"Adieu" in the Book of Mormon

[Scott Lloyd]

Whew...

At least the topic has switched away from that French/English word.

Indeed.

I have a suggestion for a slogan in the next edition of the Anti-Mormon Field Manual:

If you can't rebut, then divert.

[Pahoran]

Whew...

At least the topic has switched away from that French/English word.

Indeed.

I have a suggestion for a slogan in the next edition of the Anti-Mormon Field Manual:

If you can't rebut, then divert.

Whaddaya mean, "the next edition?" It's already in there, at the bottom of every page, as an essential element of their technique. Man, are you behind the times.

Regards,

Pahoran

[usadingo]

Yeah, that's what all the anti-Mormons say. On cue and in unison. Save it for the home audience; we're not that gullible.

Of course, by your constant labeling of me as "anti-mormon," I could label you anti-me for refusing to believe I don't consider myself as such. But if you really want to label me as anti-Mormon, that's fine. I'm against the Mormon religion, but not Mormons themselves.

So the fact that his testimony is impeached doesn't matter as long as the "message" remains the same.  Got it.

Maybe I'm tired and am not seeing it, but how was his message impeached? The only discrepency I saw was in one saying he refused to write his opinion, and the other said he gave it right away. I stated that like many historical records, that could be in refrence to two seperate parts of the conversation. But more importantly, Anthon's message of the characters being fake remained the same in both letters- just as many scholars since Anthon have labeled them fake.

And what are we to make of the rather significant fact that Harris returned from his visit with "the learned" more satisfied with Joseph's claims than he apparently was before?

Easy. Joseph conned him. He orchestrated the outcome of Harris' trip so he could manipulate Harris into thinking that a prophecy had been fulfilled. No one could have translated Smith's characters, even if they had indeed been real Egyptian, since Egyptology in the early 1800's had not yet evolved far enough to translate anything other than simple names. So why did Smith send Harris on this trip? First, Anthon could not have translated the characters. Second, because he had made them up, Joseph knew that Anthon could not translate the characters. Third, Joseph told Harris what to expect when "the learned" tried to translate them. Fourth, what Joseph told Harris to expect, in fact, came to pass- the learned could not read the characters and Joseph could (or so he claimed). But Joseph was just an "ignorant" young man. Harris therefore concluded that "God had chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (1 Cor. 1:27)."

[Pahoran]

Yeah, that's what all the anti-Mormons say.  On cue and in unison.  Save it for the home audience; we're not that gullible.

Of course, by your constant labeling of me as "anti-mormon," I could label you anti-me for refusing to believe I don't consider myself as such. But if you really want to label me as anti-Mormon, that's fine. I'm against the Mormon religion, but not Mormons themselves.

You realise, of course, that "not Mormons themselves" is entirely a red herring? Being "against the Mormon religion" entirely satisfies the standard definition of "anti-Mormon."

So the fact that his testimony is impeached doesn't matter as long as the "message" remains the same.  Got it.

Maybe I'm tired and am not seeing it, but how was his message impeached? The only discrepency I saw was in one saying he refused to write his opinion, and the other said he gave it right away. I stated that like many historical records, that could be in refrence to two seperate parts of the conversation.

Nice dodge. Did Anthon give Martin Harris something in writing, or didn't he?

But more importantly, Anthon's message of the characters being fake remained the same in both letters-

So in your mind it's quite acceptable for a witness (for your side only, of course) to contradict himself all over the place, just so long as the "message" that you want to rely upon remains the same?

just as many scholars since Anthon have labeled them fake.

That is not the case.

You have quoted little snippets--without citations, so as to prevent us from checking the content and provenance thereof--attributed to three scholars (three is not "many") who did not say that the characters were "fake;" they merely said something that someone with your particular predisposition will naturally interpret as supporting his pre-formed conclusion that they are "fake."

And please note that you have silently ignored the rather pertinent question of why Anthon's description does not match the extant sample.

And what are we to make of the rather significant fact that Harris returned from his visit with "the learned" more satisfied with Joseph's claims than he apparently was before?

Easy. Joseph conned him.

Of course. That is what all the most ignorant bigots say.

Everyone who actually knows anything about Joseph Smith agrees that, whatever else he was, he genuinely believed in his religious teachings.

He orchestrated the outcome of Harris' trip so he could manipulate Harris into thinking that a prophecy had been fulfilled.  No one could have translated Smith's characters, even if they had indeed been real Egyptian, since Egyptology in the early 1800's had not yet evolved far enough to translate anything other than simple names.  So why did Smith send Harris on this trip?  First, Anthon could not have translated the characters.  Second, because he had made them up, Joseph knew that Anthon could not translate the characters.  Third, Joseph told Harris what to expect when "the learned" tried to translate them.  Fourth, what Joseph told Harris to expect, in fact, came to pass- the learned could not read the characters and Joseph could (or so he claimed).  But Joseph was just an "ignorant" young man.  Harris therefore concluded that "God had chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (1 Cor. 1:27)."

What a nice, neat, pat little story. It has only two little problems:

1) It has no evidence to support it. Like many anti-Mormon productions, it is a bit of unsupported mind-reading that is produced by the standard technique of assuming that Joseph was as unscrupulous and amoral as the would-be mind-reader; IOW, the critic begins by asking himself, "if I were in Joseph's place--no plates, no angel, and a pigeon to bilk--how would I go about it?"

2) It cannot be reconciled with either of Anthon's versions of the events; and Anthon is your only other witness to what took place.

Joseph and Martin, however, tell a story that does not contradict itself and which is both internally consistent and consistent with their subsequent actions.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, that's what all the anti-Mormons say.

[Beowulf]

usadingo has come up with an interesting story.

Unfortunately, it is more full of holes than a net sweater.

First, I think the Isaiah reference only occurred to Joseph Smith and Martin Harris AFTER Martin came back from New York. (Hey! Scripture was fulfilled!) I don't think it was orchestrated.

Why? Because Joseph could hardly orchestrate the response of New York scholars. If he was in fact making everything up, the LAST thing he would want is exposure to scholars in New York who are the most likely anywhere in America to catch fakery in action.

It is instead the enthusiasm of a true believer that has discovered something truly wonderful. (Let's show it to the most knowledgeable man in America! Then we'll see.) And Martin wanted further convincing, too. Which he got.

Beowulf

[Gohan]

Does anyone else think that this thread has gotten too offtopic and long? Anyone????

[charity]

Bueller? Bueller? Ferris Bueller?

[usadingo]

You realise, of course, that "not Mormons themselves" is entirely a red herring? Being "against the Mormon religion" entirely satisfies the standard definition of "anti-Mormon."

What does it matter? I believe the Mormon religion is full of lost souls. If attempting to reveal the truth to them makes me anti-Mormon, by all means, call me what you like.

Nice dodge.  Did Anthon give Martin Harris something in writing, or didn't he?

Yep, it was a dodge all right... I admitted that I don't see anything contradictory in Anthon's letters except the parts in refrence to giving his opinion, which, I stated can be in refrence to two parts of a conversation. But whether or not Anthon gave his opinion to Harris doesn't change the fact that Harris went to Anthon, he called the characters fake, and he never changed his opinion that they were fake.

So in your mind it's quite acceptable for a witness (for your side only, of course) to contradict himself all over the place, just so long as the "message" that you want to rely upon remains the same?

All over the place? I've already asked you where else he contradicts himself.

That is not the case.

You have quoted little snippets--without citations, so as to prevent us from checking the content and provenance thereof--attributed to three scholars (three is not "many") who did not say that the characters were "fake;" they merely said something that someone with your particular predisposition will naturally interpret as supporting his pre-formed conclusion that they are "fake."

I left out the citations to make for a quicker post. To point out that they're not there as a main defense is rather weak.

Which quote would you like a citation for? I have them all.

And if you really want a challenge, find me one scholar who isn't LDS who sees no credit in Anthon's writings.

Of course.  That is what all the most ignorant bigots say.

Anti-me! Anti-me! Oooooh...!!

Everyone who actually knows anything about Joseph Smith agrees that, whatever else he was, he genuinely believed in his religious teachings.

Which religous teachings? The Mormon ones he made up, or the occultic ones he practiced with his fellow money-diggers?

What a nice, neat, pat little story.  It has only two little problems:

1) It has no evidence to support it.  Like many anti-Mormon productions, it is a bit of unsupported mind-reading that is produced by the standard technique of assuming that Joseph was as unscrupulous and amoral as the would-be mind-reader; IOW, the critic begins by asking himself, "if I were in Joseph's place--no plates, no angel, and a pigeon to bilk--how would I go about it?"

2) It cannot be reconciled with either of Anthon's versions of the events; and Anthon is your only other witness to what took place.

Of course it doesn't have evidence. It's only a possible theory as to why Smith would send Harris to New York. And it requires no mind reading to do. If you know your writings are fake, it's pretty easy to guess that someone else won't be able to read them. Add in the right people, and you can patch it in with the verse in Isaiah very easily.

Joseph and Martin, however, tell a story that does not contradict itself and which is both internally consistent and consistent with their subsequent actions.

Which part doesn't contradict itself? The story of Harris going to New York, or the part where afterwards, they run around telling people Anthon believes them- going as far as to print it on some editions of the book of Mormon- all while Anthon is saying it's not true?

[Gohan]

Hey, usadingo, this is a place for religious discussion, DECENT and REASONABLE discussion. So, if you feel like bashing Mormons, move your butt over to an 'ANTI' board where people will really listen to you. Honestly, I'm usually a nice guy that doesn't post these kind of messages. However, I lost any respect I could have had for people like you when a few decided to show me the 'error' of my ways by beating the crap out of me back in 9th Grade.

Moderators, please, close the frakin' thread.

[Pahoran]

You realise, of course, that "not Mormons themselves" is entirely a red herring?  Being "against the Mormon religion" entirely satisfies the standard definition of "anti-Mormon."

What does it matter? I believe the Mormon religion is full of lost souls. If attempting to reveal the truth to them makes me anti-Mormon, by all means, call me what you like.

Then by all means, reveal the truth to us. Affirmatively proclaim the Gospel as recorded in the Bible; preach Christ and him crucified. Is that enough? If not, why not? Is your faith in the converting power of the Holy Word so weak that you feel a need to soften us up first by creating doubt in the founding events of the Restoration?

Can your version of Christianity, whatever it is, stand up to a fair, side-by-side comparison with ours? Or are you so insecure that you need to tilt the playing field first?

Nice dodge.  Did Anthon give Martin Harris something in writing, or didn't he?

Yep, it was a dodge all right... I admitted that I don't see anything contradictory in Anthon's letters except the parts in refrence to giving his opinion, which, I stated can be in refrence to two parts of a conversation. But whether or not Anthon gave his opinion to Harris doesn't change the fact that Harris went to Anthon, he called the characters fake, and he never changed his opinion that they were fake.

Well there you are, you see. You claim that it is a "fact" that Anthon "called the characters fake" to Harris--but Harris doesn't report it that way. This is therefore not a "fact" but a disputed claim, as you would admit if you could bring yourself to be honest about it.

That is not the case.

You have quoted little snippets--without citations, so as to prevent us from checking the content and provenance thereof--attributed to three scholars (three is not "many") who did not say that the characters were "fake;" they merely said something that someone with your particular predisposition will naturally interpret as supporting his pre-formed conclusion that they are "fake."

I left out the citations to make for a quicker post. To point out that they're not there as a main defense is rather weak.

It is a standard anti-Mormon technique to offer quotations out of context and either (1) "improve" the actual content by making stuff up, or (2) remove significant and relevant portions of the quoted material and hide the fact, or (3) simply suppress the fact that the contextual material paints a rather different picture than the quoted snippets.

Which quote would you like a citation for?  I have them all.

The lot, thank you.

And if you really want a challenge, find me one scholar who isn't LDS who sees no credit in Anthon's writings.

I'm not in the habit of accepting homework assignments from those who attack my faith. Just so you know.

Of course.  That is what all the most ignorant bigots say.

Anti-me! Anti-me! Oooooh...!!

Not anti-you. Just pro-truth and anti-bigotry.

Everyone who actually knows anything about Joseph Smith agrees that, whatever else he was, he genuinely believed in his religious teachings.

Which religous teachings? The Mormon ones he made up, or the occultic ones he practiced with his fellow money-diggers?

Ah, a cheap shot.

Now convince me that you are genuinely interested in actual interfaith dialogue. Go on; try.

Because you yourself have never been motivated by genuine religious belief, naturally you cannot possibly relate to Joseph. You ASSume he "made up" his beliefs, because you don't share them, and neither your intellectual acuity nor your compassion is sufficiently powerful to enable you to put yourself in his place.

Oh, and just BTW: he never had any "occultic ones he practiced with his fellow money-diggers," if by that snide crack you mean Josiah Stowell. Decker and Schnoebolen are laughing-stock around here; if you have come to tout some form of "new-age" anti-Mormonism, I suggest you think again.

What a nice, neat, pat little story.  It has only two little problems:

1) It has no evidence to support it.  Like many anti-Mormon productions, it is a bit of unsupported mind-reading that is produced by the standard technique of assuming that Joseph was as unscrupulous and amoral as the would-be mind-reader; IOW, the critic begins by asking himself, "if I were in Joseph's place--no plates, no angel, and a pigeon to bilk--how would I go about it?"

2) It cannot be reconciled with either of Anthon's versions of the events; and Anthon is your only other witness to what took place.

Of course it doesn't have evidence. It's only a possible theory as to why Smith would send Harris to New York.

IOW, an unsupported accusation. Real Christians don't accuse others without proof, but anti-Mormons do.

And it requires no mind reading to do.  If you know your writings are fake, it's pretty easy to guess that someone else won't be able to read them.  Add in the right people, and you can patch it in with the verse in Isaiah very easily.

Thank you for admitting that you simply made it up. False accusers don't often do that.

Joseph and Martin, however, tell a story that does not contradict itself and which is both internally consistent and consistent with their subsequent actions.

Which part doesn't contradict itself? The story of Harris going to New York, or the part where afterwards, they run around telling people Anthon believes them- going as far as to print it on some editions of the book of Mormon- all while Anthon is saying it's not true?

The part where they report what actually happened, before Anthon goes into damage control mode.

Regards,

Pahoran

[usadingo]

Then by all means, reveal the truth to us. Affirmatively proclaim the Gospel as recorded in the Bible; preach Christ and him crucified. Is that enough? If not, why not? Is your faith in the converting power of the Holy Word so weak that you feel a need to soften us up first by creating doubt in the founding events of the Restoration?

When people believe things that are not true to be true, you have to show them how it's untrue before they can believe it.

Can your version of Christianity, whatever it is, stand up to a fair, side-by-side comparison with ours?  Or are you so insecure that you need to tilt the playing field first?

I believe my version of Christianity can stand up to anything. Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Any religion that speaks of salvation (exaltation might be a better word for you ) by any other means is false to me.

Well there you are, you see.  You claim that it is a "fact" that Anthon "called the characters fake" to Harris--but Harris doesn't report it that way.  This is therefore not a "fact" but a disputed claim, as you would admit if you could bring yourself to be honest about it.

What I'm saying is, while Harris and Smith went around claiming Anthon backed their story, Anthon was writing letters saying he didn't. He wasn't trying to be quiet about the letters either. He was requesting that they be printed so people know the truth.

Which quote would you like a citation for?  I have them all.

The lot, thank you.

Here you go...

Gardiner - Quoted in Stan Larson, Quest for the Gold Plates [salt Lake City: Freethinker Press, 1996], pg. 52.

Wilson - Letter to Stuart Ferguson, February 5th, 1957

Matheny - Deanne G. Matheny, "Does the Shoe Fit?: A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography," in Brent Metclafe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon [salt Lake City: Signature BOoks, 1993] pg. 321.

I'm not in the habit of accepting homework assignments from those who attack my faith.  Just so you know.

As long as you're not just saying that to dodge the challenge. But that's fine. It still stands anytime you wish to accept it though.

Ah, a cheap shot.

I'll admit, it was. Conversations are like volleyball to me. If you see the perfect set, you have to go for the spike.

Now convince me that you are genuinely interested in actual interfaith dialogue.  Go on; try.

I am.

Now it's your turn to convince me that I'm not.

Because you yourself have never been motivated by genuine religious belief, naturally you cannot possibly relate to Joseph.  You ASSume he "made up" his beliefs, because you don't share them, and neither your intellectual acuity nor your compassion is sufficiently powerful to enable you to put yourself in his place.

Oh, and just BTW: he never had any "occultic ones he practiced with his fellow money-diggers," if by that snide crack you mean Josiah Stowell.  Decker and Schnoebolen are laughing-stock around here; if you have come to tout some form of "new-age" anti-Mormonism, I suggest you think again.

You're right. I don't share Smith's beliefs. My beliefs about him have been formed by looking at the evidence of his life, seeing his gradual evolution from practicing divination- coming up with a story of gold plates protected by the ghost of what looks like a spaniard that guards treasures to multiple accounts of his first visitation, and deciding that Smith's life was filled with too many doubts to be anything but holy and from God.

Thank you for admitting that you simply made it up.  False accusers don't often do that.

False accusers don't do a lot of things I do. I'm still chuckling that you want evidence for a possible theory as to why Smith told Harris to go to New York.

The fact is, I don't say any of this to cause a fight. I say it because I honestly believe Mormons are hell-bound. I suppose a better way of saying that is that they're bound for outer darkness.

No matter what we do, we cannot obtain perfection on our own. Even with God, we'll never be perfect while on this earth due to our sinful nature. The good news is that Jesus washes our sin away. Hebrews 10:10-18 describes this perfectly.

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."

Through Christ our sins are removed and we can spend eternity with the one and only God.

[Beowulf]

My my.

Another bitter soul...

Bound for outer darkness, are we. (According to you...)

But looking at your signature. It is remarkable that you consider the BofM to be lying because Lehi named a river after Laman, which sure enough is not on any map of Arabia, and never has been.

This is assuredly true. But meaningless.

Lehi named the river. They camped there for awhile. And then they moved on. The NEXT person to arrive at the river valley did not know that Lehi had named it, and he called it something else... In an area that was largely uninhabited, this process has probably happened hundreds of times over the centuries.

(Fitting that this should appear on the Adieu thread, since it rivals the quibble about Adieu for the silliness factor...)

Beowulf

[Mighty Curelom]

Before this thread devolved into a sectarian skirmish, there were about 15 posts dedicate to thrashing a complete strawman argument. It goes like this:

Pretend Critic: "Adieu is FRENCH, you MORON! Not ENGLISH! Duh! Adieu is NEVER, EVER used in ENGLISH, cuz it's FRENCH!"

Urbane Mormon: "My good sir, please calm down. As you can see from this extensive list of references, adieu has been accepted into the English vernacular. It is a perfectly good word, and therefore is not out of place in any application."

Bam! Sure showed that critic who's boss. Okay, now that we've demolished the argument that I'm NOT using, maybe we can actually address the arguments I am using. I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but here it is one more time:

18 out of 19 scripture translators did not use adieu when translating the bible. Therefore, by definition, the use of adieu in scripture is unusual. If the use of adieu by professional, trained, expert translators in a scriptural context is unusual, then the use of adieu in the Book of Mormon is also unusual, especially when one considers that the style and tone of the BoM is intended to mimic the KJV Bible.

Again, it is not a smoking gun, but it is a red flag. It's an oddity that should lead an investigator to further research. That's it. Maybe God translated the BoM and in his omnipotence and infinite wisdom decided to use adieu. Fine. That's possible (assuming the existence of invisible magic people, that is.) But that still doesn't negate the fact that "adieu" in scripture is demonstrably unusual.

As for the Anthon issue: It doesn't really matter what Anthon said, or what his credibility is, or how many times he changed his mind. We still have the Anthon transcript, and while it probably isn't the exact transcript that was shown to Anthon, it's still accepted by Mormons and non-Mormons alike to be a representation of the characters Anthon DID see. Some aplogists have claimed that the characters are similar to demotic Egyptian, but I just don't see it. If there was some similarity, one would think that a sharp Mormon scholar could translate a phrase or two. Or a word. Or even a single letter. But they haven't, because "reformed Egyptian" has never existed, other than in Joseph's overactive imagination.

[charity]

MC, unusual does not mean a thing. Cumoms and cureloms are unusual, too. So?

About the "reformed Egyptian." It was in use for some 1000 years. I have read genealogical records that are less than 400 years old. The changes in the language over 400 years are pretty dramatic. So why should records that started out demotic Egyptian, or any other kind of Egyptian, remained the exact same over the 1,000 year period of time?

When I extract some information, after a lot of work, in the almost 400 year old Norwegian parish registers, I write the information in current standard hand writing. Wouldn't Mormon have done the same with the records he was abridging?

[juxtaposed]

18 out of 19 scripture translators did not use adieu when translating the bible.

First of all -- and this is just an aside because it isn't particularly relevant -- you really can't just use translation statistics like that. You have to consider the audience with that number. You translate something for a particular audience. The Book of Mormon's audience would be more or less typical, 19th century, northeastern Americans. Would adieu have been a more appropriate word for that audience than the audience the other translators were speaking to?

Therefore, by definition, the use of adieu in scripture is unusual.

Now this is the main point:

No, you've shown that the use of adieu in a bible context is unusual. You have no basis for stating that about "scripture" in general. You're making an extrapolation without any basis for it.

For example, it might be unusual in a bible context because the original languages don't have any words or situations for which adieu would be a clearly superior choice. You don't have any basis from which to say that its somehow generally incorrect to use adieu in a scriptural context (because no such basis exists).

However, it could easily be suggested that the Book of Mormon had a word in it whose precise meaning and intended affect translated just perfectly into how the intended audience of the Book of Mormon would understand the word adieu. Without a source material, there's simply no basis to argue otherwise...

If the use of adieu by professional, trained, expert translators in a scriptural context is unusual, then the use of adieu in the Book of Mormon is also unusual, especially when one considers that the style and tone of the BoM is intended to mimic the KJV Bible.

First of all, you still havn't shown anything about "scriptural contexts", just "bible contexts".

Second of all, Using a style doesn't imply imitation. Rock music uses Classical music -- as in the same patterns found in Classical music can be found throughout Rock music -- but obviously isn't trying to imitate it. If the Book of Mormon were just trying to imitate the KJV Bible then obviously it wouldn't use words like adieu or borrow from Shakespeare, right?

[Mighty Curelom]

First of all -- and this is just an aside because it isn't particularly relevant -- you really can't just use translation statistics like that. You have to consider the audience with that number. You translate something for a particular audience. The Book of Mormon's audience would be more or less typical, 19th century, northeastern Americans. Would adieu have been a more appropriate word for that audience than the audience the other translators were speaking to?

This doesn't really help your case. The original audience for the book of Mormon would have been, as you say, "typical, 19th century, northeastern Americans." I suspect typical, 19th century northeastern Americans are pretty similar to typical, 20th century northeastern Americans. In bible translations that are aimed at contemporary "typical" people, the wording is markedly less sophisticated and fancy. Every effort is made to make the text as plain and easy to understand as possible, even if subtle nuances have to be sacrificed.

However, it could easily be suggested that the Book of Mormon had a word in it whose precise meaning and intended affect translated just perfectly into how the intended audience of the Book of Mormon would understand the word adieu.

The intended audience of the BoM wasn't all that sophisticated. Characters in the BoM glory in their plainness. Just as modern Bible translations use plain, unsophisticated language, it's reasonable to assume that an expert translator, translating the BoM with the mostly uneduated, unsophisticated, "typical" New Englander in mind, would use simple, unsophisticated words--even if a fancier word would have been more accurate.

Second of all, Using a style doesn't imply imitation. Rock music uses Classical music -- as in the same patterns found in Classical music can be found throughout Rock music -- but obviously isn't trying to imitate it. If the Book of Mormon were just trying to imitate the KJV Bible then obviously it wouldn't use words like adieu or borrow from Shakespeare, right?

It would. If the imitator was familiar with Jacobian English via the KJV, but he wasn't familiar enough to do it well. But this is sort of a silly argument that you're making, since even Mormon apologists admit that Joseph was aping the KJV style to make it seem more "scriptural", since most people then (and now) associate using "thees" and "thous" with scripture.

This brings up yet another problem with the BoM: the Jacobian English used in the BoM exhibits only a casual understanding of KJV English grammar. Just as there are numerous Modern English grammar mistakes, the BoM contains KJV grammar mistakes. More here:

The Book of Mormon and the King James Version

[Mark Beesley]

The article by Curt van den Heuvel is an interesting comparison of the grammatic syntax of the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon. However, he, and MC, appear to suffer from the same basic misconception of what we have in the English Book of Mormon. Van den Heuvel's ignorance is amply demonstrated in the conclusion to his article, where he states:

It is very evident that the Book of Mormon owes much to the King James Version. Since this particular version of the Bible was not translated until 1611, it means that the Book of Mormon cannot be an ancient work as Joseph Smith claimed.

The Book of Mormon that van den Heuvel uses to compare to the King James Bible, and that MC uses to criticize Joseph Smith's literary skills, is NOT an ancient work. It is a TRANSLATION of an ancient work. For some reason or other van den Heuvel and MC expect a poorly educated boy in 19th Century rural New England to have impeccable grammar skills when translating a 2000 year old manuscript. Unfortunately, during the four years of instruction from Moroni to Joseph before he received the plates, I think Moroni was concentrating more on familiarizing Joseph with the language and customs of the ancient Nephites rather than the vagaries of the English language. So, when Joseph commenced translating, he was pretty much left to render the revealed principles and teachings in the language he knew, imperfect as it was.

The message of the Book of Mormon is not about the proper use of thee and thine and ye and thou. It is about Jesus Christ, and how the Lord remembers His people wherever upon the earth they may be situated. I find that much more comforting, than the notion that the Book of Mormon detractors would push on us, namely, that God did not love His children enough to ever have had prophets on the American continents.

[TrespassersW]

MC:

18 out of 19 scripture translators did not use adieu when translating the bible. Therefore, by definition, the use of adieu in scripture is unusual.

I have to admit, that I just don't see the significance you do in it being 'unusual'. Joseph (or God, if you will) could just as easily have translated the phrase 'Hasta la vista' -- which would have been even more unusual, but still not incorrect. Joseph did a goodly number of unusual things. In this case, either he chose the word for a fictional translation of an ancient person's farewell, or he chose the word for a true translation of an ancient person's farewell. I just don't see how his word choice is supposed to indicate which one it was.

As for your 18 out of 19... I haven't ignored your argument, but you've ignored my response. Can you please refer me to any scholar, anywhere who has criticized the Darby translation for its unusual word choice? Basically, can you show me that if we divorce this argument from Mormonism for a moment and just use the Darby translation as an analogous event, can you show me where any scholars have read this kind of significance into their word choice? Has anyone argued that the Darby translation's word choice indicates something about whether they actually translated or not?

[The_Monk]

This brings up yet another problem with the BoM: the Jacobian English used in the BoM exhibits only a casual understanding of KJV English grammar.

Of course it does! JS was not a linguist nor versed in the history of the English language. Why should he, the TRANSLATOR, have been able to reproduce it perfectly? His target language for the translation wasn't contemporary English but scriptural english (ie. archaic KJV English.) It was archaizing, and, as late biblical and non-biblical Hebrew texts show, archaizers inevitably fail in perfectly reproducing an archaic version of the language.

I don't see this as being problematic in the least.

[usadingo]

My my.

Another bitter soul...

Bound for outer darkness, are we. (According to you...)

And would a person be bitter if they shouted at someone standing on train tracks while a train was headed their way? Or are they trying to save the person's life?

Lehi named the river. They camped there for awhile. And then they moved on. The NEXT person to arrive at the river valley did not know that Lehi had named it, and he called it something else... In an area that was largely uninhabited, this process has probably happened hundreds of times over the centuries.

That would perhaps be true, if there was a river there found by someone else.

You seem pretty sure of this. Tell me, what is that river that was found that used to be Laman?

[Homestar Runner]

The intended audience of the BoM wasn't all that sophisticated. Characters in the BoM glory in their plainness. Just as modern Bible translations use plain, unsophisticated language, it's reasonable to assume that an expert translator, translating the BoM with the mostly uneduated, unsophisticated, "typical" New Englander in mind, would use simple, unsophisticated words--even if a fancier word would have been more accurate.

MC, I don't think you responded to my last post to you.

It's entirely possible that whatever language Moroni wrote in, had a term in it that very closely fit the english word "adieu".

Isn't it?

HSR

[Brant Gardner]

Mighty Curelom:

Just as modern Bible translations use plain, unsophisticated language, it's reasonable to assume that an expert translator, translating the BoM with the mostly uneduated, unsophisticated, "typical" New Englander in mind, would use simple, unsophisticated words--even if a fancier word would have been more accurate.

Let me see if I understand this. Joseph Smith must have been the author rather than the translator of the Book of Mormon because he was so unsophisticated that he used a word that was over his head. If he had used words he would have understood, then he would have been a translator.

Really?

Are you rather saying that Joseph was a translator, but not an expert one?

Are you saying that no expert translator has every used "adieu?"

I confess that nothing in your argument makes any sense. I even find it interesting that you would assert that modern Bible translation use "plain, unsophisticated" language. Since "adieu" doesn't reach very far into the realm of sophistication, I can't imagine which translations you must be talking about.

Try an experiment. As 20 people if they are familiar with the word "adieu." See if any of them say no. Then report on their sophistication level and see if they always use sophisticated langauge, such as "adieu."

[Bernard Gui]

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but here it is one more time:

18 out of 19 scripture translators did not use adieu when translating the bible.  Therefore, by definition, the use of adieu in scripture is unusual.  If the use of adieu by professional, trained, expert translators in a scriptural context is unusual, then the use of adieu in the Book of Mormon is also unusual, especially when one considers that the style and tone of the BoM is intended to mimic the KJV Bible. 

This silly argument has already conclusively been dealt with.

Only one of your 20 Bible translations was done by a

contemporary of Joseph Smith, and he used adieu twice

in his translation. That would be Darby, born 1800.

So, your evidence in reality supports the use of adieu in

a 19th century translation of scripture.

Your error is asserting adieu is a "fancy" word.

You have seen overwhelming evidence that adieu is an

English word commonly used in America and England

during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. It's not an anomaly,

not a hoity-toity fancy pants word, not an anachronism.

It's usage in the BoM is exactly as it should have been,

as attested by letters, speeches, and books of the time.

Why not just quietly say, "Okay," and move on to some other non-issue?

Bernard the Urbane

[The_Monk]

FWIW, the Darby Bible (184/1890), James Murdock's translation of the Peshitta (Syriac NT, 1852), and Whiston's 1885 translation of Josephus all use the word Adieu, Murdock twice.