Of course this “translation” takes great liberties with the English text. I do not argue that it represents the actual underlying text but rather that it may simulate that text. In both Maya and Nahua poetry, the imagery comes in shorter and more powerful phrasings, so I have restructured the English ideas to provide a more Mesoamerican poetic flavor.
Mormon is clearly creating a poetic parallel between the lions and the dragons. When we add the religious/military significance of those images in Mesoamerica, the description of the Limhites’ fighting fury takes on new meanings. In addition to the strength of arms alone is the implication of a divine presence (“God’s”). In poetic terms, Mormon not only describes their efforts but also emphasizes the role God played in the victory.
John Sorenson has also identified the dragon as a Mesoamerican motif but missed the parallel to the lion and suggested that the dragon is the caiman or the earth monster. While the caiman is certainly a respectable candidate for the dragon, being one of the few large predators of the area, its association with earth ignores the significant military associations of the war serpent of Mormon’s time. Clearly there is not enough evidence to draw firm conclusions, but the war serpent appears to fit the context better.
Translation: What are the implications of this passage for Joseph Smith’s translation process? While acknowledging the speculative nature of my poetic recasting, recasting the verses increases their meaning by incorporating the appropriate Mesoamerican context (lions = jaguars/ dragons = war serpents). Thus, this passage is another example to reinforce the idea that our current English text relates to the underlying original language on the basis of meaning, rather than literal translation.