Mormon Times Article on If/And Conditionals

[noel00]

Dale, any chance Spalding was exposed to this in his studies at the college he attended? Does this type of construction appear in those chapters attributed to Spalding?

[Daniel Peterson]

-1-

Here's my take on the most striking case of "if/and" conditionals in the BoM-- the several that occur in a row in Helaman 12. In my opinion, this is actually one long, run-on sentence that could be described as an "if/therefore" conditional. The awkwardness of the syntax stems from the fact that the text was orally dictated in a stream-of-cnosciousness fashion.

That the Book of Mormon was orally dictated is, in my judgment, clearly supported by all available evidence.

That it was composed on the fly, though, "in a stream of consciousness fashion," strikes me as wildly, spectacularly, improbable.

-2-

It's been pointed out to me that my Malevolent Stalker, spinning away over at his headquarters, is claiming that I've admitted, on this very thread, that I don't take the "if/and" conditional phenomenon seriously and that I was writing merely as a joke.

He has apparently convinced at least one other person there.

I don't know whether either of them is serious. (Truth be told, I don't much care whether they are or aren't.)

I was, though. And am.

Feel free to look at what I said in post #18, above, and judge for yourself whether I was really admitting that my entire article was meant in jest or whether, instead, this is merely yet another redundant, wearisome example of the Stalker's consistently unsubtle and demonstrable disingenuousness.

.

[Chris Smith]

That it was composed on the fly, though, "in a stream of consciousness fashion," strikes me as wildly, spectacularly, improbable.

FWIW, I believe that the narrative was pre-formulated, but that the text was largely (not entirely) composed on the fly. This, in my mind, explains why the text can be so conceptually sophisticated and yet so full of run-ons and sentence fragments.

Peace,

-Chris

[Joseph Antley]

I'm not sure how the existence of Semitic if/and conditionals fits into my evolving understanding of the Book of Mormon translation and I'm not sure how compelling I find the evidence. It's definitely interesting though. I'd like to hear how others here fit it into their translation theories, especially those like me who proscribe to a layers hypothesis (similar to Ostler's expansion theory).

It's been pointed out to me that my Malevolent Stalker, spinning away over at his headquarters, is claiming that I've admitted, on this very thread, that I don't take the "if/and" conditional phenomenon seriously and that I was writing merely as a joke.

He's the one who's joking. Scratch posts inane things as part of his satirical character in order to get more attention. When people begin to get bored with him he ups the idiocy of his claims. The person you think he's convinced is just another character in their pretend role-playing world.

[Daniel Peterson]

You're probably right about both of them. It seems pretty pointless to me, but . . .

FWIW, I believe that the narrative was pre-formulated, but that the text was largely (not entirely) composed on the fly. This, in my mind, explains why the text can be so conceptually sophisticated and yet so full of run-ons and sentence fragments.

I can't see any basis for agreeing with you on any significant element of the two sentences above.

Oh well.

[Uncertain]

The problem with a control text and the Book of Mormon is the difficulty in designing the criteria for a control. In the case of the if/and conditional, how often was it used in the ancient Hebrew? Did it vary by author? In other words, we would seem to need a lot more texts to make any type of valid control.

Hi Glenn101,

Could be in which case this needs to be done before we can reject the null hypothesis that the presence of if/and conditionals is coincidence or dictation artifacts. Designing good controls is frequently difficult this is not a valid reason to do without them.

As you noted, the if/and conditionals are interesting, but in and of themselves are not proof of antiquity. All of the other Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are not proof either. But the aggregate (among other things) have been submitted as evidence of an ancient Hebraic origin rather than a nineteenth century product.

Glenn

Sure, of course a collection of weak evidence does not necessarily add up to strong evidence. Now I am not making a sweeping judgment on all BOM evidences I am trying to point out lots of putative points of evidence do not necessarily add up to a strong case. After all as a believer you are no doubt aware critics try and make a similar case from aggregated evidence i.e.(they don't just have one thing that proves the BOM false). And yet you remain entirely unconvinced .

Best,

Uncertain

[Chris Smith]

I can't see any basis for agreeing with you on any significant element of the two sentences above.

Oh well.

[Mortal Man]

Here's my take on the most striking case of "if/and" conditionals in the BoM-- the several that occur in a row in Helaman 12. In my opinion, this is actually one long, run-on sentence that could be described as an "if/therefore" conditional. The awkwardness of the syntax stems from the fact that the text was orally dictated in a stream-of-cnosciousness fashion.

I just came to a similar conclusion. On close examination, the Helaman 12 "specimens" are not if/and conditionals.

Joseph was master of the run-on sentence. His revelations are saturated with intervening

[Mortal Man]

I'm glad that we at least have the semblance of a reasonable discussion herewith. Why does that seem so rare?

We're all pretty tired.

[Fifth Columnist]

FWIW, I believe that the narrative was pre-formulated, but that the text was largely (not entirely) composed on the fly. This, in my mind, explains why the text can be so conceptually sophisticated and yet so full of run-ons and sentence fragments.

According to D&C 9, that sounds about right.

5 And, behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you.

6 Do not murmur, my son, for it is wisdom in me that I have dealt with you after this manner.

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it [i.e., the translation] out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.

So according to these verses, Joseph Smith pre-formulated the text by studying it out in his mind, received a confirmation that the story he pre-formulated was correct, then composed the text on the fly as he dictated it to his scribe.

[Daniel Peterson]

I guess, MM, that you've abandoned Ed Ashment's attempted rebuttal -- if so, you were wise to do it -- and moved on to what strikes me as a very determined misreading of Helaman 12. Good luck.

So according to these verses, Joseph Smith pre-formulated the text by studying it out in his mind, received a confirmation that the story he pre-formulated was correct, then composed the text on the fly as he dictated it to his scribe.

LOL. Speaking of flying, that's quite a leap.

I've enjoyed, over the years, watching critics make various attempts to get rid of the "if/and" conditional. Their lack of success, thus far, is encouraging. Not much, mind you, but a little.

[mediator]

I guess, MM, that you've abandoned Ed Ashment's attempted rebuttal -- if so, you were wise to do it -- and moved on to what strikes me as a very determined misreading of Helaman 12. Good luck.

LOL. Speaking of flying, that's quite a leap.

I've enjoyed, over the years, watching critics make various attempts to get rid of the "if/and" conditional. Their lack of success, thus far, is encouraging. Not much, mind you, but a little.

Critics have tried to "get rid" of what, exactly? Do they deny the conditionals exist, or do they simply deny the implied notion that a reasonable apologetic can be squeezed from this anecdote?

[Fifth Columnist]

LOL. Speaking of flying, that's quite a leap.

Please explain how that is a leap.

[Fifth Columnist]

Critics have tried to "get rid" of what, exactly? Do they deny the conditionals exist, or do they simply deny the implied notion that a reasonable apologetic can be squeezed from this anecdote?

Yeah, I'd like to know exactly what he means since there are a number of apologists in this very thread that have expressed reservations about the if/and apologetic.

[Mortal Man]

I guess, MM, that you've abandoned Ed Ashment's attempted rebuttal -- if so, you were wise to do it

Royal makes a good point that the inverted "and/if" is valid English. However, he commits the very sin he accuses Ashment of in getting his clauses mixed up. His presentation of "if...and..." protasis fragments as if they were complete sentences with two clauses is misleading.

-- and moved on to what strikes me as a very determined misreading of Helaman 12. Good luck.

May I suggest you add a little FORTRAN to your linguistic endeavors. The IF/AND/THEN logical construct

IF (((danslogic .eq. faulty) .AND. (smugness .ne. rationality)) .AND. ((dansin .gt. fullretreat) .AND. (hes .eq. graspingatstraws))) &

THEN

write(6,*) "Dan should think this through a bit further."

END IF

is perfectly readable by any standard compiler.

Are you saying a computer is better at assigning "AND"s to the proper clause than you are?

[mediator]

OK, just read the whole article again.

it is significant to find "if/and" conditionals in the earliest English Book of Mormon, which presents itself as the translation of a record written by ancient Hebrews and their descendants. Joseph Smith would not have seen the Hebrew "if/and" conditional sentence in the King James Bible.

Professor Peterson is not very clear about what kind of evidence for "Book of Mormon truth" is found here. He does call it "significant," but he doesn't really demonstrate significance. I found it curious that the language in which the Book of Mormon was written is not mentioned in the article. The language was "Reformed Egyptian," not Hebrew, as some my be led to believe by Professor Peterson's statement, "written by ancient Hebrews." That throws an obstacle right in the middle of his contamination theory. But what reason do we have to suppose the Reformed Egyptian retained the if/and conditionals? I mean there might be scant reason to believe this would be retained in Reformed Hebrew, but Reformed Egyptian?

Professor Peterson suggests that what we see might be explained as "language contamination," but he doesn't really provide an argument, let alone a working theory how the original language could have been "leaked" in a way that doesn't conflict with what we know of the translation process. From what I understand of that process, the idea that the English translation, twice removed from the original language (i.e. Hebrew --> Reformed Egyptian --> English) could be "contaminated" by the original, is highly unlikely. In fact, it seems borderline impossible if we're to take the eye witness accounts at face value. The best method of translation is to read a phrase or sentence and then work it out in your mind. Joseph Smith wasn't fluent in Reformed Egyptian so he had to dictate to his scribe entire phrases and sentences as they appears in the hat or in his mind. There is evidence that the plates were not always present during translation, so where is the Hebrew element coming from?

If you are not fluent in both languages then you rely on a a word for word translation, which just doesn't work. No two languages in the world, when translating a simple sentence of ten or more words, would have each word line up in the same exact sequence as a literal word for word translation. For example, something short and simple like, "I like the blue house," if translated to another Romance language like Spanish, it would sound like, "the house blue likes me." (me gusta la casa azul). What the heck, the house likes me? Yes, that is literally how you say "I like the house" in Spanish. Now I don't know Hebrew but I would imagine that a word for word translation would yield similar errors in translation. So if God was "thinking" this through in Hebrew and Joseph Smith was dictating it as it appeared to him in the seer stone, then why isn't the BoM loaded with these examples? We should see them in virtually every sentence, and with much more intensity. And by pointing out the "Most correct book" tradition... how is that supposed to be a knock against the critics? It would seem that this would further damage the contamination theory, right?

As to why God allowed "if/and" conditional sentences to appear in the Original Manuscript and in the first edition of the Book of Mormon, I haven't the foggiest notion.

This is refreshingly honest, but it doesn't really address the point. The point I think is this: the only way this theory works is if God is providing erroneous revelation to his Prophet. To say it was intentional, and therefore not erroneous.... that just sounds ad hoc. Saying you haven't the foggiest notion why God would do this only underscores the point that there is no reason to believe he would, therefore the theory of language contamination should be dismissed on that basis alone. The burden here is not on the critics. The burden, it seems, would be for apologists to formulate some coherent argument that makes sense in light of the translation process.

[Daniel Peterson]

There are, no doubt, many things that I did not say and failed to explain and did not fully nuance in my 700-word newspaper article. (The post above, incidentally, is 696 words long.)

Professor Peterson is not very clear about what kind of evidence for "Book of Mormon truth" is found here. He does call it "significant," but he doesn't really demonstrate significance.

I think that the significance of the fact that a Hebraic conditional structure that has no known parallel in any period or regional dialect of English seems to appear in an English text claiming to derive from writers of Hebrew culture is (or ought to be) intuitively apparent.

I found it curious that the language in which the Book of Mormon was written is not mentioned in the article. The language was "Reformed Egyptian," not Hebrew, as some my be led to believe by Professor Peterson's statement, "written by ancient Hebrews."

Actually, like many other LDS scholars, I think that the language was Hebrew, and that "reformed Egyptian" signifies the script in which that language was written.

Like others, I have published my opinion on this matter.

That throws an obstacle right in the middle of his contamination theory. But what reason do we have to suppose the Reformed Egyptian retained the if/and conditionals? I mean there might be scant reason to believe this would be retained in Reformed Hebrew, but Reformed Egyptian?

See above.

Professor Peterson suggests that what we see might be explained as "language contamination," but he doesn't really provide an argument, let alone a working theory how the original language could have been "leaked" in a way that doesn't conflict with what we know of the translation process.

LOL. I also didn't provide a history of Egyptian scripts, a comparative study of biblical, Mishnaic, and modern Hebrew, or a primer on Mayan.

From what I understand of that process, the idea that the English translation, twice removed from the original language (i.e. Hebrew --> Reformed Egyptian --> English) could be "contaminated" by the original, is highly unlikely. In fact, it seems borderline impossible if we're to take the eye witness accounts at face value.

As noted, I don't accept the "twice removed."

The best method of translation is to read a phrase or sentence and then work it out in your mind. Joseph Smith wasn't fluent in Reformed Egyptian so he had to dictate to his scribe entire phrases and sentences as they appears in the hat or in his mind. There is evidence that the plates were not always present during translation, so where is the Hebrew element coming from?

My hypothesis, obviously, is that it comes from the original language of the text.

If you are not fluent in both languages then you rely on a a word for word translation, which just doesn't work. No two languages in the world, when translating a simple sentence of ten or more words, would have each word line up in the same exact sequence as a literal word for word translation. For example, something short and simple like, "I like the blue house," if translated to another Romance language like Spanish, it would sound like, "the house blue likes me." (me gusta la casa azul). What the heck, the house likes me? Yes, that is literally how you say "I like the house" in Spanish. Now I don't know Hebrew but I would imagine that a word for word translation would yield similar errors in translation.

Who has said anything about a "word for word translation"?

I certainly haven't.

So if God was "thinking" this through in Hebrew and Joseph Smith was dictating it as it appeared to him in the seer stone, then why isn't the BoM loaded with these examples? We should see them in virtually every sentence, and with much more intensity. And by pointing out the "Most correct book" tradition... how is that supposed to be a knock against the critics? It would seem that this would further damage the contamination theory, right?

I haven't the vaguest idea where you're deriving your expectations of what an inspired translation ought to look like. Having never done such translating nor experienced it directly, but basing my intuitions on my own slight acquaintance with ordinary translation, I have no precedents or statistical samples to go by.

This is refreshingly honest, but it doesn't really address the point. The point I think is this: the only way this theory works is if God is providing erroneous revelation to his Prophet. To say it was intentional, and therefore not erroneous.... that just sounds ad hoc. Saying you haven't the foggiest notion why God would do this only underscores the point that there is no reason to believe he would, therefore the theory of language contamination should be dismissed on that basis alone. The burden here is not on the critics. The burden, it seems, would be for apologists to formulate some coherent argument that makes sense in light of the translation process.

I have no theory of the translation process, and have no basis on which to formulate one. I wasn't there, and have never done it. I'm also not privy to the entirety of the mind and purposes of God.

I simply point to the fact that seemingly Hebraic conditional sentence forms appear at several points in the earliest English Book of Mormon text that have no apparent precedent in any dialect or period of English.

Empirical fact takes precedence for me, in this case, over speculative "theory." That some putative theory, based on nothing, conflicts with an empirical fact doesn't, in my judgment, negate the empirical fact.

[Fifth Columnist]

I have no theory of the translation process, and have no basis on which to formulate one. I wasn't there, and have never done it. I'm also not privy to the entirety of the mind and purposes of God.

I'd like to ask you the same question I posed to Robert Smith. Were the if/and conditionals revealed to Joseph Smith? If they weren't, how can they be used as evidence that the BOM is a translation of an earlier Hebrew-based text?

[Daniel Peterson]

I'd like to ask you the same question I posed to Robert Smith. Were the if/and conditionals revealed to Joseph Smith? If they weren't, how can they be used as evidence that the BOM is a translation of an earlier Hebrew-based text?

I believe that they were.

Moreover, there is little or no evidence to suggest that such conditionals would have been produced by Joseph Smith on his own.

But you need to understand that I think there is a complex interplay in most revelation between the human and the divine, and that I'm unbothered by deviations from "standard English" in the Original Manuscript. I regard it as simplistic to say, flatly, that either God or Joseph Smith was the translator of the Book of Mormon. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that other minds might have been involved, too. (And by that I'm not referring to Solomon Spalding, Parley Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, or James Fenimore Cooper, but -- and I thank my friend Royal Skousen for this somewhat unsettling thought -- to a person or persons on The Other Side.)

I have no tight comprehensive theory for any of this. I think the data insufficient to formulate one.

[Fifth Columnist]

I believe that they were.

Moreover, there is little or no evidence to suggest that such conditionals would have been produced by Joseph Smith on his own.

But you need to understand that I think there is a complex interplay in most revelation between the human and the divine, and that I'm unbothered by deviations from "standard English" in the Original Manuscript. I regard it as simplistic to say, flatly, that either God or Joseph Smith was the translator of the Book of Mormon. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that other minds might have been involved, too. (And by that I'm not referring to Solomon Spalding, Parley Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, or James Fenimore Cooper, but -- and I thank my friend Royal Skousen for this somewhat unsettling thought -- to a person or persons on The Other Side.)

I have no tight comprehensive theory for any of this. I think the data insufficient to formulate one.

Okay, that helps spell it out a bit. It appears that the if/and conditionals apologetic argument is as follows.

1. The original BOM text contained if/and conditionals that reflect its Hebrew origin.

2. The original BOM text was translated by God and/or his translation department (if you accept Skousen's theory).

3. Some if/and conditionals were purposefully mistranslated by God and/or his translation department. (I guess you could argue that the mistranslations were not purposeful, but then that really makes God and/or his translation department look pretty bad).

4. We have no idea why God or those acting under him would purposefully mistranslate the if/and statements, especially since the mistranslations were quickly removed from subsequent editions of the BOM and not discovered until 150 years later.

5. The manuscript text of the BOM contains if/and conditionals that reflect the Hebrew origin of the original text.

I can see why the apologetic argument would prefer to skip points 2-4.

The alternative explanations are:

1) The if/and conditionals were a product of Joseph Smith's speech/dictation habits (seems to be Brant's theory and I believe LOAP and Joseph Antley have shown some affinity for this view).

2) The if/and conditionals are random dictation errors produced during a lengthy dictation process (Uncertain argues that the apologists have failed to eliminate this possibility).

3) The if/and conditionals are not really if/and conditionals (Chris Smith and MM have made some arguments along these lines).

Interesting.

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay, that helps spell it out a bit. It appears that the if/and conditionals apologetic argument is as follows.

1. The original BOM text contained if/and statements that reflect its Hebrew origin.

Very likely true.

2. The original BOM text was translated by God and/or his translation department (if you accept Skousen's theory).

Sort of. Maybe.

We really don't know how this worked.

3. Some if/and conditionals were purposefully mistranslated by God and/or his translation department. (I guess you could argue that the mistranslations were not purposeful, but then that really makes God and/or his translation department look pretty bad).

This is going far beyond what we know or can know, and the phrase "purposefully mistranslated" is tendentious and inflammatory.

4. We have no idea why God or those acting under him would purposefully mistranslate the if/and statements, especially since the mistranslations were quickly removed from subsequent editions of the BOM and not discovered until 150 years later.

Relies on the badly flawed and objectionable (3).

5. The manuscript text of the BOM contains if/and conditionals that reflect the Hebrew origin of the original text.

This seems likely.

I can see why the apologetic argument would prefer to skip points 2-4.

Can you? I have my doubts.

Here are some of my own objections: We are on reasonably solid ground with (5), and therefore have reason to suspect that (1). But no data exists to entail (2-4).

The alternative explanations are:

Very weak.

1) The if/and conditionals were a product of Joseph Smith's speech/dictation habits (seems to be Brant's theory and I believe LOAP and Joseph Antley have shown some affinity for this view).

I see no evidence to support it.

2) The if/and conditionals are random dictation errors produced during a lengthy dictation process (Uncertain argues that the apologists have failed to eliminate this possibility).

They certainly don't seem randomly distributed in Helaman 12.

3) The if/and conditionals are not really if/and conditionals (Chris Smith and MM have made some arguments along these lines).

I think they're simply wrong.

Interesting.

True.

We know that "if/and" conditional sentences are common in ancient Hebrew.

We know that "if/and" conditional sentences are foreign to English at every stage of its history and in every dialect examined thus far by believing LDS linguists -- including the period of Joseph Smith and his regional dialect -- and that the efforts of zealous critics to find non-LDS linguists who disagree have failed, thus far.

We also know that seeming "if/and" conditional sentences occur at certain places in the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon and in the 1830 first edition -- including one passage where, it seems, there are two many of them to be explained as mere coincidence.

One possible explanation of these facts is that a Hebraism has survived the translation process, as such structures often detectably do in translations. Counterexplanations appear distinctly weak.

.

[Glenn101]

Okay, that helps spell it out a bit. It appears that the if/and conditionals apologetic argument is as follows.

1. The original BOM text contained if/and conditionals that reflect its Hebrew origin.

2. The original BOM text was translated by God and/or his translation department (if you accept Skousen's theory).

3. Some if/and conditionals were purposefully mistranslated by God and/or his translation department. (I guess you could argue that the mistranslations were not purposeful, but then that really makes God and/or his translation department look pretty bad).

4. We have no idea why God or those acting under him would purposefully mistranslate the if/and statements, especially since the mistranslations were quickly removed from subsequent editions of the BOM and not discovered until 150 years later.

5. The manuscript text of the BOM contains if/and conditionals that reflect the Hebrew origin of the original text.

I can see why the apologetic argument would prefer to skip points 2-4.

There is no reason to suppose those if/and conditionals were mistranslations nor that the other Hebraic structures and idioms were mistranslations, by anyone.

The alternative explanations are:

1) The if/and conditionals were a product of Joseph Smith's speech/dictation habits (seems to be Brant's theory and I believe LOAP and Joseph Antley have shown some affinity for this view).

2) The if/and conditionals are random dictation errors produced during a lengthy dictation process (Uncertain argues that the apologists have failed to eliminate this possibility).

3) The if/and conditionals are not really if/and conditionals (Chris Smith and MM have made some arguments along these lines).

Interesting.

On point 2 alternative explanations. The apologists have not eliminated many possibilities. There are alternative explanations for so many things in the Book of Mormon. How well they fare in light of all of the other evidences remains the question. For the one in question, i.e. the product of a lengthy dictation process, some evidence should be produced that it is fairly plausible. It is fine to posit an alternative explanation, but it needs to be backed by some type of evidence or precedent. And there needs to be plausible alternative explanations for all of the other things Hebraic that have been found.

Glenn

[Uncertain]

They certainly don't seem randomly distributed in Helaman 12.

If if/and conditionals are simply a product of dictation. I see no reason why we should assume they would be randomly distributed throughout the BOM. What evidence do you have that indicates we should assume this? Plus as of yet I have not seen you address Chris's or MM's argument that the if/and conditionals in Helaman 12 are not in fact if/and conditionals. You have indicated you disagree but disagreement is not a counter argument.

Plus this solution explains what the apologetic position does not. Why there are so few if/and conditionals. After all the one authentic Hebrew text that was looked at Jeremiah approximately half of it's conditionals were if/and.

I also think you dismiss point one to lightly. If I understand correctly Brant claims to have located at least one example of JS using a if/and conditional in early writings. This is a far cry from "I see no evidence to support it".

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

There is no reason to suppose those if/and conditionals were mistranslations nor that the other Hebraic structures and idioms were mistranslations, by anyone.

On point 2 alternative explanations. The apologists have not eliminated many possibilities. There are alternative explanations for so many things in the Book of Mormon. How well they fare in light of all of the other evidences remains the question. For the one in question, i.e. the product of a lengthy dictation process, some evidence should be produced that it is fairly plausible. It is fine to posit an alternative explanation, but it needs to be backed by some type of evidence or precedent. And there needs to be plausible alternative explanations for all of the other things Hebraic that have been found.

Glenn

The burden of proof is not on the critic to show a given observation is due to random chance or plausible confounding variables. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. This is standard procedure in the sciences. Suppose I was trying to show crystal healing worked to do so I gathered affidavits and 5 out of 10 people claimed crystal healing cured their cold. I write up my results and submit to a main stream journal. The editor replies I need to show my results are statistically significant that is are not due to random chance. Do you suppose he would accept an argument that it is up to the editor to prove my results are random and hence my study should be published? Well I can assure you such a response would go over like a lead balloon . Given thousands of grammar mistakes in the BOM and many possible Hebrew linguistic constructs it is a plausible alternative explanation that some few grammar mistakes would resemble Hebrew constructs. Tell me are you prepared to argue Hebracisms never occur by random chance? Well then clearly Green Eggs and Ham must have been written by ancient Hebrews. See:

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_173.pdf

Best,

Uncertain

[Daniel Peterson]

If if/and conditionals are simply a product of dictation. I see no reason why we should assume they would be randomly distributed throughout the BOM. What evidence do you have that indicates we should assume this?

I have none, and don't believe it to be the case. I was responding to a suggestion that they were merely random.

Plus as of yet I have not seen you address Chris's or MM's argument that the if/and conditionals in Helaman 12 are not in fact if/and conditionals. You have indicated you disagree but disagreement is not a counter argument.

Maybe I'll get around to it. Their reading of the passage seems to me quite evidently wrong.

Plus this solution explains what the apologetic position does not. Why there are so few if/and conditionals. After all the one authentic Hebrew text that was looked at Jeremiah approximately half of it's conditionals were if/and.

If it were truly a "solution," it would have that advantage, yes.

I also think you dismiss point one to lightly. If I understand correctly Brant claims to have located at least one example of JS using a if/and conditional in early writings. This is a far cry from "I see no evidence to support it".

Can you point to the specific passage? I haven't seen it.

Ed Ashment claimed to find several examples in the Doctrine and Covenants, but they weren't, so I'm disinclined to credit claims to have found parallel cases without first examining them myself.

In any case, one isolated example could conceivably be dismissed as the product of scribal error, etc. The series in Helaman 12 cannot plausibly be so explained.

The burden of proof is not on the critic to show a given observation is due to random chance or plausible confounding variables. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. This is standard procedure in the sciences.

This, I think, points up one of the reasons that some of us seem to be talking past one another here.

I don't see this as a matter of "science." Nor do I believe that the data exists to sustain a comprehensive and unitary theory of Book of Mormon translation, as some appear to be demanding. I regard the "if/and" conditional phenomenon neither as rigorous proof of Book of Mormon antiquity nor, as my Malevolent Stalker falsely claims, as a meaningless jest, but, rather, as (strongly) suggestive of a Hebrew or Hebrew-like Unterlage for the English Book of Mormon text. Nothing more, but nothing less. Can it be quantified? Nope. It's just a hint. But a good one. And those determined to maneuver out of its path are certainly free to do so.

Suppose I was trying to show crystal healing worked to do so I gathered affidavits and 5 out of 10 people claimed crystal healing cured their cold. I write up my results and submit to a main stream journal. The editor replies I need to show my results are statistically significant that is are not due to random chance. Do you suppose he would accept an argument that it is up to the editor to prove my results are random and hence my study should be published? Well I can assure you such a response would go over like a lead balloon .

Quite beside the point. I'm aware of modern science and of the nature of statistical evidence. Whereas claims of impersonal and rather mechanical crystal healing are easily subjected to statistical analysis, a very small set of apparent acts by one or more purposive agents (e.g., Joseph Smith, at the least, and a hypothesized ancient author, otherwise unknown, and a hypothesized translating person, otherwise unknown or at best indirectly known) acting for undisclosed aims is far less easily susceptible to such analysis.

Given thousands of grammar mistakes in the BOM and many possible Hebrew linguistic constructs it is a plausible alternative explanation that some few grammar mistakes would resemble Hebrew constructs.

The monkeys-at-typewriters gambit isn't especially convincing in this instance. The "if/and" conditional isn't random; it pertains to the very linguistic tradition from which the original text claims to come, yet isn't characteristic (to put things mildly) of the linguistic tradition within which the English text resides. And, unless one is prepared to buy the MM/CS reading of Helaman 12, which I see no reason to do, it occurs too many times in a row in that passage to be dismissed as a random grammar mistake. (See above.)

Tell me are you prepared to argue Hebraisms never occur by random chance?

I am not. Why would you imagine such a thing?

Well then clearly Green Eggs and Ham must have been written by ancient Hebrews. See:

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_173.pdf

I've seen it.

Amusing.

See, also, https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6872