I am Sion

"...they have called you an outcast: ‘It is Sion, for whom no one cares!"
Menu ☰

Translating Sacred Texts:

Integrity, Discernment, and Truth

⚖️ Author’s Note

This teaching outlines the least-one-can-do process that I believe anyone — with or without claiming divine guidance — should have followed under the circumstances.

It is not an attempt to include every detail or exhaustive step that should be taken. It also does not account for the additional requirements that would come with genuine divine guidance. This is simply a generic version of what I would have done if I had found gold plates back then, using reason, integrity, and available tools. It is offered both as an objective framework for responsible translation and as a critique of methods that lack transparency or integrity. My aim is not to attack individuals or beliefs, but to uphold the principles of truthfulness, reverence, and accountability when handling claims of revelation.

1. We Don’t Have to Imagine the Process

Translation isn’t guesswork—it’s a disciplined process:

If the text claims Hebrew origins—as Joseph Smith did—then it should align with known Hebrew patterns. “Reformed Egyptian” has no historical attestation, and modern tools make such claims easier to test.

2. Languages Don’t Work in Degrees

Natural languages don’t operate in vague layers of translation. Either you understand the source language or you don’t. If someone fails at the first level, they won’t succeed at deeper ones. Translation requires clarity, not mystical intuition.

3. Expected Terms in Ancient Texts

If the text is genuinely ancient and Hebrew-rooted, we’d expect:

In Daniel, the KJV translators rendered “anointed one” as “Messiah” because the phrase “to anoint the most Holy” clearly refers to God. Their choice to transliterate the term as a title was theologically sound—and they marked interpretive additions with italics to maintain transparency.

🕒 Language Must Be Consistent with Time and Culture

A genuine sacred text will reflect the vocabulary, worldview, and linguistic limitations of its claimed origin. What we would never expect are terms that are future, foreign, or culturally disconnected from the setting. The Book of Mormon contains many such anachronisms, including:

📜 Language-Based Anachronisms

Christ – Greek title unknown to pre-Christian Israelites.

Bible – From Greek biblia, centuries after the Book of Mormon’s timeline.

Church, Synagogue, Alpha and Omega, Christian, Apostle, Crucifixion, Baptism – All rooted in Greek or Roman contexts.

🐎 Cultural and Technological Anachronisms

Horses, Cattle, Swine, Elephants

Steel, Chariots, Silk, Wheat

Compass (called “Liahona”), Coins

🧠 Conceptual Anachronisms

Priestcraft – Reflects Protestant-era critiques. See 2 Nephi 26:29

Democracy and Elections – Mirrors Enlightenment political ideals.

Free agency – A modern LDS theological term.

The presence of these terms suggests retroactive insertion or cultural borrowing — not divine foresight. True prophecy may foreshadow future events, but it does not use future vocabulary unknown to its original audience

4. What Would “Bible” Look Like?

In ancient terms, we’d expect:

"Once I determine that it is not of God, I cannot attribute godly qualities to it. Instead, I must recognize it as common or pagan in origin. For example, 2 Nephi 29 presents a prophecy that fails to meet biblical standards of divine revelation. It speaks of two groups—the Jews and the Nephites—whose testimonies are said to run together. Yet these groups never met, nor could they have, as one went extinct long before any possible interaction. As this chapter asserts divine authority without historical or scriptural coherence, it must be regarded as a failed prophecy—and therefore, not of God."
If a book claims to be ‘Bible,’ it should bear the marks of scripture: clarity, reverence, and the spirit of Christ. When we test the Book of Mormon against that standard, the results are telling.”

Note for example: 2 Nephi 3 repeats the phrase ‘thy loins’ fifteen times in a single chapter. This isn’t poetic — it’s embarrassing verbal clutter. The obsessive repetition borders on lasciviousness, undermining the dignity and holiness expected of divine speech. It reads like someone trying to sound prophetic while losing grip on clarity, reverence, and restraint. True revelation elevates the soul; this passage feels like a parody of scripture—rambling, redundant, and spiritually tone-deaf. What are we to make of such a chapter? Whether the fault lies with Joseph Smith or the fictional Nephi, the result is the same: it is not of God. What spirit is speaking here? Perhaps Bacchus?

Also note 3 Nephi 9 presents a voice claiming to be Jesus, listing the destruction of entire cities—burned, drowned, buried—then pivoting abruptly to an invitation: ‘Come unto me.’ The emotional whiplash is staggering. Defenders might argue ‘they were warned,’ but the text offers no sustained prophetic warning to justify such devastation. More troubling is the tone: it resembles a toddler’s tantrum—lashing out in fury, then seeking affection without accountability. This is not the Jesus of the Gospels. It is a distortion marked by self-centeredness, not divine compassion. See Luke 9:54-56

“If this were truly a translation, the spirit behind it would be Christ. Yet the tone and content reveal another spirit entirely. What we have is not divine revelation, but Joseph Smith’s commentary and/or his attempt to sound prophetic by inserting himself into ‘scripture.’ This is not the word of God. See Genesis 49:16; John 7:24”

5. Translation Requires Honesty

Even poetic or contextual choices must be explained. If I translate “anointed one” as “Messiah,” I owe the reader a rationale. Integrity demands:

But never: “God told me this word”—unless He truly did.

6. The Danger of False Attribution

If Joseph Smith had said, “This is my translation or commentary,” that would be one thing. But claiming “This is of God” when it is not is a serious offense:

“To falsely attribute human words to God is not just error—it is blasphemy or presumptuousness.”

7. The Case of Daniel and the KJV Translators

In Daniel, we see “God as Messiah” in the translation. That’s why a title was required. What the KJV translators did wasn’t incorrect—they transliterated the word as a proper name, “Messiah,” because the context made it clear: this was not just any anointed one, but the Most Holy.

The phrase “to anoint the most Holy” signals divinity, not generality. So their choice to elevate the term into a title was theologically sound, and they still marked their interpretive decisions with italics elsewhere to maintain transparency.

✨ What a Divinely Guided Process Would Require

This teaching does not attempt to outline every step of such a divine process. It simply offers a generic or minimal version of what I would have done if I had found gold plates, using reason, integrity, and available tools. A truly divine process would go beyond this.