Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

[Physics Guy]

Maybe at some point I'll find time for that. I'd prefer to wait until something is published in a linguistics journal rather than Interpreter, because I'd like to lower my risk of having to plow through a long argument that will turn out, on critique by relevant experts, to be invalid. For now I was just hoping to get quick answers to some basic questions. 

How has Carmack claimed to establish that Book of Mormon language could not be produced without native fluency in Early Modern English? Is he citing a large body of technical literature about complexity, creativity, and levels of fluency needed to achieve them? Does he have a lot of numbers bearing on these points specifically? Or is he just hand-waving about these issues, after providing a lot of corpus frequency data as window dressing?

Edited September 27, 2018 by Physics Guy

[Benjamin Seeker]

8 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Yes, I understand that's the argument of Skousen and Carmack. I'm not a linguist, but for what it's worth none of the talks I've heard at linguistics conferences or overheard from linguists around dinner tables have seemed to say much about concepts like "complexity of meaning and syntax", "originality", or "creativity". Those concepts sound pretty subjective. The argument that Smith could not have achieved such creative complexity doesn't sound very technical.

Do they have any quantitative measures for creativity and complexity, which can be compared to established ranges of quantified fluency that are needed to attain the given complexity levels? Or are they just saying, "Look, this is really creative and complex!" with no more authority in that judgement than anyone else would have?

I’m not sure where the creativity or complexity points are coming from. These were not discussed at the lecture and I’ve never seen them in their published work. Instead the arguments focus on syntax and usage. For example, they are unable to find matching syntax in JS’ letters or his 1832 history (though there does seem to be hick dialect or bad grammar there). I remember it having previously been discussed that they have been looking for similar syntax in things like others’ letters or journals from contemporaries, but no luck. I personally looked into some esoteric texts (from centuries previous to JS) that Quinn made a great argument for JS having checked out. I sent them to Carmack, but they don’t have the antiquated EmodE that’s in the BOM. On the usage front, there are examples of words that JS or the printer doesn’t understand their archaic meaning so they get edited and changed. Anyways, I don’t think creativity or complexity have anything to do with the argument, at least not in a direct way from the things I’ve read.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

I don’t think italics (or spelling or punctuation for that matter) is relevant to a dictated text transcribed with no punctuation. 

You miss the point:  It is specifically the words italicized in the KJV which are most often changed in the BofM quotations.  However, different editions of the KJV have different italics, thus making it crucial to note all of them.  I commented on this in my Book of Mormon Critical Text introduction, so this is not a new observation.  In fact others have likewise commented on this phenomenon.  Thus, close comparison with various editions of the KJV does in fact need to have the italic patterns noted.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Yes, I understand that's the argument of Skousen and Carmack. I'm not a linguist, but for what it's worth none of the talks I've heard at linguistics conferences or overheard from linguists around dinner tables have seemed to say much about concepts like "complexity of meaning and syntax", "originality", or "creativity". Those concepts sound pretty subjective. The argument that Smith could not have achieved such creative complexity doesn't sound very technical.

Do they have any quantitative measures for creativity and complexity, which can be compared to established ranges of quantified fluency that are needed to attain the given complexity levels? Or are they just saying, "Look, this is really creative and complex!" with no more authority in that judgement than anyone else would have?

First off, you cannot point to anyone who has been able to do that creative task of forgery.  Second, no one in Joseph's day even realized the meaning of such an assertion.  The sources for creating such a forgery did not even exist, much less the notion that there was such a thing as EModEnglish.  You cannot forge a thing which you are fully ignorant of.

Most important, Carmack has provided a greatly detailed series of academic studies (in Interpreter) which show in just what EModE consists of in the BofM.  You seem not to have read any of that, thus being blissfully unaware of the utter depth of complexity involved.  There is no sense in which a familiarity with both Shakespeare and the KJV could be used to create the BofM.  Neither Shakespeare nor the KJV include enough EModE to have made that even remotely possible.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I think the point is that most people were intimately familiar with Scriptural texts. So the question then becomes what is unique about the Book of Mormon manner. That is how are Carmack and Skousen quantifying this as beyond how KJV perfused much of the language of the era.

That is the opposite of my understanding of the case they are making, and certainly it is not true that people in Joseph's time had the requisite degree of familiarity with Scripture.  As I said, that would be very rare -- including only the occasional scholar who is not only steeped in Scripture, but likely has total recall as well.  There are people in every generation who have brilliant memories, but only very rarely are they also Scriptorians.

As J. K. Elliott has stated in his Preface to his translation of the New Testament Apocrypha,

Quote

    Allusions to a Biblical text are not noted: the nature of many of these apocryphal documents is such that their authors were so steeped in Biblical or liturgical language that many echoes of scriptural passages occur throughout the writings without being conscious quotations.  Elliott, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press/ Clarendon Press, 1993), xv.

 

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You miss the point:  It is specifically the words italicized in the KJV which are most often changed in the BofM quotations.  However, different editions of the KJV have different italics, thus making it crucial to note all of them.  I commented on this in my Book of Mormon Critical Text introduction, so this is not a new observation.  In fact others have likewise commented on this phenomenon.  Thus, close comparison with various editions of the KJV does in fact need to have the italic patterns noted.

I'm not looking at all instances of where the Book of Mormon changes the bible. That would be exhausting. I'm looking at instances of where the KJB changes over the years and where those instances are also in the Book of Mormon. This has nothing to do with italics. I do have an update, by the way. I found two more spelling changes on proper nouns: Caldeans/Chaldeans and Galile/Galilee and I also caught an earlier mistake (I hadn't check the earliest text for 2 Nephi 8:16). This brings the total number of changes to 13. Here's my latest tally.

The Book of Mormon agrees with:

1611 KJB in 2/13 instances

1638 KJB in 10/13 instances

1838 Phinney Bible in 11/13 instances

This indicates the 1611 KJB was likely not the primary bible used. However, the two instances indicates the writer may have been familiar with it. It also shows the Phinney Bible has a slightly better match rate than the 1638 KJB. There are a few things worth considering here. For many of the instances we have the Printer's Manuscript but not the Original Manuscript. So it's possible that copy errors were made that influence the match rate. I would be interested if copy errors we do know about from Oliver give evidence he was using a bible in producing the Printer's Manuscript.

It doesn't appear that any single bible was exclusively used to produce the Book of Mormon, however, it does appear likely to have been produced some time after 1638. Similarities to many English editions, the Latin Vulgate, the Greek NT, the LXX, and the Masoretic indicate a skilled philologist and biblical scholar was responsible. I would also be curious to see if Erasmus' Latin version and other notable versions show an influence. Hopefully this is part of what Skousen intends to accomplish in this Volume 3 Part 5.

[Physics Guy]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I’m not sure where the creativity or complexity points are coming from. These were not discussed at the lecture and I’ve never seen them in their published work.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

First off, you cannot point to anyone who has been able to do that creative task of forgery.  ... You seem not to have read any of that, thus being blissfully unaware of the utter depth of complexity involved.

So are complexity and creativity an important part of the Skousen-Carmack theory, or not?

It seems to me that they must be, because how easy it would have been for a 16th century writer to produce the Book of Mormon says nothing about how hard it would have been for Joseph Smith to do it. As I said in another thread, the fact that Lebron James can routinely hit a three-point basket is not the reason why it's hard for the rest of us. So regardless of how good a match Book of Mormon language may be with 1580 or whatever, the question remains how likely it would be to produce that language in 1830. I ask again: what kind of argument is being made to establish that it was very unlikely?

So far the only quantitative data I'm hearing are about usage patterns among books printed in various centuries, apparently indicating that you can find grammar closer to that of the Book of Mormon in the 16th century than in any later times. How is it being argued, though, that the only way to produce such grammar is to live in the 16th century?

From what Benjamin Seeker says, it sounds as though this is not actually being argued at all by Carmack and Skousen. Is it just being presumed that it is obvious? It's not obvious to me.

Feel free to assume that I'm just obtuse on this point. I'd still encourage anyone who is keen on this Skousen-Carmack thesis to try to humor me by spelling the simple argument out carefully. It's the question that you most want to brush aside as obviously stupid, but somehow can't easily answer, that always has the greatest chance of being the reason your whole idea is flawed. So one should always force oneself to answer the stupid questions, just to be sure that one actually can.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

So are complexity and creativity an important part of the Skousen-Carmack theory, or not?

It seems to me that they must be, because how easy it would have been for a 16th century writer to produce the Book of Mormon says nothing about how hard it would have been for Joseph Smith to do it. As I said in another thread, the fact that Lebron James can routinely hit a three-point basket is not the reason why it's hard for the rest of us. So regardless of how good a match Book of Mormon language may be with 1580 or whatever, the question remains how likely it would be to produce that language in 1830. I ask again: what kind of argument is being made to establish that it was very unlikely?

So far the only quantitative data I'm hearing are about usage patterns among books printed in various centuries, apparently indicating that you can find grammar closer to that of the Book of Mormon in the 16th century than in any later times. How is it being argued, though, that the only way to produce such grammar is to live in the 16th century?

From what Benjamin Seeker says, it sounds as though this is not actually being argued at all by Carmack and Skousen. Is it just being presumed that it is obvious? It's not obvious to me.

Feel free to assume that I'm just obtuse on this point. I'd still encourage anyone who is keen on this Skousen-Carmack thesis to try to humor me by spelling the simple argument out carefully. It's the question that you most want to brush aside as obviously stupid, but somehow can't easily answer, that always has the greatest chance of being the reason your whole idea is flawed. So one should always force oneself to answer the stupid questions, just to be sure that one actually can.

Part of the problem with this discussion is that the work being done by Skousen and Carmack is multifaceted. Skousen has been working on a cricitcal text project of the BOM since the 80s. He’s published his version of the Earliest Text with Yale. He’s also produced a bunch of volumes detailing all the changes in the text over the years and various editions, explaining  recommendations for the earliest readings, and analyzing the earliest text. The likelihood that JS could have authored the BOM text isn’t the main point of Skousen’s work. His main point is to describe the original English text of the BOM, to present the data in minute detail, etc. Carmack has worked as coauthor with Skousen on his volumes, particularly in the analysis of the text.

However, Carmack has also authored some of his own papers through interpreter. Some of these have focused on archaic syntax in the BOM text. At least one has dealt more directly with the likelihood of JS authoring the text by analyzing the syntax of JS’ 1832 history, part of which JS wrote and part of which he dictated. 

All of that being said, Skousen and Carmack both made that point at the lecture that due to the widespread use of archaic usage and syntax in the BOM, the usage matching the 1530s - 1730s and the syntax best matching the late 1500s, it is extremely unlikely that JS could have authored the text. They have looked for evidence of similar EmodE syntax and usage in sources available to JS such as the KJV as well as in sources representing hick 19th century dialect. They haven’t found it. Skousen didn’t press on the JS authorship issue very much at the lecture. However they did go to some length to show that the BOM is not copying KJV language in its syntax and grammar, and he did forcefully make the point that casual claims about the BOM being a mixture of pseudo KJV and JS’ back country dialect can no longer be taken seriously.

Hopefully this helps fill in some of the details.

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

So are complexity and creativity an important part of the Skousen-Carmack theory, or not?

It seems to me that they must be, because how easy it would have been for a 16th century writer to produce the Book of Mormon says nothing about how hard it would have been for Joseph Smith to do it. As I said in another thread, the fact that Lebron James can routinely hit a three-point basket is not the reason why it's hard for the rest of us. So regardless of how good a match Book of Mormon language may be with 1580 or whatever, the question remains how likely it would be to produce that language in 1830. I ask again: what kind of argument is being made to establish that it was very unlikely?

The normal acceptable form of scholarly writing in say 1540 was EModE.  One does not need to be particularly creative or a master of complexity to write one's own form of discourse.  That comes naturally.  Creativity and complexity of EModE must, however, be mastered by the would-be forger from a much later era.  And such a forger would have to know that there was in fact something called "EModEnglish."  Since neither is the case, it appears that your dog won't hunt.

2 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

So far the only quantitative data I'm hearing are about usage patterns among books printed in various centuries, apparently indicating that you can find grammar closer to that of the Book of Mormon in the 16th century than in any later times. How is it being argued, though, that the only way to produce such grammar is to live in the 16th century?

One sometimes runs across attempts to archaize, and they are notably unsuccessful -- as for example for John A. Goodchild's 1897 Book of Tephi, or the Scottish forgeries of James Macpherson, even though Beowulf is authentic.  See Gordon K. Thomas, “The Book of Mormon in the English Literary Context of 1837,” BYU Studies, 27/1 (Winter 1987):41-44; Thomas also covers the forgeries of Thomas Chatterton (40-41); yet he also notes the nearly miraculous survival of many authentic medieval English ballads and poems, including Beowulf  (39-40).

2 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

From what Benjamin Seeker says, it sounds as though this is not actually being argued at all by Carmack and Skousen. Is it just being presumed that it is obvious? It's not obvious to me.

Feel free to assume that I'm just obtuse on this point. I'd still encourage anyone who is keen on this Skousen-Carmack thesis to try to humor me by spelling the simple argument out carefully. It's the question that you most want to brush aside as obviously stupid, but somehow can't easily answer, that always has the greatest chance of being the reason your whole idea is flawed. So one should always force oneself to answer the stupid questions, just to be sure that one actually can.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

I'm not looking at all instances of where the Book of Mormon changes the bible. That would be exhausting. I'm looking at instances of where the KJB changes over the years and where those instances are also in the Book of Mormon. This has nothing to do with italics. I do have an update, by the way. I found two more spelling changes on proper nouns: Caldeans/Chaldeans and Galile/Galilee and I also caught an earlier mistake (I hadn't check the earliest text for 2 Nephi 8:16). This brings the total number of changes to 13. Here's my latest tally.

The Book of Mormon agrees with:

1611 KJB in 2/13 instances

1638 KJB in 10/13 instances

1838 Phinney Bible in 11/13 instances

This indicates the 1611 KJB was likely not the primary bible used. However, the two instances indicates the writer may have been familiar with it. It also shows the Phinney Bible has a slightly better match rate than the 1638 KJB. There are a few things worth considering here. For many of the instances we have the Printer's Manuscript but not the Original Manuscript. So it's possible that copy errors were made that influence the match rate. I would be interested if copy errors we do know about from Oliver give evidence he was using a bible in producing the Printer's Manuscript.

Keep in mind that John Gilbert set type directly from the Original Manuscript of the BofM from Hela 13:17 to the end of Mormon, so that section (1/6 of the BofM) might be more like the original dictation and have fewer of Oliver's copying errors.  Thus one could consult the 1830 ed in those cases to see if there is a pattern.

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

It doesn't appear that any single bible was exclusively used to produce the Book of Mormon, however, it does appear likely to have been produced some time after 1638. Similarities to many English editions, the Latin Vulgate, the Greek NT, the LXX, and the Masoretic indicate a skilled philologist and biblical scholar was responsible. I would also be curious to see if Erasmus' Latin version and other notable versions show an influence. Hopefully this is part of what Skousen intends to accomplish in this Volume 3 Part 5.

Maybe.

[Physics Guy]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Creativity and complexity of EModE must, however, be mastered by the would-be forger from a much later era.  And such a forger would have to know that there was in fact something called "EModEnglish."  Since neither is the case, it appears that your dog won't hunt.

Again, the "creativity and complexity" argument appears to just be an assertion, and one that (is this right?) Royal Skousen is not making. Just what is there in the Book of Mormon that no-one from 1830 could possibly have written? What precisely would have stopped them from writing it? Try to spell this out, instead of just insisting on the conclusion. I suggest that it's harder than you want it to be.

For example, why on Earth would a forger need to know that EModE was a thing? Nobody is suggesting that Smith deliberately imitated pre-KJV English. The skeptical theory is that he was trying to imitate KJV English and made over-archaizing mistakes. 

Quote

One sometimes runs across attempts to archaize, and they are notably unsuccessful -- as for example for John A. Goodchild's 1897 Book of Tephi, or the Scottish forgeries of James Macpherson, even though Beowulf is authentic.  See Gordon K. Thomas, “The Book of Mormon in the English Literary Context of 1837,” BYU Studies, 27/1 (Winter 1987):41-44; Thomas also covers the forgeries of Thomas Chatterton (40-41); yet he also notes the nearly miraculous survival of many authentic medieval English ballads and poems, including Beowulf  (39-40).

The skeptical theory is that the Book of Mormon is also an unsuccessful attempt to archaize, in that it aimed at the KJV but failed to nail it. Where Carmack apparently sees skillful "blending" of EModE and King James English, a skeptic sees a single fake dialect of amateur Bible-ese whose grammar ranges erratically between accurate KJV and older forms.

[Physics Guy]

This is just a shot in the dark, but I've been wondering about it. Are Mormon apologists who are trying to use Skousen's work aware that language is productive?

"Productivity" means that people don't just parrot things we've heard before. We don't have to have heard or read any particular utterance in order to say it. We infer grammatical rules as forms that can be filled with arbitrary new content. Speaking is creatively stringing words together however one likes, quite regardless of whether or not you've ever heard that string of words before, as long as you respect grammatical rules as you understand them.

Productivity can be surprising if one has never thought much about language. People do sometimes assume that the only way to know how to say something is to have heard it from someone else. To realize that this is not true at all, one can take Linguistics 101; or one can listen to children who are still learning language, or to adults (including oneself) who are learning a new language. Errors of overgeneralization are frequent: you think you grasp a rule, but you don't have it quite right, or you don't realize its limits, and so you make mistakes. The explanation for these mistakes is not that you heard the incorrect expressions somewhere and copied them. You never heard them because no-one else says them because they're ungrammatical. Nonetheless you say them, because you are creatively producing language under inaccurate rules.

So if the Book of Mormon contains some expression which never appears in the King James Bible, one cannot by any means conclude that Joseph Smith could not have written that sentence because he would never have heard that particular construction. One has to ask whether he might have thought, mistakenly, that utterances of that form were correct King James English, and produced a novel utterance following an invalid inferred rule. That would absolutely be normal and expected from someone who was trying to write in a dialect in which they were only partially fluent. I often come out with something like that myself in German, and my German friends can sometimes scratch their heads and figure out why I could have thought it would be right, even though it's quite wrong.

Ruling out every possible productive error that might have made Smith write some non-KJV expression? Phew, that's a tall order. Practically impossible, in fact, since it's so hard to be sure you haven't just overlooked a possible misunderstanding on Smith's part. So yeah, the playing field is inherently tilted heavily against the Mormon apologist who is trying to rule out Smith authorship on linguistic grounds.

I sympathize, but the problem of linguistic productivity is real and big. One simply cannot conclude, from the absence of any given construction in Smith's own linguistic experience, that he could not possibly have written it. One would have to establish the much more difficult conclusion that he could never have mistakenly thought that this construction would have been acceptable KJV English. And we're not talking here about ruling out far-fetched scenarios. Errors from mistakenly generalized production are common. Not taking them into account is ignoring an elephant.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Physics Guy

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

Again, the "creativity and complexity" argument appears to just be an assertion, and one that (is this right?) Royal Skousen is not making. Just what is there in the Book of Mormon that no-one from 1830 could possibly have written? What precisely would have stopped them from writing it? Try to spell this out, instead of just insisting on the conclusion. I suggest that it's harder than you want it to be.

The detailed data has already been presented for all to see by Carmack in  a long series of articles in Interpreter and elsewhere.  You are not obligated to be "confused by the facts," unless you really want to know what EModE is.  It is apparent that you do not want to know what EModE is, and therefore cannot assess it.

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

For example, why on Earth would a forger need to know that EModE was a thing? Nobody is suggesting that Smith deliberately imitated pre-KJV English. The skeptical theory is that he was trying to imitate KJV English and made over-archaizing mistakes. 

Here again, ignorance of EModE can certainly lead one to believe that it just didn't exist, or that (even if it did) it had nothing to do with the BofM.  Sorry, but that is the classic head-in-sand approach.  Joseph was clearly ignorant of the entire program which you are suggesting here.  EModE does not appear by accident or by some sort of imaginary and mistaken effort to archaize.

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

The skeptical theory is that the Book of Mormon is also an unsuccessful attempt to archaize, in that it aimed at the KJV but failed to nail it. Where Carmack apparently sees skillful "blending" of EModE and King James English, a skeptic sees a single fake dialect of amateur Bible-ese whose grammar ranges erratically between accurate KJV and older forms.

You are mixing apples and oranges here, as though the laws of physics and alchemy could be freely blended.  Newton never made that mistake, even though he was an alchemist and sorcerer, as well as a physicist.  The blending Carmack discerns has nothing to do with EModE.  It is a very different phenomemon, often termed intertextuality.  Carmack's work does in no sense point to your phony notion of "a single fake dialect of amateur Bible-ese," etc.  That is a  monstrous suggestion not in keeping with the evidence.  Were it true, it would be easy to demonstrate.

[Gervin]

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The skeptical theory is that the Book of Mormon is also an unsuccessful attempt to archaize, in that it aimed at the KJV but failed to nail it. Where Carmack apparently sees skillful "blending" of EModE and King James English, a skeptic sees a single fake dialect of amateur Bible-ese whose grammar ranges erratically between accurate KJV and older forms.

I didn't know this word, "archaize" until this thread.  What a great word. 

So, what happens when the archaizer(s) attempt to archaize using a variety of source materials, some of which, are themselves, poor and/or successful archaizations (if that's even a word)?

A good example might be The Late War ("If you've ever wanted to read about the War of 1812 in the style of the Bible, this is the book for you." -Reader Review, Goodreads).  A not-so-good example might be some of the fiction of Solomon Spaulding ("I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every other sentence with "and it came to pass" or "now it came to pass" -John Spalding). 

[Benjamin Seeker]

8 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Again, the "creativity and complexity" argument appears to just be an assertion, and one that (is this right?) Royal Skousen is not making. Just what is there in the Book of Mormon that no-one from 1830 could possibly have written? What precisely would have stopped them from writing it? Try to spell this out, instead of just insisting on the conclusion. I suggest that it's harder than you want it to be.

For example, why on Earth would a forger need to know that EModE was a thing? Nobody is suggesting that Smith deliberately imitated pre-KJV English. The skeptical theory is that he was trying to imitate KJV English and made over-archaizing mistakes. 

The skeptical theory is that the Book of Mormon is also an unsuccessful attempt to archaize, in that it aimed at the KJV but failed to nail it. Where Carmack apparently sees skillful "blending" of EModE and King James English, a skeptic sees a single fake dialect of amateur Bible-ese whose grammar ranges erratically between accurate KJV and older forms.

They did discuss some data at the lecture showing how the BOM often takes a contrasting approach to syntax for a given structure , and often (always?) that contrasting approach fits earlier EmodE. For example, in comparing “they that” vs. “they which” vs. “they who(m),” the mixture of uses in the KJV vs the BOM is nearly opposite, and the BOM mixture fits earlier EmodE.

Since your skeptical guess is pseudo-KJV, you may take the time to skim this article: https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/is-the-book-of-mormon-a-pseudo-archaic-text/. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve read it, but it is exactly the argument your dealing with.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

They did discuss some data at the lecture showing how the BOM often takes a contrasting approach to syntax for a given structure , and often (always?) that contrasting approach fits earlier EmodE. For example, in comparing “they that” vs. “they which” vs. “they who(m),” the mixture of uses in the KJV vs the BOM is nearly opposite, and the BOM mixture fits earlier EmodE.

Since your skeptical guess is pseudo-KJV, you may take the time to skim this article: https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/is-the-book-of-mormon-a-pseudo-archaic-text/. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve read it, but it is exactly the argument your dealing with.

What percentage of the book of mormon is supposedly EmodE?

[Benjamin Seeker]

11 minutes ago, Exiled said:

What percentage of the book of mormon is supposedly EmodE?

I don’t have a clue. Sorry.

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I don’t have a clue. Sorry.

Isn't the Skousen/Carmack theory that someone from the EmodE period (1500 to 1800 in some sources) was the first to compose or "translate" the book of mormon text and then Joseph Smith "translated" it again into the english from his time?  Except that Joseph didn't go all the way and left some EmodE in there?  Or am I off? 

[Benjamin Seeker]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

What percentage of the book of mormon is supposedly EmodE?

I should say though that the EmodE syntax and usage is pervasive throughout the text. Though Randall Bowen wrote an article showing some data about the different trends in the BOM text, and he did have a trend for some of the EmodE. His blog is the churchistrue blog. I’m sure you could find it.

[Exiled]

Just now, Benjamin Seeker said:

I should say though that the EmodE syntax and usage is pervasive throughout the text. Though Randall Bowen wrote an article showing some data about the different trends in the BOM text, and he did have a trend for some of the EmodE. His blog is the churchistrue blog. I’m sure you could find it.

I am familiar with his blog and have read some of his work.  He doesn't believe in an historical book of mormon if I recall.

[Benjamin Seeker]

35 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I am familiar with his blog and have read some of his work.  He doesn't believe in an historical book of mormon if I recall.

True, and neither do I.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Isn't the Skousen/Carmack theory that someone from the EmodE period (1500 to 1800 in some sources) was the first to compose or "translate" the book of mormon text and then Joseph Smith "translated" it again into the english from his time?  Except that Joseph didn't go all the way and left some EmodE in there?  Or am I off? 

 No, you’ve got that all wrong. Skousen and Carmack actually don’t even have a theory of how the book of Mormon was translated. They currently espouse a speculation free approach to  that aspect. In the past Skousen did speculate about a translation that was done in the spirit world and then revealed word for word to JS, but Skousen specifically has walked that back.

At this past lecture, they described the earliest text of the translation including the early modern English syntax and usage, and then pointed out that Joseph Smith is an unlikely candidate to have authored the English text of the BOM.

Carmack has written articles showing how JS shouldn’t be considered the author/translator of the English text, but beyond attributing the translation to God, Carmack hasn’t gone into any specifics that I’m aware of.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 No, you’ve got that all wrong. Skousen and Carmack actually don’t even have a theory of how the book of Mormon was translated. They currently espouse a speculation free approach to  that aspect. In the past Skousen did speculate about a translation that was done in the spirit world and then revealed word for word to JS, but Skousen specifically has walked that back.

At this past lecture, they described the earliest text of the translation including the early modern English syntax and usage, and then pointed out that Joseph Smith is an unlikely candidate to have authored the English text of the BOM.

Carmack has written articles showing how JS shouldn’t be considered the author/translator of the English text, but beyond attributing the translation to God, Carmack hasn’t gone into any specifics that I’m aware of.

So, if Joseph shouldn't be considered the author or translator, what should we make of the statement that Joseph himself said of translating the book of mormon by the gift and power of God?  Was he not telling the truth? Misled?  Also, why did he have to resort to a rock and hat when he just simply could have used available materials to him to translate the work from EmodE to modern english?  In reality, God could have had someone versed in EmodE and modern english to do the work instead of a backwoods farm boy.  Or better yet, why not just dictate the book like God did with the Book of Moses, supposedly?  Having the thing go through EmodE on its way to us seems far fetched but God seems to want to hide the ball, or at least allow the ball to be hidden by trusting the fallible. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, if Joseph shouldn't be considered the author or translator, what should we make of the statement that Joseph himself said of translating the book of mormon by the gift and power of God?  Was he not telling the truth? Misled?  Also, why did he have to resort to a rock and hat when he just simply could have used available materials to him to translate the work from EmodE to modern english?  In reality, God could have had someone versed in EmodE and modern english to do the work instead of a backwoods farm boy.  Or better yet, why not just dictate the book like God did with the Book of Moses, supposedly?  Having the thing go through EmodE on its way to us seems far fetched but God seems to want to hide the ball, or at least allow the ball to be hidden by trusting the fallible. 

It still seems like there is confusion going on here. The idea is that whatever JS dictated is the text with EmodE. JS isn’t translating EmodE into modern English, he’s just dictating a text which is full of EmodE.

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

It still seems like there is confusion going on here. The idea is that whatever JS dictated is the text with EmodE. JS isn’t translating EmodE into modern English, he’s just dictating a text which is full of EmodE.

This doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.  Why would God have someone else translate or compose some text and then force the text through the rock and hat?  Why not be more direct here?  Just have the original translator/composer step forward, without the theatrics. I don't have any reason to doubt EmodE in the book of mormon, but this explanation for why it is there seems really out there.