"Adieu" in the Book of Mormon

[HiJolly]

*I* think this is all much adieu about nothing!

HiJolly

(with apologies to Bill S.)

[Pahoran]

How can you so completely miss the point?

How could you so completely miss my point?

Probably because you haven't got one.

If you're trying to prove that "adieu" was used in 19th c. literature, I completely agree.  Since the BoM is 19th c. literature, it fits right in.  But you don't believe the BoM is literature; you believe it is a translation of an ancient text.  I've already demonstrated that 18 out of 19 translators would not use "adieu" when translating scripture.

Which is not a "point" at all. You haven't demonstrated how any standard translators would translate the original of that particular verse, have you?

Even though "adieu" is and was used for creating original works of literature, it has not historically been used to translate scripture.  That's a key distinction.

No, it's a meaningless and completely arbitrary one. Every translation is a work of literature; not that you would know that.

For whatever reason, whether it's for the  sake of consistency, tone, or clarity, 95% of scripture translators used the English terms "good bye", "farewell," or "take my leave" instead of "adieu"--even when they could have used it, as  Darby did in his translation.

Yes, and?

Is there a chance that Joseph eschewed convention in favor of the drama or "sophistication" of a fancy word?  Absolutely.  A five percent chance.

And so?

But MC and LadySundancer object, saying that if God had translated the word, he would not have used "adieu".

But WHY NOT?

No one can know exactly what God would do (this is sort of silly, since there is no God, but let's pretend there is one for the sake of argument). But I would personally assume that God would be an expert at translating. The human experts who translated the bible--with only a single exception--chose not to use "adieu." Now, if God translated the BoM, choosing to use "adieu" would have been a decision that 95% of human experts would not have made. Which leaves us with 3 options:

1- God isn't as good at translating as human translators, since he did something that 95% of human bible translators didn't do.

2- God is a perfect translator, and 95% of bible translators throughout history have been doing it wrong.

3- God wasn't involved at all.

For me, the third option is the most reasonable.

Of course it is--for you. Because, by your own admission, you don't believe God exists in the first place, therefore any argument, however contrived, that leads to the conclusion that "God wasn't involved at all" will always seem "the most reasonable" to YOU.

And neither the presence nor the absence of "adieu" would make the slightest difference. Please be honest enough, just this once, to admit this fact.

The notion that most translators don't use "adieu" in translating the Bible, and therefore they wouldn't use it in translating a completely discrete work, is pure bunkum. It's not an argument at all, merely an opinion.

But MC/LadySundancer object that the comparison with 19th century literature doesn't work, since the BofM purports to be an ancient work.

Again, WHY NOT? What language do you want JS to use?

The question is not what language do I expect JS to use, but what question I expect GOD to use. I would expect God's language to transcend the limitations of a 19th c. New England farmboy. I would expect God's language to be free from cultural artifacts, like KJV English and Shakespearian influences. I would expect God's language to be free from back-woods hickisms and laughably poor grammar.

Of course you would; because you are completely ignorant.

Being completely ignorant, you simply don't know that all human language is totally artificial. Being completely ignorant, you simply don't know that absolutely everything in English is a cultural artifact of some kind, and that everything that doesn't derive from "KJV English and Shakespearian influences" derives from something older. Being prodigiously ignorant, you don't know that the Oxford dialect that has become established as "upper-class" English was originally a "back-woods" dialect full of "hickisms" and that the rules of "correct" English grammar were arbitrarily chosen by committees of schoolmen. Why should any plausibly divine being be constrained by their opinions?

There are those who take the view that God cannot do anything imperfect; this would certainly preclude him from using any human language, since all of them are imperfect. However, it is possible to use an imperfect medium in an optimal way, and that, in the context of translation, would be the way that most nearly communicates the meaning of the original.

I put it to you that you do not know--nor do you even reasonably opine--that "adieu" fails to satisfy this requirement.

If he was telling the truth, he would translate an ancient text into words and language that he was familiar with, including words like "adieu."

But only if he was translating in the traditional manner--that is, reading the text, comprehending the concepts described, then putting those concepts into English using his own words and phrases.

That's exactly how pretty much every apologist describes the BoM translation process--because they have to. There is just too much Joseph Smith in the BoM for them not to acknowledge his influence on it. If you want to take this position, fine. It clears up most translation problems with the BoM (except for the Isaiah portions, which are decidedly NOT in JS's own words, but a blatant copy of the KJV--but if course apologists have an ad hoc explanation for this, too.)

The problem is that this method of translation contradicts every known contemporary account of the translation process, which was described as a visual, mechanical process whereby JS simply read the words that God put on a stone.

I'm sorry, but that is a simple falsehood.

When you say "every known contemporary account of the translation process," you really mean "every account that anti-Mormons like to exploit." The fact is that the only contemporary account provided by the actual participants flatly contradicts the mechanical model, sometimes described by "scum people" as using "magic rocks."

The account to which I refer, of course, is found in Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 8 and 9.

If the contemporary accounts are correct, then every example of JS's influence on the wording of the BoM is an evidence of fraud.

You see where wishful thinking will get you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[charity]

How can anyone be talking about the translation when they don't have the original to compare to?

[Homestar Runner]

The human experts who translated the bible--with only a single exception--chose not to use "adieu." Now, if God translated the BoM, choosing to use "adieu" would have been a decision that 95% of human experts would not have made. Which leaves us with 3 options:

1- God isn't as good at translating as human translators, since he did something that 95% of human bible translators didn't do.

2- God is a perfect translator, and 95% of bible translators throughout history have been doing it wrong.

3- God wasn't involved at all.

For me, the third option is the most reasonable.

That's because you're comparing apples and oranges, and ignoring (or refusing to see) the difference.

It's entirely possible that whatever language Moroni wrote in, had a term in it that more closely fit "adieu" than the words the Bible contained.

[DH]

"Adieu" is, indeed, a wonderful farewell.

If I understand correctly, English does have an equivalent--the word "goodbye" is supposed to be a shortened version of "God be with ye." That sense having been lost with time, however, "adieu" seems to work better.

[Bernard Gui]

How can you so completely miss the point?

How could you so completely miss my point?

I asked first.

If you're trying to prove that "adieu" was used in 19th c. literature, I completely agree. Since the BoM is 19th c. literature, it fits right in.

No. I have proved that "adieu" is an English word commonly used at

the time of Joseph Smith. I have used literary works and letters for

proof.

But you don't believe the BoM is literature; you believe it is a translation of an ancient text.

Of course. And the translator was a 19th Century American of whose

vocabulary "adieu" was a part.

I've already demonstrated that 18 out of 19 translators would not use "adieu" when translating scripture.

How many of those 19 translations were made between 1775 and 1830?

That would be none, so your point is meaningless.

Even though "adieu" is and was used for creating original works of literature, it has not historically been used to translate scripture. That's a key distinction.

Adieu is not commonly used in current English speech or writing. It would

be considered more of a dated cliche or anachronism if used today. You have

no point here, either.

For whatever reason, whether it's for the sake of consistency, tone, or clarity, 95% of scripture translators used the English terms "good bye", "farewell," or "take my leave" instead of "adieu"--even when they could have used it, as Darby did in his translation.

Hmmm. Darby was born in 1800. Does that ring any bells for you?

Is there a chance that Joseph eschewed convention in favor of the drama or "sophistication" of a fancy word? Absolutely. A five percent chance.

No. Joseph was a product of his times. He made his translation using the vocabulary of his times. 100% chance.

Bernard

[TrespassersW]

Could someone please explain this to me...

1 - Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon

He wanted his character Jacob to have a fancy farewell

He chose the word "adieu" instead of "goodbye"

2 - Joseph translated the Book of Mormon

Jacob, in writing his farewell used a fancy or formal word for "farewell"

Joseph chose the word "adieu" instead of "goodbye"

Why is it that situation #1 makes sense to critics, but they just can't seem to fathom situation #2? I think that all we've really established here is that Joseph believed that "adieu" was a suitable word to use to convey a fancy or formal farewell. I happen to agree with him.

[Mighty Curelom]

1 - Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon

He wanted his character Jacob to have a fancy farewell

He chose the word "adieu" instead of "goodbye"

2 - Joseph translated the Book of Mormon

Jacob, in writing his farewell used a fancy or formal word for "farewell"

Joseph chose the word "adieu" instead of "goodbye"

Number 2 supposes that the wording of the BoM was Joseph's own. In fact, there is no other reasonable position to take, considering the poor grammar of the original, which included such obvious mistakes as

"now there was seven churches" (changed to "now there were seven churches")

"and also much horses" (changed to and also many horses")

"when they had arriven" (changed to "when they had arrived")

"this they done that they might provide food" (changed to "this they did that they might provide food")

I have no problem with this interpretation. If you want to claim that the word choice in the BoM is Joseph's and not God's, great. But if that's the case, then Emma, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris (among others) are all vicious anti Mormon liars who invented a false story about Joseph's method of translation.

If you want to claim that Joseph's mind provided the wording of the BoM, then someone is lying. We just have a difference of opinion as to whom it is.

[Beowulf]

But MC, let's say that you are completely utterly correct. That the wording in the BofM was NOT Joseph Smith's, but was dictated entirely by God with no discretion on Joseph's part at all.

(I do not think so, despite your accusations of people lying, etc., etc. but let's make the assumption anyway.)

Assuming this, why can't God have used the word "adieu" to translate the term used by Jacob?

I (and others) have already shown how fitting the term "adieu" is for Jacob's salutation. So why is the use of the word a "smoking gun" for deception by JS or for non-participation by God?

I truly cannot understand your objection.

Beowulf

[LadySundancer]

Those are fantastic...but can you find an example of the word "adieu" used in the English translation of a foreign work? Because we're not really talking about using "adieu" the way an author of a literary work would; we're talking about using it the way a translator would.

Six: I can think of two examples.

The English translation of the autobiography of Josephus Flavious, the famed Jewish historian. The autobiography was translated by a respected English scholar and theologian from its ancient language into English. That translation uses the word "adieu."

The other example is the Bible itself. The Darby translation renders ancient languages into English. In this translation, the word "adieu" is used twice.

Luke 9:61

And another also said, I will follow thee, Lord, but first allow me to bid adieu to those at my house.

2 Corinthians 2:13

I had no rest in my spirit at not finding Titus my brother; but bidding them adieu, I came away to Macedonia.

There. Two example of English theologian/scholars using the word "adieu" in an English translation from an ancient language.

Not only that, note in the Bible verses, the whole notion of "bidding" someone farwell...very similar to the Book of Mormon usage.

Jacob 7:27 And I make an end of my writing upon these plates, which writing has been small; and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu.

Regards,

Six

Six,

Thanks! I'll look those up.

Lady Sundancer

[LadySundancer]

Sundancer, I will make a trade with you.

[LadySundancer]

If you're trying to prove that "adieu" was used in 19th c. literature, I completely agree. Since the BoM is 19th c. literature, it fits right in. But you don't believe the BoM is literature; you believe it is a translation of an ancient text.

Six: With respect, the point was to show that "adieu" was used because it is perfectly acceptable and proper English do so...not to show that the word is some sort of fancy literary term. Other posters have noted the widespread use of the word in ordinary use. The word was used by John Wesley in his personal correspondence, several Methodist hymns use the word, Thomas Jefferson used it in his drafts of the Declaration of Independence, etc. The list of uses of the word in common use and literary use is quite lengthy.

I've already demonstrated that 18 out of 19 translators would not use "adieu" when translating scripture.

Six: I'm not sure how this logic applies. In essence, this argument supposes that the Book of Mormon is going against convention because there is an apples-to-apples translation of the same ancient word into english and the Book of Mormon eschews the commonly used word. The broader point is that "adieu" is a perfectly acceptable word to use. At least one Bible translator used it. (And from what I've seen, he did so without a speck of criticism.) The peer-pressure argument is to tie God's hands and say that he must bend his word to those of humans.

The other amusing aspect of this argument is it is the reverse-plagarism attack. Earlier in this thread, Lady Sundancer was attacking "adieu" because it was plagarism from "adieu" in the Bible. Now, the use of "adieu" is being attacked because it's too original. Go figure.

Even though "adieu" is and was used for creating original works of literature, it has not historically been used to translate scripture.

Six: That is not true. I have cited one example where it has been used in an English translation -- without ever the suggestion that it is improper. There are other examples where "adieu" has been used in translations from a native language into English -- including an ancient language translation. While it is true that "adieu" is not common in English language, it is perfectly correct to do so.

That's a key distinction. For whatever reason, whether it's for the sake of consistency, tone, or clarity, 95% of scripture translators used the English terms "good bye", "farewell," or "take my leave" instead of "adieu"--even when they could have used it, as Darby did in his translation.

Six: There is that reverse-plagarism argument again. The standard being suggested here is one of popularity...not proper usage. It is the attempt to suggest that God should bend his inspired translation of an unkown ancient word into popular modern convention so that it would be just like everyone else.

Is there a chance that Joseph eschewed convention in favor of the drama or "sophistication" of a fancy word? Absolutely. A five percent chance.

Six: This is an attempt to quantify the unknown for the purpose of supporting a preconceived bias.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the original ancient-language farwell written by Jacob used two different words for farwell. Remember, in the text, he says goodbye in two different ways.

"...to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu." Jacob 7:27

We've heard a lot of complaining that the Book of Mormon eschews the use of the more conventional word "farewell." The fact is the Book of Mormon does use "farwell" for the first parting tribute, and "adieu" for the second parting tribute.

It is possible that the English text uses two different words to reflect two different nuances in the original text. Or, it could something as simple as the use of of two synonyms to avoid redundancy. In either case, it is perfectly acceptable and proper English.

Regards,

Six

Back up the truck, Six. You say...

"The other amusing aspect of this argument is it is the reverse-plagarism attack. Earlier in this thread, Lady Sundancer was attacking "adieu" because it was plagarism from "adieu" in the Bible. Now, the use of "adieu" is being attacked because it's too original. Go figure."

Please quote the post I made on this thread where you think I was "attacking the word adieu because it was plagarism from adieu in the Bible." The last I saw, I asked you to supply quotes for the Bible refs that used the word "adieu". It looks like you did and I just thanked you for meeting my request. What are you talking about, dude?

Lady Sundancer

[LadySundancer]

Could someone please explain this to me...

1 - Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon

He wanted his character Jacob to have a fancy farewell

He chose the word "adieu" instead of "goodbye"

2 - Joseph translated the Book of Mormon

Jacob, in writing his farewell used a fancy or formal word for "farewell"

Joseph chose the word "adieu" instead of "goodbye"

Why is it that situation #1 makes sense to critics, but they just can't seem to fathom situation #2? I think that all we've really established here is that Joseph believed that "adieu" was a suitable word to use to convey a fancy or formal farewell. I happen to agree with him.

Oy Vey, let me take a shot at this. I think one of the sticking points is that in your post you say that JS wrote the Book of Mormon. In other comments we read that JS translated the Book of Mormon. Now, if he wrote the Book of Mormon, then the injection of the word "adieu" makes all the sense in the world to us. If he translated the Book of Mormon...it doesn't seem to make sense....such as why would God choose a French word to translate an ancient record when French wasn't in use during that ancient time.

Is anyone else's head spinning, or is it just me?

Lady "it's probably me" Sundancer

[Bernard Gui]

For whatever reason, whether it's for the sake of consistency, tone, or clarity, 95% of scripture translators used the English terms "good bye", "farewell," or "take my leave" instead of "adieu"--even when they could have used it, as Darby did in his translation.

Interesting...

Darby Bible translation

2 adieus

Book of Mormon

1 adieu

Bernard

[LadySundancer]

*I* think this is all much adieu about nothing!

HiJolly

(with apologies to Bill S.)

HiJolly!

Shame on you so friviously quoting Bill on a public message board! Did you know there is a theory that Shakespeare is quoted in the Book of Mormon and also that Shakespeare took part in preparing the KJV and left his imprint on that as well? Interesting stuff....not intending to derail the thread.

Lady Sundancer

[charity]

Ladydancer wrote: "Oy Vey, let me take a shot at this. . .If he translated the Book of Mormon...it doesn't seem to make sense....such as why would God choose a French word to translate an ancient record when French wasn't in use during that ancient time."

Excuse me, Ladydancer. English wasn't in use during the ancient time, either. Hello!!!!

[charity]

Mighty Curelom wrote: "The question is not what language do I expect JS to use, but what question I expect GOD to use. I would expect God's language to transcend the limitations of a 19th c. New England farmboy. I would expect God's language to be free from cultural artifacts, like KJV English and Shakespearian influences. I would expect God's language to be free from back-woods hickisms and laughably poor grammar."

I play the piano. I take a lovely Chopin etude and get from the music on the written page, through my fingers to the piano keys, to the strings which vibrate and the sounds of the notes are transmitted to the listener. Is what Chopin wrote what the listener hears? If I am accomplished, and the piano is a quality instrument and is in tune, and the listener has a small just noticeable difference in his hearing, it is probably exquisite. If I don't play well, or the piano is old and tinny and out of tune, and the listener is tone deaf, then it will probably be a great disappointment to Chopin.

God works with us and our weaknesses. Joseph had the faith to restore that which was lost. His language skills were not perfect, and yet God wrought a great work through him, notwithstanding the imperfections.

2 Ne. 33: 4 And I know that the Lord God will consecrate my prayers for the gain of my people. And the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong unto them; for it persuadeth them to do good; it maketh known unto them of their fathers; and it speaketh of Jesus, and persuadeth them to believe in him, and to endure to the end, which is life beternal.

[Beowulf]

But, but... Its a TRANSLATION!

If God used the original word (whatever it was), all of Joseph's readers would have been totally stumped, because they could not understand it.

That is what translation is FOR! To help modern readers understand. Adieu was a word that people in Joseph Smith's time understood. As we also today.

I have on my desk here a wonderful translation of Beowulf (heh). On the left side of the page is the original. On the right is a modern translation. Now if I squint hard and pretend a little, I can read the original text (the original is in English, after all). But instead I use the services of a scholar to help me see it in modern English.

An interesting aspect of this translation is that many of the original English words are replaced by ... (drumroll) French words that we moderns can understand.

So why can't Joseph do this? Using words that people in his day (and ours) can understand? Or more to the point, why can't God do this? Does he HAVE to use the same word that Jacob used? (sheesh)

Beowulf

[charity]

Lady Sundancer, I wasn't ignoring your other post. I have two threads mixed. I asked you in the another thread, the "How would the Church have been different if it weren't for polygamy?" to answer your statement that it would be different in many respects. Then you ignored that question through numerous posts. I ask again, what "respects" would the Church have been different. If you want to post on the other thread, I will look for the answer there. But please do respond.

And about the same word comment of mine. It has been so many days, and so many threads, I don't remember what I meant. Sorry.

[Mighty Curelom]

But MC, let's say that you are completely utterly correct. That the wording in the BofM was NOT Joseph Smith's, but was dictated entirely by God with no discretion on Joseph's part at all.

Then God really needs some grammar lessons.

Assuming this, why can't God have used the word "adieu" to translate the term used by Jacob?

I never said he couldn't--only that it would be unlikely. The closest situation we have to compare is the Bible. In cases where adieu could have been used, experts chose not to use it. This leads me to believe that God, being an expert at all things, would have used similar translation procedures when he translated the BoM. Is this such an outragious assumption? Am I completely nuts for thinking God would translate the way a human expert does?

So, IF God's translating practices are in line with MOST expert scripture translators, then he probably wouldn't have used "adieu."

Now, I'm sure there are cases in the Bible where it would have been perfectly acceptable to use "adieu"--to convey a sense of romanticism, or sophistication, or whatever. There are probably instances in the bible where, individually, "adieu" would be the word which most accurately captures the original sentiment of the author. This is pretty much Juxtapose's argument. However, an expert translator takes into account more factors than simply what word might be the most accurate choice. The translator must keep in mind consistency through the entire work. For example--if your goal as a translator is to create a clear, transparent, easy-to-read translation for a general audience, he might translate a phrase meaning "spirit of the times" into simply "spirit of the times" instead of the more impressive sounding "zeitgeist." "Zeitgeist" might be the perfect individual word to express this particular idea, but the translator, with an eye on the entire work as a whole, may choose not to use it.

Now back to adieu. Most expert scripture translators chose NOT to use adieu--even when it might have been the most effective or accurate individual word. Again assuming that God is an expert in all things, it is reasonable to assume that God would make similar translation choices.

[Cowpie]

But, but... Its a TRANSLATION!

If God used the original word (whatever it was), all of Joseph's readers would have been totally stumped, because they could not understand it.

Oh, I get it now. Like the word "curelom."

That is what translation is FOR! To help modern readers understand. Adieu was a word that people in Joseph Smith's time understood. As we also today.

Actually, do we understand the word "adieu?" I think to most of us, it means "goodbye." Now here we have folks claiming it has shades of meaning beyond any word in English. Nobody has really explained it yet, though. What exactly does adieu mean that couldn't be conveyed with "goodbye," "go with God," "to God," fare thee well," God be with you," or any number of better understood words?

[Brant Gardner]

Mighty Curelom:

The closest situation we have to compare is the Bible. In cases where adieu could have been used, experts chose not to use it.

We get such interesting statements from people who are apparently unfamiliar with the nature of translation or the history of the English language. Are you suggesting that it is improper to use any word in English that comes from French? You have heard of the Normans, I hope?

If you don't think adieu is proper in English, please remove any word in the Bible that ends in -tion. They are probably from the French as well and by the same logic shouldn't be in English. The word "nation" for example, is just as French as "adieu." There goes the pledge of allegiance again. When you go to eat steak, please don't order a filet mignon. The translators of the menu are obviously not experts.

[TrespassersW]

Mighty Curelom:

Number 2 supposes that the wording of the BoM was Joseph's own.

Very well, let's add possiblity 3:

3 - God wrote (or translated) the Book of Mormon

Jacob, in writing his farewell used a fancy or formal word for "farewell"

God wanted to accurately capture the spirit, emotion, and formality of Jacob's word choice

God chose the word "adieu" instead of "goodbye"

I still don't see the problem. Why shouldn't God have used the word? Is using French somehow sinful?

I have no problem with this interpretation. If you want to claim that the word choice in the BoM is Joseph's and not God's, great. But if that's the case, then Emma, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris (among others) are all vicious anti Mormon liars who invented a false story about Joseph's method of translation.

Wow. That's a pretty black-and-white interpretation of their statements. The idea that the translation required no thought or study from Joseph should have been completely countered by Doctrine and Covenants section 9. Whatever the process may have looked like to an observer, that doesn't tell us what was going on inside of Joseph's mind.

But I see all that as irrelevant. I don't see a problem whether the word choice was supposed to be God's or Joseph's.

[Homestar Runner]

If he translated the Book of Mormon...it doesn't seem to make sense....such as why would God choose a French word to translate an ancient record when French wasn't in use during that ancient time.

Hi Lady,

The word adieu shows up in the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, and the Oxford American Dictionary, and Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/Webster.htm of American English. The first attestation in the OED is for 1398. The second is for 1400. Which means that English-speakers have been using the word for more (and maybe for considerably more) than six hundred years.

Adieu is an english word. Just like bizarre, gossip, hero, cancer, eureka, face, hamburger, lounge, canyon, tea, and idiot are all english words. Just like mayhem, stampede, canoe, barbecue, savanna, mortgage, widow, threshold, testify, seceretary, and hickory are all english words. They are all english words, and every single one of them was adopted into english from some other language.

Just about every time you type a sentence, you are using english words that come from some other language. There isn't an english book, article, magazine, tv show, pamphlet, or cereal box that contains only words invented by English-only speakers. For some of these words, like adieu (French) and lord (old english), century (Latin) and vigilante (Spanish), most people can tell without too much trouble which language they came from.

Some critics seem to feel that because your average person knows that "adieu" is word that comes from the French, that it's somehow more of a problem than the other thousands of english words used in the BoM that have roots in other languages. I would invite them to examine why they believe that - it just doesn't make any sense to the rest of us.

I wish them good luck.

HSR

p.s. "Good" is Indo-European, and "Luck" is from the Middle Dutch.

[TrespassersW]

Lady Sundancer:

I think one of the sticking points is that in your post you say that JS wrote the Book of Mormon. In other comments we read that JS translated the Book of Mormon.

Wow. I can only suggest that you have misread my post. Perhaps if you read it again, you would see that I addressed both possibilities.

Now, if he wrote the Book of Mormon, then the injection of the word "adieu" makes all the sense in the world to us. If he translated the Book of Mormon...it doesn't seem to make sense....

Which was the point of my post. I was asking why that would be the case.

such as why would God choose a French word to translate an ancient record when French wasn't in use during that ancient time.

For pretty much the same reasons that a person might. To convey a particular idea or emotion. I would think that answer would be pretty obvious.