The "adieu" Argument

[thesometimesaint]

4truth:

Until God comes down and writes a book with his own fingers. We are limited to what God has INSPIRED men to write using their own words.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran:

So you're telling me Joseph Smith knew how to read Reformed Egyptian? And he went through the same thought processes that other translators went through, searching for the correct word to express the thought he understood the original language to be communicating?! So what role did God have in this process?

4truth,

thank you for actually asking a question instead of merely pontificating about what you think you know.

Firstly: "reformed" is an adjective. The Book of Mormon does not assert the existence of any language with the name "Reformed Egyptian." Rather, it asserts that the Nephites took an existing Egyptian writing system and reformed it to suit their needs. I know it's a fairly minor point, but anti-Mormons seem to consistently make a point of capitalising that "reformed" as if it were a proper noun; it is not.

Secondly: please read Doctrine and Covenants Section 9, verses 8 and 9. This is the revealed, authoritative exposition of the translation process. David Whitmer's description of something he did not actually see is not.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MormonMason]

Secondly: please read Doctrine and Covenants Section 9, verses 8 and 9. This is the revealed, authoritative exposition of the translation process. David Whitmer's description of something he did not actually see is not.

David Whitmer's description may not be based on the translation process of the Book of Mormon but it does have as its basis some degree of truth. Whitmer claims that a piece of something resembling parchment was seen. There was a time that this occurred during the same timeline of the translation of the Book of Mormon. The occurrence was the receipt of Doctrine and Covenants Section 7. It is easy to see why Whitmer would make the sort of claim that he did concerning the appearance of a piece of parchment in the Urim and Thummim, as that indeed took place during the receipt of D&C 7. It is most likely that Whitmer in his later years simply conflated memories of the details of one occurrence with another. This sort of thing happens all the time as one gets older.

[Paul D]

Paul D has been fighting tooth and nail to claim it as a legitimate argument over on his poor excuse for a message board.

Ummmm, no, Paul D hasn't been doing any such thing. Paul D merely rebutted the "poor excuse" of a Stephen Gibson, as he tried to defend the inclusion of "adieu" in the BoM as something perfectly normal, in his cheesy book that supposedly answers "anti-Mormon" questions.

[Paul D]

What more can be said, mak? Heaven knows I've tried.

Having conceded everything to him, I still can't get him to

acknowledge that "adieu" is perfectly correct 19th-Century

American English. Even if Joseph Smith made it all up,

"adieu" cannot possibly be considered a blunder.

Bernard

Why is it that you guys have to sit there and embellish everything that has been said?

[Doctor Steuss]

Ummmm, no, Paul D hasn't been doing any such thing. Paul D merely rebutted the "poor excuse" of a Stephen Gibson, as he tried to defend the inclusion of "adieu" in the BoM as something perfectly normal, in his cheesy book that supposedly answers "anti-Mormon" questions.

If it were not for the dense, it would need no defense. (Copyright: The Steussites, 2007. All rights reserved).

[maklelan]

Why is it that you guys have to sit there and embellish everything that has been said?

I have a question for you Paul. Why did you lie on two different boards about how I reacted to you refusing to delete my account with your forum?

[4truth]

thesometimesaint:

4truth:

Until God comes down and writes a book with his own fingers. We are limited to what God has INSPIRED men to write using their own words.

That sounds quite reasonable--especially as applied to the Bible. The problem, though, is that in the case of the BOM Joseph Smith was allegedly "translating" not "writing." So are you now suggesting that he was indeed "writing"? Because, quite candidly, that's what I suggest--minus any alleged inspiration from God. The other larger problem is that it contradicts the testimony of the earliest witnesses of the "translation" process. Do you reject their testimony?

Also, you have not answered my questions:

1. Did Joseph Smith understand reformed Egyptian?

2. Did Joseph Smith, as Pahoran's comments seemed to imply, go through the same thought processes that any translator goes through in searching for the correct words to best communicate the meaning of the original text in another language? In other words, was Joseph Smith actually doing the work of translation?

3. What was God's role in the process?

Thanks

[cdowis]

So you're telling me Joseph Smith knew how to read Reformed Egyptian? And he went through the same thought processes that other translators went through, searching for the correct word to express the thought he understood the original language to be communicating?!

An intriguing possibility. The ultimate "loose translation". The ultimate tight translation is where the exact translation was revealed. And, of course, there is alot of speculation on something in between.

So what role did God have in this process?

Where did JS learn to read the language of the plates?

[maklelan]

Ummmm, no, Paul D hasn't been doing any such thing. Paul D merely rebutted the "poor excuse" of a Stephen Gibson, as he tried to defend the inclusion of "adieu" in the BoM as something perfectly normal, in his cheesy book that supposedly answers "anti-Mormon" questions.

No, you told me the following:

I'm glad you said "he chose this way," for the decision was strictly up to JS, and he lost by committing another of his boob-headed mistakes by doing what he did. What is perhaps even more unfortunate are the number of Mormons he left high and dry, as they make fools out of themselves trying to cover for him.

we're talking about a alleged Reformed Egyptian word being translated into French long before French ever existed.

Because he capriciously inserts what is otherwise a French word into an English text,

You were clearly arguing that "adieu" was a mistake. After that you made the ludicrous argument that George Washington couldn't use the word in the same sense as Joseph Smith because he wasn't translating a text from Reformed Egyptian:

Benard, how could George Washington and company have used "adieu" in exactly the same sense, when they were not "translating" anything? Or are you saying that GW knew of Reformed Egyptian, and the word that has a direct correlation to the French word that JS inserted at Jacob 7:27? If that is not what you're saying, then just how can GW and JS be using this word in the same exact sense?

[Pahoran]

Ummmm, no, Paul D hasn't been doing any such thing. Paul D merely rebutted the "poor excuse" of a Stephen Gibson, as he tried to defend the inclusion of "adieu" in the BoM as something perfectly normal, in his cheesy book that supposedly answers "anti-Mormon" questions.

Pardon me Paul, but didn't you write this?

there is no linguistic support for its inclusion into the BoM, if it is of the origination that Joseph Smith claimed that it was, and there are no parallels anywhere in any biblical translation, particularly the OT, where the Jews used such a word.

And this?

Do I understand that you are conceding the point that adieu is problematic in the BoM?

Ummm, no. I'm conceding the point that "adieu" is not anachronistic. It is still problematic and, as I've stated more than once, highly unlikely. Otherwise, why don't we see any of the English Bible versions incorporating such a word to translate a Hebrew word in the OT?

It is illogical to propose that people of Hebrew origin could not express a thought such as "I commend you to God."

That's not the problem, though. The problem is finding three languages, one of which never existed, that have a linguistic link where the same expression ends up being translated "adieu." And then wondering why the "translator" would only use it only once, especially when he uses "farewell," elsewhere, both before and after the disputed verse in question, which is what "adieu" means.

Are you or are you not trying to show that the "adieu" argument is legitimate?

BTW Paul, which is the language that "never existed?" Inquiring minds want to know!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I have a question for you Paul. Why did you lie on two different boards about how I reacted to you refusing to delete my account with your forum?

Maklelan,

"lie" is such a strong word. It allows no latitude for either honest mistake or genuine difference of opinion, either of which could account for Paul's misrepresenting of your request.

Besides, this question is off-topic for this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Doctor Steuss]

we're talking about a alleged Reformed Egyptian word being translated into French long before French ever existed.

I'm sorry, but the above is just plain... dumb.

Here's a better argument:

"We're talking about a [sic] alleged Reformed Egyptian word being translated into English long before English ever existed."

[4truth]

Pahoran:

4truth,

thank you for actually asking a question instead of merely pontificating about what you think you know.

Yes, I'm confident that you know what I know better than what I think I do.

Firstly: "reformed" is an adjective. The Book of Mormon does not assert the existence of any language with the name "Reformed Egyptian." Rather, it asserts that the Nephites took an existing Egyptian writing system and reformed it to suit their needs. I know it's a fairly minor point, but anti-Mormons seem to consistently make a point of capitalising that "reformed" as if it were a proper noun; it is not.

And the point is? The language was closer to genuine Egyptian than "anti-Mormons" give it credit for being? I don't see the point...

Secondly: please read Doctrine and Covenants Section 9, verses 8 and 9. This is the revealed, authoritative exposition of the translation process. David Whitmer's description of something he did not actually see is not.

Regards,

Pahoran

I have indeed read D & C #9. I assume you're referring to the "study it out in your mind" part? The burning bosom vs stupor of thought part? The "therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me" part?

First, how is the latter part of verse 9...

therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me

...NOT a contradiction of the beginning of verse 8...

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind

Who is responsible for the final product, God or Joseph Smith?

Of the millions of words in the BOM, how many of them were actually given to Smith by God?

And if your answer is anything short of 100%, then how does that not contradict the assertion that: "therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me" ?

Also, I note that while you thanked me for my questions, you failed to answer them:

1. Did Joseph Smith understand reformed Egyptian?

2. Did Joseph Smith, go through the same thought processes that any translator goes through in searching for the correct words to best communicate the meaning of the original text in another language? In other words, was Joseph Smith actually doing the work of translation?

3. What was God's role in the process?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm sorry, but the above is just plain... dumb.

Here's a better argument:

"We're talking about a [sic] alleged Reformed Egyptian word being translated into English long before English ever existed."

Finaly some action. Ill happily just sit here and watch.

[Doctor Steuss]

Here are a few passages that might be of interest from the Darby Bible:

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.

[4truth]

Stuess:

You have successfully demonstrated that Luke and Paul spoke French.

[cdowis]

You will find this video very interesting

Greek Anachronisms

Note that the interviewer has a very scholastic British accent, and the scholar appears to be very thoughtful in his response.

Very convincing, if you didn't know that they are speaking absolute nonsense.

[Drewm777]

The more I thought about what Gibson is saying, the more fallacious it became; especially the comment that "adieu" was Joseph Smith's "best equivalent" that he could think of to translate the mysteriously missing Reformed Egyptian word that ended up becoming "adieu." Why? Because all the French word "adieu" means is "goodbye," or "farewell" (Oxford Hachette French Dictionary, 3rd ed., 12).

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but that is an over simplistic definition of the word. It literally means "to God." The Spanish equivalent is "Adios." It carries a certain religious feel to it that you don't get with "farewell" or "See ya later." Most people in the modern usage of the words adios and adieu probably don't attach any religious significance to it. But, the word does have such meaning. I suppose Joseph Smith could have translated it "God speed"

Here are a few passages that might be of interest from the Darby Bible:

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.

I guess they spoke french in the middle east around the time of Christ.

[bluebell]

I'm sorry, but the above is just plain... dumb.

Here's a better argument:

"We're talking about a [sic] alleged Reformed Egyptian word being translated into English long before English ever existed."

[Doctor Steuss]

Stuess:

You have successfully demonstrated that Luke and Paul spoke French.

For my next trick, I will show that John spoke Dutch.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Also, I note that while you thanked me for my questions, you failed to answer them:

I'll have a go at them!

1. Did Joseph Smith understand reformed Egyptian?

I don't know. Let's consider the possibilities:

* Joseph read word for word what to write, and did not understand reformed Egyptian. Conclusion: There's no problem with adieu, because if God was translating for Joseph, He could have used adieu, because it's an english word.

* Joseph was given the ability to understand reformed Egyptian, and was fully "translator". Conclusion: There's no problem with adieu, because if Joseph was translating, he could have used adieu, because it's an english word.

2. Did Joseph Smith, go through the same thought processes that any translator goes through in searching for the correct words to best communicate the meaning of the original text in another language? In other words, was Joseph Smith actually doing the work of translation?

I don't know. Let's consider the possibilities.

* Yes, Joseph was a translator the exact same way that modern translators are translators. i.e., he understood and could write fluently in both languages. Conclusion: There's no problem with adieu, because if Joseph was translating, he could have used adieu, because it's an english word.

* No, Joseph cannot be considered a full-blown translator, and instead some other method of getting him to talk was used. Perhaps God formed the thoughts and Joseph said them out loud. Perhaps God gave him letter-by-letter, word-by-word what to say. Conclusion: There's no problem with adieu, because regardless of who came up with the words, be it Joseph, God, the Holy Ghost, any of them could have used adieu, because it's an english word.

3. What was God's role in the process?

I don't know. Let's consider the possibilities:

* God was heavily involved in the process, giving Joseph an exact word-for-word translation. Conclusion: There's no problem with adieu, because if God was translating for Joseph, He could have used adieu, because it's an english word.

* God influenced Joseph in some way less than giving him a word-for-word translation. Maybe inspiration. Maybe in causing ideas to crop into Joseph's mind, which he then struggled to find english words for. Maybe something else. Conclusion: There's no problem with adieu, because regardless of the extent God was involved in helping Joseph translate, He could have used adieu, because it's an english word.

* God had nothing to do with it. Maybe Joseph made it all up as he went along. Maybe Satan was the one providing the translation. Maybe eris the goddess of Chaos was behind it, or too much lead in the silverware, or zeus, or mental illness, or delusions of grandeur. Conclusion: There's no problem with adieu, because regardless of who came up with the words, be it Joseph, God, the Holy Ghost, any of them could have used adieu, because it's an english word.

Perhaps you can come up with some additional possibilities. If you can, let us know. Maybe we'll somehow reach a different conclusion. Here's one: In StarTrek: TNG, there was that episode where Worf was flying around between thousands of different realities. Maybe Joseph did something similar, and visited a reality where 'adieu' was really not an english word, and he translated the book there, and brought it back into our reality. If that was true, the adieu criticism wuold have a point.

LM

[Pahoran]

Pahoran:

Yes, I'm confident that you know what I know better than what I think I do.

I fail to see how you get that from anything I wrote.

And the point is? The language was closer to genuine Egyptian than "anti-Mormons" give it credit for being? I don't see the point...

The point is that anti-Mormons (no scare quotes necessary; you are opposing the Church of Jesus Christ) work themselves into a lather over the non-existence of any language called "Reformed Egyptian," but The Book of Mormon does not assert that any such language ever existed anyway; it merely asserts that the Nephites "reformed" some Egyptian characters for the purpose of engraving upon plates.

I have indeed read D & C #9. I assume you're referring to the "study it out in your mind" part? The burning bosom vs stupor of thought part? The "therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me" part?

All of the above.

First, how is the latter part of verse 9...

...NOT a contradiction of the beginning of verse 8...

Because it's not. How on earth do you make it out to be?

Who is responsible for the final product, God or Joseph Smith?

Ever heard of the fallacy of the false dilemma? In a collaborative effort, there is no "either-or" in view.

Of the millions of words in the BOM, how many of them were actually given to Smith by God?

Your counting is ever so slightly off; there are about 238,000 words in total.

And I don't see the translation process consisting in God simply handing Joseph the answers to his questions. See section 9, verses 8 and 9.

And if your answer is anything short of 100%, then how does that not contradict the assertion that: "therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me" ?

Again, how would it?

Also, I note that while you thanked me for my questions, you failed to answer them:

In point of fact, I did answer them, by referring you to Section 9.

1. Did Joseph Smith understand reformed Egyptian?

Not without help, no.

2. Did Joseph Smith, go through the same thought processes that any translator goes through in searching for the correct words to best communicate the meaning of the original text in another language? In other words, was Joseph Smith actually doing the work of translation?

That's what I understand the scriptures to be telling us, yes. See section 9, verses 8 and 9.

3. What was God's role in the process?

See section 9, verses 8 and 9.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LoudmouthMormon]

Here are a few passages that might be of interest from the Darby Bible:

Ya beat me to it! It is also found in the "J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible" translation:

Luke 9:61

Luke 14:33

Acts 18:18

Acts 18:21

Most importantly, you can find the word 3 times in Solomon Spaulding's "Manuscript Found".

Bernard Gui did some research of the use of "adieu" from Joseph Smith's contemporaries. Read this post, and the one after. The word "adieu" appears in Fennimore Cooper's "The Last of the Mohicans". And Charlotte Bronte's "Shirley". And Bret Harte's "Under the Eaves". And William Makepeace Thackery's "The Notch on the Ax". And John Keats' "Epistle to my Brother George". And Anthony Trollope's "Barchester Towers". And Elizabeth Barrett Browning's, "Elizabeth Leigh". And Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Blithedale Romance" and his "The House of Seven Gables".

Mark Twain used the word 'adieu'. Jane Austen used it. Charles ****ens used it. Washington Irving, Edgar Allen Poe, Herman Melville, Sir Walter Scott, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Louisa May Alcott, and Jules Verne used it.

Thomas Jefferson used it in the Declaration of Independence until a different concept was substituted in a late draft.

John Wesley uses the word in his personal correspondence.

It was used in English translations from French in contemporary Protestant hymns of Joseph Smith's time.

The word is used several times in Shakespeare's plays.

(In the above link, Bernard goes on to list 77 other books containing 'adieu', all written before the BoM was published.) One is tempted to be led to the conclusion that Americans in the 1800's not only knew what the word meant, but actually used it. However, since the 'adieu criticism' is basically a religion in itself, I'm certain we'll continue to encounter faithful adherents for years to come.

LM

p.s. - other "adieu" trivia:

The French translation of the BoM uses "adieu" twice in the verse. The Spanish version uses "Me despido" and "Adios". Me despido literally means 'I take my leave' and of course adios is a direct translation of adieu.

[grego]

we're talking about a alleged Reformed Egyptian word being translated into French long before French ever existed.

And all this time I was thinking French existed before JS used it...

NOW this argument starts to make sense to me.

May I suggest that anti-Mormons first read the "adieu" threads here before embarrassing themselves (over and over)?