman, J. (2020). “Bringing forth” the Book of Mormon: Translation as the
Reconfiguration of Bodies in Space-Time. In M. H. MacKay, M. Ashurst-
McGee, & B. M. Hauglid (Eds.), Producing ancient scripture: Joseph
Smith’s translation projects in the development of Mormon Christianity
(pp. 54‑80). The University of Utah Press.
Homer, M. W. (2002). Il Libro di Mormon: Anticipating growth beyond Italy’s
Waldensian Valleys. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 11(1), 40‑44.
https://doi.org/10.5406/jbookmormstud.11.1.0040
Israel, H. (Ed.). (2023). The Routledge handbook of translation and religion.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315443485
Jackson, K. P. (2010). Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible. In R. N.
Holzapfel, & K. P. Jackson (Eds.), Joseph Smith, the prophet and seer
(pp. 51-76). Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University.
Jakobson, R. (2012). On linguistic aspects of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.),
The Translation Studies reader (3rd ed.) (pp. 126-132). Routledge.
(Original work published 1959)
Jensen, R. S., Woodford, R. J., & Harper, S. C. (2011). Joseph Smith as
revelator and translator. In J. Smith Jr., Revelations and translations,
volume 1: Manuscript revelation books. The Church Historian’s Press.
López Alcalá, S. (2014). El traductor desherdadado: el teniento Melitón Trejo
y la primera traducción al español del Libro de Mormón en el siglo XIX.
1611. http://www.traduccionliteraria.org/1611/art/lopezalcala.htm
López Alcalá, S. (2017). Prophets and translators: Delineating habitus, field,
and capital in Mormon translation of sacred texts. mTm. Minor
Translating Major-Major Translating Minor-Minor Translating Minor, 9,
424‑444.
López Alcalá, S. (2020). Issues of explanation in translation history: An
example from US–Mexican religious historiography. Translation
Studies, 14(1), 51‑65. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2020.1777193
22 Mormonism through the Lens of Translation Studies
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
MacKay, M. H., Ashurst-McGee, M., & Hauglid, B. M. (Eds.). (2020).
Producing ancient scripture: Joseph Smith’s translation projects in the
development of Mormon Christianity. The University of Utah Press.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/book77401
McClellan, R. D. (2002). Traduit de l’Anglais: The first French Book of
Mormon. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 11(1), 29–34, 108–9.
https://doi.org/10.5406/jbookmormstud.11.1.0029
Neff, A. L. (1918). The Mormon migration to Utah, 1830‑1947. [Doctoral
dissertation, University of California-Berkely]. Haiti Trust.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b000944721&seq=7
Parry, D. W., Peterson, D. C., & Welch, J. W. (Eds.). (2002). Echoes and
evidences of the Book of Mormon. Foundation for Ancient Research
and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University.
Reynolds, N. B. (1999) The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon in the
Twentieth Century. BYU Studies Quarterly, 38(2), 7‑47.
Ritner, R. K. (Ed.). (2011). The Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri: A complete
edition. (R. K. Ritner, Trans.). Smith-Pettit Foundation.
Robinson, D. (2001). Who Translates? Translator subjectivities beyond
reason. State University of New York Press.
Scharffs, G. W. (2002). Das Buch Mormon: The German Translation of the
Book of Mormon. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 11(1), 35‑39, 109.
https://doi.org/10.5406/jbookmormstud.11.1.0035
Schleiermacher, F. (2012). On the different methods of translating (S.
Bernofsky, Trans.). In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies reader
(3rd. ed.) (pp. 43‑62). Routledge. (Original work published 1813)
Shepherd, D. (2002). Rendering fiction: Translation, pseudotranslation, and
the Book of Mormon. In F. Beckwith, C. Mosser, & P. Owen, (Eds.), The
new Mormon Challenge: Responding to the latest defenses of a fast-
growing movement (pp. 334‑395). Zondervan.
Takagi, S. (2009). Proclaiming the way in Japanese: The 1909 translation of
the Book of Mormon. Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other
Restoration Scripture, 18(2), 18‑37.
https://doi.org/10.5406/jbookmormotheres.18.2.0018
Tanner, D. M. (2022). The production of the Book of Mormon in light of a
Tibetan Buddhist parallel. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
55(4), 41‑88. https://doi.org/10.5406/15549399.55.4.02
Gabriel González Núñez 23
Hikma 23(2) (2024), 1 - 23
Turley, R. E., Jr., & Slaughter, W. W. (2011). How we got the Book of Mormon.
Deseret Book.
Todd, J. M. (1968). New light on Joseph Smith's Egyptian papyri.
Improvement Era, 71(2), 40‑49.
Toury, G. (2005). Enhancing cultural changes by means of fictitious
translations. In E. Hung (Ed.),Translation and cultural change. Studies
in history, norms, and image-projection (pp. 3‑17). John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.61.04tou
Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond (2nd. ed.).
John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100
Townsend, C. (2022). Envisioning scripture: Joseph Smith’s revelations in
their early American contexts. Signature Books.
Tvedtnes, J. A., & Roper, M. (2003). One small step. The FARMS Review,
15(1), 147‑199. https://doi.org/10.5406/farmsreview.15.1.0147
Valdeón, R. (2014). Joseph Smith’s uses of pseudo-, intralingual and
intersemiotic translation in the creation of the Mormon canon: The Book
of Mormon, the Bible and the Book of Abraham. Across Languages and
Cultures, 15(2), 219‑241. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.15.2014.2.4
Venuti, L. (2018). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation.
Routledge. (Original work published 1995)
Vidal, C., & África, M. C. (2010). Traducción y asimetría. Peter Lang.
https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-00766-4
Vogel, D. (2021). Book of Abraham apologetics: A review and critique.
Signature Books.
Zarandona, J. M. (2011). The different editions of The Book of Mormon in
Spanish, or the possibility of censored retranslation in search of quality,
accuracy and balance. Hikma, 10, 195-215.
https://doi.org/10.21071/hikma.v10i.5260
