Ryan Dahle

That doesn't seem to be the right question. Neither Skousen nor Carmack seem to think the text was translated by a human author living in the 1500s. They think the text was revealed to Smith by revelation. And that opens up many new, but mostly untestable, authorship possibilities. It may be helpful to think of this more like an unexpected scientific discovery that has a lot of supporting data but can't yet be fully explained, especially in the deeper sense of why things exist as they do. Nearly every scientific discipline faces this on some level. And when scientists encounter unexpected data or reach the edge of their observable domain, they often enter into a phase of multiple hypothesis formulations without any definitive or compelling answers. Similar types of problems often arise in contexts of human society and behavior. Consider a murder case that goes cold. There may be enough evidence to strongly indicate that someone was murdered (in contrast to an accident or some other cause of death), but in some circumstances investigators simply don't find enough evidence to identify the culprit. They might be able to rule out many suspects, but that doesn't mean they will have a full working theory for who committed the crime or what the motivation was. The issue of the language of the Book of Mormon is actually quite similar to this. Skousen and Carmack feel they have strong enough data to rule out Joseph Smith as the likely author of the text. They can look at the language of the text, look at the language of Smith's milieu, look at examples of pseudo-biblical writings from the same period, look at language from earlier periods, and then make judgments based on robust sets of data and known principles of language use and acquisition. So, contrary to the narrator's repeated claims that they aren't engaging in linguistics, they actually are doing so. They are studying the text with the linguistic tools and databases available to them, and then reaching conclusions based on that data, as well as their own faith-convictions and the historical circumstances related Smith's dictation of the Book of Mormon. What Skousen and Carmack don't have is a lot of data about what happens on the other side of the veil. Nor do they have a lot of data about how God would go about facilitating a divine translation (not exactly a lot of specific precedents for that in scriptural data). So a good place to start would be to list out every factor in the spirit world and other heavenly realms that might possibly influence the translation of a text, as well as all of the assumptions that we might have about those realms. What is known for certain, what is less certain, and what is entirely speculative based on LDS scriptural data and other modern sources of doctrine? As I have attempted to do this myself, I realized pretty quickly that there are just a lot of unknowns, all across the board, involving just about every facet that one might imagine. We might consider factors such as: How does language and knowledge of mortal life transition into the next life? What types of languages are spoken by angelic beings? Is the gift of tongues always activated, or do spirits have more normative language acquisition processes in some contexts? What types of activities are being accomplished by spirits in the Spirit World? And to what extent do those activities relate to mortality? What types of books and texts are available in the Spirit World? How are they used? Who are they for? If God were to carry out translation for human audiences, what process would he use? Would he delegate it to a council or committee? Who would be part of such a council? Were beings from different time periods involved in the translation process? Did they speak different languages? Was the gift of tongues involved? What even is that gift, specifically and how would it work for a human translation? Or were the divine being operating more based on their own individual development and progress, without heightened linguistic gifts? Are there various versions of the Book of Mormon in the Spirit World? If so, when was the first one created? What language was it in? Do translations take place in that realm for the inhabitants there? What were all of the specific purposes and goals of the Book of Mormon's translation? Who are all of the intended audiences of the Book of Mormon, and were different aspects of the text intended to be meaningful to different audiences in different time periods? To what degree is God controlling the quantity and quality of evidence that might become available in support of the Book of Mormon's authenticity and divine origins? Are there any symbolic components to the language of the Book of Mormon? If so, what is intended? I'm sure more questions could be asked, but the point is simply that there are a LOT of questions that would first need to be answered before one can meaningfully propose or critique any specific theory of translation which posits that one or more divine entities were involved in the process. I think this is why Skousen and Carmack are not attempting to develop a detailed explanation for specifically how the text was divinely translated or why it possesses the features it does. So I think the debate primarily rests on the two following elements: (Element 1) All of the data that points away from Smith's authorship (nuanced analysis of grammar, lexis, and syntax involving a wide variety of features) provided by Skousen and Carmack (Element 2) The various limitations of the data and the underlying assumptions that are being used to interpret it (gaps in the databases, spoken vs. written language, idiolectic tendencies, varying abilities to mimic archaism, availability of archaic sources in Smith's environment, etc.) If it turns out that the linguistic data and analysis provided by Skousen and Carmack (Element 1) is actually pretty compelling and that the efforts to question or undermine it (Element 2) are actually not very valid or significant, then one will naturally be more open to the revealed-words hypothesis, despite the remaining unknowns about why the text is the way it is. One would simply assume that there could be multiple unknown factors that may have led to the specific nature of the text. In contrast, if it turns out that one or more of the issues identified in Element 2 sufficiently undermine the data and analysis in Element 1, then there wouldn't be much of a need to assume a divinely-revealed English text in the first place (since one or more factors could reasonably explain how Smith may have produced it, despite the data marshaled in Element 1). In short, I don't think it is enough to point to the fact that proponents of the revealed-words hypothesis can't explain why the text is the way it is. Everyone agrees that limitation is at play. What isn't agreed on is what significance that limitation should have relative to the rest of the data, considering all of the unknowns about divine entities and processes.

Do they? It’s so hard for me to follow. Actually, that isn't quite correct. You have to actually go read their research to sift through the nuances. Many summaries online are likely going to misrepresent their claims in some way.

Well, considering that you jumped straight to the accusation that Carmack was categorically lying when making his statements, one may question your own ability to accurately characterize what he was indeed claiming or implying. Technically speaking, his claims appear to be accurate. By Davis's own admission, multiple people were involved in helping review or contribute to his article (as would be expected of an article submitted to an academic journal). Davis named three people, as well as other "anonymous readers" (note the plural), for their contributions. The natural conclusion would be that multiple people helped review the article and gave suggestions that in some substantial way contributed to the article's creation/production. And since Carmack's comments were each contextualized by a lack of error correction, it seems pretty clear what he intended by his statements. Carmack's point was simply that none of those involved appeared to catch the errors that Carmack himself noticed. Now you want to fault Carmack for not having some type of privileged information about precisely how the named and unnamed contributors influenced the article. Somehow, he was supposed to know that Davis was "simply being nice" and that the suggestions and help that others offered really didn't in any way substantively contribute to the creation of the article. I think that, for whatever reason, you may just have an irrational hostility towards Stan, and that it is clouding your judgment. As you repeatedly noted, this conversation is triggering you. That seems quite apparent.

I actually suspect that Carmack used "involved in the creation" specifically to avoid using something like "helped author the text." To me, the creative process involves many different aspects of the production of the text (initial drafting, reviewing, editing, organizing, etc.). So, anyone involved in any way at one of those levels would be involved in the creative process. I can see how some people would associate "creation" strictly with "authorship" or origination of the main content. But that narrow interpretation doesn't seem technically necessary. I am personally involved in all or most of these processes on a daily basis, and I feel others regularly contribute to the creation of the articles that I write (without me viewing them as having secondary authorship status). For instance, if a peer reviewer suggests I rearrange content, and I follow that suggestion, then it seems like they helped in the creative production of the text. If someone suggests I take out content, include content, or revise content, then I would feel like they played an important role in the creative production of the text. And so forth.

So, I asked Chat-GPT about this, and anyone can see that I wasn't biasing the prompt in my favor. In fact, I intentionally biased it in the other direction (so that it would agree with the narrator). Yet look what we find: That is overstated. Scholars routinely understand publication as a process that can include authors, reviewers, editors, copyeditors, typesetters, and publishers. Peer reviewers and editors can sometimes influence the final article in significant ways: requesting revisions, challenging arguments, requiring additional citations, pushing for clarification, or even recommending structural changes. In that weaker sense, they are definitely “involved” in the article’s development or publication. The better distinction would be: Peer reviewers and journal editors are generally involved in the review, revision, and publication process, but they are not normally considered authors or substantive creators of the article unless their contribution crosses into major intellectual or drafting assistance. So I would say your admired person has a valid point only if “creation” means authorship or substantive composition. But if “involved in the creation” means “played any role in shaping the final published article,” then the claim is too categorical and probably misleading. Since Carmack's comments about the role of those who helped Davis with his article was contextualized primarily by error detection and not by authoring substantial amounts of text, the context of his claim sufficiently signals what he meant by others being "involved in the creation of the article." He clearly meant it in the narrow sense of the term, just as the AI response concluded was a valid possible meaning.

This is an interesting development. I hadn't checked the article myself for any expressions of thanks. And based on the narrator's persistent accusations on this front, I just assumed that Davis didn't publicly credit anyone for their contributions to his article. So it is pretty rich to then find out that Davis, in fact, DID give others credit for their helpful suggestions. Here is specifically what he said: This, then, provides an obvious basis for Stan's statements. Here is what Stan said on two different occasions: One would assume that if their feedback wasn't helpful and didn't in some way contribute to the creation of the article, then Davis wouldn't have expressed his gratitude for them. It is also not, by any means, inappropriate to describe the specific individuals that Davis named as his "colleagues," since it is a fairly loose term to begin with. Here is the immediate definition for the term "colleague" when I Googled it: In other words, it is a general enough term to be applied to those who in some way might contribute to an article or collaborate with its author (by giving suggestions, feedback, correcting for errors, etc.). Note that Carmack never described these individuals as "authors" or declared that the article had "multiple authors" (as the narrator asserted). Could Carmack have been more specific or qualified his statement in some way? Sure. But that is pretty much true of many if not most claims made on this board. Moreover, one will notice that Stan's claim in both contexts was about Davis and his contributors not detecting errors, which suggests that Carmack was primarily focused on the fact that multiple people were looking at and reviewing this article, and yet none of them seemed to notice the problems. This suggests that Carmack was not intending to assert or imply that others were contributing substantial amounts of text to the article (as if they were full co-authors). In any case, both of Stan's statements are technically accurate and the narrator never even asked for clarification. He just jumped straight to calling him a liar. Now that it comes out that Davis, indeed, did publicly give credit to others' for unspecified contributions to his article, it makes the accusation of lying all the more bizarre and unwarranted.

As I already stated and made perfectly clear, if there were any reviewers or editors who contributed in any way to the quality or contents of the article, then of course they would have technically been "involved in the creation of the article." And there was obviously good reason for Stan to assume that others were involved in the review and editing of an article published in an academic journal (assuming he didn't have actually knowledge of the process involved for this specific article; which I don't know either way). I'm sure your own "good faith" efforts, charitable disposition, and endearing communication style will be sorely missed from this thread.

I wasn't just "complaining" about what you said. I was carefully evaluating what you said in the context of what Stan said. And I found what you said to be both logically flawed and also morally wrong (since I think accusing others of lying has a moral connotation that is different than simply pointing out that they are wrong). It seems that you are simply using "whining" as a pejorative term to describe those who express disagreement with your conclusions and behavior.

First, it should be pointed out that you accused him of lying even before he made that additional statement specifically about "colleagues." So you jumped the gun no matter what. But let's actually look at what Stan said: It seems to me that Stan is simply assuming that various people were likely involved, and so he was listing the categories that typically contribute to an academic paper. In addition to the formal "reviewers" that are part of the process provided by the journal, many authors will share their article or discuss its contents with colleagues (i.e., friends, associates, scholarly acquaintances) for additional feedback or review. This doesn't mean such folks, even if they do offer feedback, should be considered as additional "authors" of the article. Note that Stan never claimed that the article had "multiple authors," only you did. Does that, in turn, mean that YOU lied about what Stan said? The extent to which you are going to make it look like he was lying or being intentionally dishonest is really quite remarkable.

Well, first of all, I don't know that "he made up things that weren't true." And his statement actually seems very likely to be true. Do you know that Davis's article didn't go through any peer review process of any king that might have spotted potential errors before publication? Also, how am I "whining" about this? Is there some aspect of my tone or in the tenor of my statements that qualifies as whining?

Why are you using the term "lie" here? Lying is when someone knows what it true and intentionally states what is untrue. As far as I recall, as soon as Stan made his initial claim, you came right out of the gate accusing him of lying. Also, I don't believe Stan specifically claimed that Davis's article had "multiple authors." Let's review the initial exchange, with Stan's specific comment and your follow-up accusation: This is a lie. You shouldn't lie, Stan. It's rather curious that you never even asked Stan why he believed that "various people were involved in the creation of the article" or what he meant by his statement. You just jumped straight to your accusation that he lied, as if you knew that he knew otherwise and was intentionally not telling the truth. Did it never cross your mind that perhaps Stan simply assumed that almost any article that gets into a journal is going to have some type of scholarly or peer review process before publication. And in that process, one would think that sloppy claims or reasoning might get cleaned up. That is pretty much par for the course, when it comes to submitting an article to an academic journal, is it not? I don't know what Dialogue's typical process is, but I assume they have something along those lines. And, if so, Stan's claim would make perfect sense. Also, note that he didn't say it had "multiple authors" as if there were multiple primary authors whose contributions were so significant that they should be listed or viewed as authors. Rather, he just said that "various people were involved in the creation of the article." And this is almost always true for any academic article, since any reviewers or editors technically are "involved" to varying degrees in the "creation of the article." But even if Stan were wrong, and if Davis's article went straight to publication without any content review or collaboration whatsoever at any stage of production (which honestly seems quite unlikely to me, even if possible), that still wouldn't mean that Stan lied. It would just mean that is claim was based on a reasonable assumption that he genuinely believed, but that he happened to be wrong about. So, unless YOU actually KNEW what was going on in Stan's mind (i.e., that he certainly knew that no review process took place and was intentionally making a false claim on that point) then it seems like your assertion that he lied would be quite premature. Honestly, your hostility towards the other participants in this discussion is just bizarre. You could have just asked Stan about the basis or specific meaning of his claim, and then rebutted it with evidence if needed. There was no need to get personal and accuse him of outright lying, unless you absolutely knew that to be the case.

Well thanks. You too. I have no animus towards you. I think the conversation has been illuminating, and I genuinely wish you well, no matter how strongly we disagree on this primarily academic issue that has little immediate moral relevance in our lives and which doesn't say anything qualitative about you or me as individuals, no matter which opinion we hold.

Then you should not have said that I was "inserting something else in its place" It should have been obvious what I was talking about, since that was already the established antecedent of the discussion. We were talking about the difference between the linguistic construction identified by Carmack and the significance of the intervening contents in the examples you provided (which disrupted his construction). No it doesn't, and if this is what you learned from your college education you should get a refund on your tuition. Are you really arguing that the following examples have the same syntactic arrangement: for this cause that he might not bring upon him injustice, he would not fall upon the Lamanites and destroy them in their drunkenness (Alma 55:19) A B C for this cause God will send them strong delusions, that they may believe a lie and be damned (Letter to editor in Times and Seasons) A C B Do you deny that the subordinate clauses and independent clauses are swapped in their arrangement? They don't rearrange the structure. The arrangement remains the same. The added explanatory clauses simply make the sentence more complex while keeping the core structure in place and in the same order. Um, no. In additional examples you cited, the core structure of the specific linguistic feature identified by Carmack (for this cause that X may/might [not] <infinitive.phrase>) retains its sequential order, but the STRUCTURE OF THE SENTENCE is obviously changed. When you swap the placement of dependent and independent clauses in a sentence, the sentence doesn't just get "more complex." The actual syntax of the sentence has changed. This is so obvious I'm surprised you are arguing against it. "frequency rates" is a made up measure that does not show what Carmack thinks it does. It is remarkable that you think this is a "made up measure" (as if Carmack simply made it up and other linguists aren't considering it as relevant in a whole host of contexts). Frequency rates for specific authors, especially when contextualized by broader frequency rates within corpora or time-period databases, is obviously relevant to the question of Book of Mormon authorship. And what is that degree? It depends. But let me give you a context to help illustrate the point. I know by my own experience that when I attend sacrament meeting, I can expect a certain degree of archaic speech forms in certain contexts (prayers, sacrament talks, lessons, etc.). For instance, I expect that when someone prays, they will likely use a few standardized forms of archaism (thee, thou, hast, wilt, etc.). But there is actually a minimal degree of expected archaism. What I definitely do NOT expect is for someone to deliver a talk using a whole host of archaic grammar, lexis, and syntax from the Bible and Book of Mormon. And it's not just that I don't expect them to use such forms in that context. It's that I don't think they would even be capable of doing so. Most of them are not consciously aware of these archaic forms, even though they read them regularly in the scriptures. And these archaic forms have never become part of their active vocabularies, since they don't speak or write like that in their normal day-to-day communications. So I think it would be highly unexpected to find members of the church today who would be capable of implementing robust archaism in ANY of their idiolectic patterns, no matter the context of their communication. And this is despite the fact that these archaic forms are embedded in the sacred religious texts that we regularly read. I suppose the exception would be folks like Stan who are particularly aware of these features and are actively exploring them at a scholarly level. But, I suspect even Stan would struggle in the context of dictating a lengthy text, day after day. Whether or not is it "possible," the statistical data and basic observations about how humans develop language patterns suggests it is highly implausible. And that, combined with a number of other considerations, points strongly toward the revealed-words hypothesis.

Again, I don't need to. People are individuals with individual brains and their own individual ways of speaking. In other words, you probably just can't do it, because the data isn't there to support an alternative claim. Whenever Carmack's assertions about rarity or obsolescence turn out to be fundamentally accurate, then there will inevitably be a pivot like this--away from the implications of the data and towards some superficial, overly reductive, or high-level linguistic principle or theory that doesn't actually deal with the cumulative statistical unlikelihood of Smith producing the text.

Yes. I'm well aware of the many asides and seeming extemporaneous changes in the Book of Mormon. But, grammatically speaking, this does not appear to be one of them. It doesn't read like an aside. It reads like a summative statement (hence the "therefore") reaffirming the content of the previous statement. I find it interesting that Chat-GPT immediately reaffirmed my own reading. It is the common-sense interpretation of the passage. There is nothing about the phrase that signals an aside or interruption of thought. Also, I'm guessing you are conceding the point about the other construction (in D&C 74), since you never responded to it. If so, I'm glad it may reduce, to some extent, how "sad" you feel for me. Do you not recognize that the bold red text are subordinate independent clauses not included in Carmack's narrow structure? Of course I realize that. Concerning your proposed examples, my point was never that the components identified by Carmack were sequentially out of order in relation to themselves (when viewing them in isolation outside of their contextual placement in the rest of the sentence). My point was that when you insert intervening content, it changes the syntactic order of the sentence as a whole, and it disrupts the proposed syntactic arrangement. Since those types of insertions rearrange the structure of the sentence, they can definitely make a difference in frequency rates (since English speakers and writers tend to prefer certain types of syntactic arrangements over others in various contexts). You can't just throw in an intervening independent clause or other features and assume it won't affect frequency. And Carmack's whole point was about rarity, so it matters to look at instances that are precisely similar to what he proposed. Yes, I realize that most texts have natural variations in usage. But I also realize that the specific types and patterns of variations we can expect from any given speaker or writer is typically constrained to a large degree by his or her linguistic environment. In other words, one can look at the normative patterns of variation in different contexts (spoken vs. written language; different genres of texts; etc.) in a given linguistic milieu and then make reasonable probability estimates about what types of patterns any given speaker/writer in that milieu would be likely to exhibit in comparable contexts. But you can't just argue that since speakers are known to vary in their use of certain items of lexis, grammar, and syntax then all variations are equally likely to be produced by the speaker and any variations at all can easily be explained by the simple fact that variation exists as a general principle of language.

So, I followed up on these examples and read them in context. I believe the first two are legitimately similar to certain BofM examples, namely 1 Nephi 4:17 and 1 Nephi 4:36. I don't think the third example is legitimately similar. But now we are at least getting somewhere. These are the types of finds that I find more meaningful, not mere speculation about how anything and everything can be explained by Smith's assumed idiolectic proclivities. On the other hand, after re-reading Carmack's original claim and observing his clarifying comments in this thread, his argument was not that this archaic feature was strictly absent in 19th century texts (he never claimed that). It was that it has an unusually high frequency inn the BofM and that the texts that best match it in frequency are from the early modern period. And, no, in case you are wondering, this isn't shifting the goal posts. Again, for reference, here was the initial claim from Carmack's article: So, when read in context, your examples are helpful and a good start, but they aren't yet sufficient to counteract the specific details of Carmack's original claim. So, let's take the next step. Now that you have found a couple legitimate examples, can you find 19th century texts with a similar usage rate of this feature?

You must be really bad at logic and analogies. This is not analogous at all. You are literally changing the order of the syntax here: "powerful you have become" A B C D "you have become powerful ." B C D A On the other hand, every single one of my examples had each part of their syntax in the exact same order. Ryan, do you even know what an analogy is? Yes, I believe I know what an analogy is. But you have to realize that every time you provide examples where the key subordinating clause formula (that X may/might [not] <infinitive.phrase) is displaced from the phrase "for this cause" you are inserting something else in its place. In other words, the key clause swaps places with the intervening construction. And that, of course, obviously counts as a reordering of syntax, especially if there is a statistical disparity between adjacent usage and displaced usage. Let's just compare two examples: for this cause that he might not bring upon him injustice, he would not fall upon the Lamanites and destroy them in their drunkenness (Alma 55:19) A B C for this cause God will send them strong delusions, that they may believe a lie and be damned (Letter to editor in Times and Seasons) A C B Do you recognize that that these constructions do not have the same syntactic order? Do you not see how the key subordinate clause has swapped places with the independent clause? Do you not realize that English speakers and writers often have varying proclivities for certain types of syntactic ordering, and that some types of constructions are far more prevalent at certain times and places than others? Yes, the grammatical relationship is the same, but that is also true of the Yoda example. The point is that you can't just change the syntax (in this case by allowing intervening content) and assume it doesn't make a difference. It often does, and in this case comparable 19th century examples seem to be rarer when the subordinate clause immediately follows the "for this cause" phrase. And, yes, I think using the example of Yoda's speech provided a decent analogy. It presented a type of syntactic reordering that was similar to but not precisely the same as the examples you had brought up in comparison to the Book of Mormon. They were similar in the sense that crucial syntactic swapping occurs in both sets of examples. They are different as to the specific nature of the swapping (in that the Yoda example involves the displacement of a subjective complement whereas the examples relevant to our discussion involve the displacement of a particular type of subordinate clause).

Ryan, by your own admission you are without linguistic competence. Actually, I believe I said "I'm not a trained linguist." And technically speaking I'm not (in the sense that I don't have any graduate training in this area as Carmack does). But that doesn't mean I completely lack "competence" in this area. I actually do have a bachelor's degree in English education. And I tutored for an English grammar class in college. So I'm moderately competent, but I'm not a formally trained linguist. I would say I'm competent enough to sometimes clearly identify the incompetence of those who make arguments against the research that Carmack is producing. But I'm definitely not on his level. And clearly neither are you.

Actually, when read in context, the statement "for this cause have I been lifted up" seems to best modify the content of the previous sentence, which is a lengthy discussion about why Christ was being lifted up. That provides an immediate semantically relevant antecedent. Then look what follows: therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works This second structure is not just an interrupting "aside" as you characterized it. Nothing about it suggests that. Rather, in this context, the term "therefore" signals that a summative statement or conclusion is about to follow, and in this case it has its own new independent clause ("I will draw all men unto me") which is then followed by a semantically relevant subordinating clause ("that they may be judged according to their works"). In this case, the subordinate clause is almost certainly intended to modify its immediately preceding independent clause, and it makes perfect semantic sense. There is no grammatical or semantic need to displace it from this location and attach it to an earlier clause. Sure, it is semantically relevant to the preceding sentence. But that isn't what it is immediately modifying. In this case the subordinating clause "that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever" does not seem to modify "for this cause." Instead, it seems to clearly modify the noun "commandment." In other words "that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever" is functioning as a relative clause (describing the nature of the commandment) rather than an adverbial clause (describing why the apostle wrote to the church). Again, you will notice that "commandment" is the more immediate antecedent, and it just makes better semantic sense of the sentence. Just as a check on my thinking, I asked Chat-GPT what sentence elements these crucial clauses were modifying, and in both cases it verified my own interpretation. I didn't give it any leading hints to sway it either way, so it had no idea what I wanted or what I might be biased towards. Here is the first question and its immediate unmodified response: Here that introduces a purpose/result clause: Christ draws all people to himself so that they may be judged according to their works. A simplified paraphrase would be: I will bring all people before me in order that they may be judged according to their works. Verse 14 gives the fuller logic: Christ is lifted up on the cross → so that he may draw all people to himself → so that, just as he was lifted up by men, all people will be lifted up by the Father → to stand before Christ → to be judged by their works. So in verse 15, the phrase “that they may be judged according to their works” compresses the longer sequence from verse 14. It points back especially to: “I will draw all men unto me” but conceptually it also echoes: “to stand before me, to be judged of their works.” Here is the second example: The that-clause modifies or completes “commandment” by telling us what the commandment was. Grammatically, it is not primarily modifying “wrote” or “giving.” It is attached to the noun phrase “a commandment.” In modern terms, we might paraphrase: He gave them a commandment that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever. Or more smoothly: He commanded them that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever. So, as I argued before, it really does seem that these constructions aren't truly analogous to what Carmack was proposing since they don't grammatically modify the key phrase "for this cause" in the way he described. Are you still so "sad" that I can't see it? I'm sure it must be devasting to your emotional psyche that I am so inept.

They obviously don't have the "same syntactical structure." Rather the various structures provide the same grammatical function (and some of your examples--such as 3 Nephi 27:15 and D&C 74:5--appear to not be valid, even on that front). By way of analogy, when Yoda says "powerful you have become," that sentence has the same semantic meaning as "you have become powerful." It is the same set of words and they share the same grammatical relationships. However, each sentence has a different syntactic order or structure. And that simple reordering of words sometimes makes a big difference. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of instances of phrases with the form "you have become X" in the databases of the English language. There will be far fewer examples of "X you have become" in those same databases. One syntactic structure is normative English and the other isn't. This means that, in practical terms, most English speakers (at least up until Star Wars came out and popularized this particular phrase) were probably not ever going to use the phrase "X you have become" even though it has the same semantic meaning as "you have become X." Sometimes alternative syntactic arrangements (which hold the same grammatical relationships and the same semantic meaning) are used with similar or relatively similar frequencies. For instance, in English one could say "he came to the store yesterday" or, alternatively, "yesterday, he came to the store." In these examples, both types of syntax are common. So it just depends on what the structures are, but there is no question that some types of arrangements are exceedingly rare during certain periods of the English language. Which means the specific ordering of words definitely can and often does matter. In this case, placing the subordinate adverbial clause identified by Carmack ("that X may/might (not)<infinitive phrase>") immediately after the prepositional phrase "for this cause" seems to have fallen out of favor in later periods of the English language. Perhaps this was because stacking that type of subordinate clause right after a prepositional phrase felt clunky. Or maybe there were other reasons. Whatever the case may be, it seems like English speakers in Smith's day were not nearly as inclined to use this particular syntactic arrangement. I looked through each of the additional examples you provided: "For this cause, that ye, who must lament The death of those that made this world so fair, Cannot recall them now" (from the 1818 poem, The Revolt of Islam, by Percy Bysshe Shelley). "for this cause That He whose sov reign will none dares contest Forbids that I rebellious as I was to His city any soul should lead" (poem by JFW Herschell (1792-1871) "for this cause , that would not have been the case" (Report from the Select Committee on the Employment of the Poor in Ireland Ordered by the House of Commons, to be Printed, 16 July, 1823) I don't have time to closely analyze these in their fuller contexts at the moment, but it s seems that each of these are not grammatically analogous to the syntax Carmack identified (meaning that the subordinate clause is functioning differently on a grammatical level). This is in contrast to most of the Book of Mormon examples you provided, where the grammatical form was the same and it was only the syntactic arrangement that was different. In other words, as far as I can tell, these do have "for this cause that" but they are not analogous to the specific feature Carmack was describing. Perhaps I'm wrong. I could be. I will have to look at the full context to tell. I have to be done now, but I will try to explain this in greater detail when I have time later.

I'm sorry, but this seems to be a large part of the problem. You don't seem to understand the significance of the grammatical distinction that Carmack is making. The additional examples that you are saying are relevant (both in the Book of Mormon and in Smith's other writings) are not what Carmack is talking about. This is the main problem, over and over and over. Those without linguistic competence find non-analogous counter examples and simply assume the differences don't matter that much. But they do. You can't point to examples with intervening phrases and clauses and then argue that subsequent clauses beginning with "that" are functioning in the same manner. The simple phrase "for this cause" with "cause" holding the archaic meaning of "purpose" is not in itself that significant. Yes, it is archaic, but it is also fairly frequent in the Bible, especially the New Testament, and was fairly widely used in 19th-century texts. So there is nothing particularly remarkable about Smith using this phrase on its own. It is the full phrase that Carmack identified that is significant. For a refresher, here is the relevant paragraph from his article: I think what happened is that you latched onto the underlined phrase in the paragraph ("The noun cause conveys and archaic meaning of purpose in these") and assumed that this was the most significant aspect of the claim. Instead, I think Carmack was simply clarifying the archaic nature of the verb, as used in the complete phrase. But, to be clear, it is the complete phrase that was significant, and not simply the archaic form of the verb. So if you want to push back against his claim, you have to find truly analogous instances to this peculiar usage. I don't actually know if or to what frequency it shows up in later periods. But the implication from Carmack's paragraph is that it is either rare or absent from later periods, but that it shows up in similar concentrations in Early Modern texts. Maybe @champatsch can clarify that point. In any case, can you find truly analogous examples of 19th-century usage of this phrasal structure outside of Smith's own revelations?

So, I finally just finished reading Davis's article, and it was remarkably unimpressive. Based on your almost obsessive insistence that I read it, I assumed it was going to provide a substantial and compelling counter-explanation, a comprehensive rebuttal to the EModE data and the underlying linguistic principles that point towards a divinely-revealed-words hypothesis. Let's just say that I was thoroughly underwhelmed by his analysis and claims. Almost every point he made was erroneous, irrelevant, or implausible. It failed to account for the vast majority of the EModE data. It made errors in understanding and articulating the EModE data. And it provided convoluted explanations when attempting to account for the EModE data that it did address. And so forth. The fact that you found this to be such a big deal is rather fascinating. This was all hype and no substance. When I read these types of attempts to engage with the EModE research carried out by Skousen/Carmack, it actually just strengthen my confidence that their theory is the more compelling one. It isn't being responsibly engaged, and that is telling to me. At the very least, you can stop hounding me about this matter. But it also makes me wonder, conversely, how well YOU have actually read the research by Skousen/Carmack? I think I have read every single one of Stan's papers and I have read volumes 3-4 (among others) of their History of the Text of the Book of Mormon (as well as reading lots of Skousen's work and watching their presentations and so forth). Can you honestly say you have paid close attention to their collective research on this topic? Or are you just engaging it through intermediaries like Davis? My experience over the years is that those who try to take down their research are almost never qualified to do so and invariably misunderstand the arguments and data that they are attempting to rebut. Davis's attempt is just par for the course.

If only Carmack had looked to see how much Joseph Smith himself used the noun cause to conveys a archaic meaning of purpose in his letters and revelations. So, after all you have said, maybe you can just clearly re-explain how the statement you made above clearly rebuts or counteracts Carmack's claim. I don't see how it affects or undermines his claim at all, based on your endless redirects towards the thesis propounded by Davis. (P.S., your persistent insistence that I read Davis isn't making me any more or less inclined to do so. And I haven't said one way or another, whether I would or wouldn't. But I just want you to know that I saw your comment. You don't have to keep repeating it ad nauseum. Seriously, you should stop pestering me about it. Seriously. No, really, seriously. ... And one more time, just for effect, seriously).

Well, for one thing, I already think it is exceedingly unlikely that Smith produced the text. You see, that is a huge part of the problem. I don't think you take the data seriously. And our little discussion earlier made that pretty clear to me. You seemed to misunderstand the specific nature of what Carmack was claiming and then pointed to invalid texts (D&C revelations) to argue for what Smith could naturally produce. I'm guessing that is pretty much par for the course in how you are dealing with Carmack's data. You seem to think everything was either in Smith's environment, or that he was finding it in old texts, or that he was just making up his own dialect and got lucky a lot or whatever. I find those types of suppositions extraordinarily implausible, whether in isolation or in conjunction with one another. If you can disabuse me of that conclusion, using actual linguistic evidence rather than mere conjecture, and showing me that you understand and are responsibly engaging with Carmack's research, I would probably be more inclined to change or modify my view.

Actually, that isn't really necessary, as long as the EModE data is strong enough to render Smith's production of the text as implausible. The same is true in many legal contexts. If you have lots of hard data pointing toward a specific individual committing a crime, proving motivation often becomes a secondary matter. The problem is exacerbated, though, in this religious context where you are essentially attempting to mind-read God and then conclude that there is no plausible reason for him to translate a text in a certain way, as if you are in a good position to establish what is or isn't plausible about his motivations and designs in that type of unprecedented context. I'm much more confident in the hard linguistic data ruling out Smith's likely authorship than I am in the ability of humans to rule out God's involvement, based on untestable intuitions about his divine motivations and purposes.