Do Hebraisms In The Late War Undermine The Ones In The Book Of Mormon?

[prismsplay]

I'm not sure why you see this as an attack on the credibility of the Book of Mormon. As far as I can tell, the argument isn't that Joseph Smith plagiarized or copied from other sources, but rather that the choice of language and style in the book is best understood by the context in which the Book of Mormon appears. At least that's how I see it.

 

The way you see it is healthy. Obviously, the existence of Hebraisms due to mimicking the King James Bible's language prior to the Book of Mormon's translation is a factor that should be considered. That type of consideration does not bother me, as long as one distinguishes between the superficiality of mimicking and the possibility of carrying over Hebraisms inherent to the Book of Mormon due to the language of its authors. So far no one has proven that Joseph Smith had read mimicking books prior to translating the Book of Mormon as the unlearned person predicted in Isaiah 29. Since Book of Mormon Hebraisms are too pervasive to be accounted for by mimicking the King James Bible, they either result from the nature of the engravings being translated or from mimicking the mimickings. But since the mimickings are superficial by their very nature, and the Book of Mormon rings with authoritative language, I don't see how the mimickings could have had any influence during the once-through dictation recorded by scribes.

 

I have said that Benjamin McGuire was overly polite in his excellent article "The Late War Against the Book of Mormon." For after considering the major flaws he points out, I would not refrain from suggesting what seems obvious to me, that The Late War is being rescued from oblivion for the purpose of attempting to undermine the credibility of the Book of Mormon, the outcome of that attempt depending on whether or not it can be proven that Joseph Smith read that book prior to translating the Book of Mormon. It is like a last-minute hail-mary pass to the endzone hoping that it will be caught by someone on one's own team and reverse an otherwise bitter defeat.

Edited November 5, 2013 by prismsplay

[Benjamin McGuire]

What I find interesting is the degree to which Joseph Smith's environment influenced how the book appeared in English. The argument for Hebraisms seems to rest on the idea that the language reflects ancient Hebrew patterns, not modern English ones. The appearance of Hunt's book suggests to me that the environmental influences were greater than the Hebraicists seem to allow.

Hebraisms in Hunt's book can reflect multiple things - and we need to be very precise about what they are. They can be caused by imitation (that is, we might follow forms or patterns of texts in a source). They can be caused by copying text. They can be caused by Hunt using these forms intentionally (because he is aware of the form and its appropriate usage and so is creating his own Hebraisms in the text in an appropriate way). And they can be completely accidental (in which case they aren't Hebraisms at all).

 

So, to make the sort of claims that are being suggested the Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon and in Hunt's volume have to be evaluated and classified in these four classifications. There has been a fair amount of work done on the Book of Mormon to discuss the Hebraisms there in these kinds of terms. There has been zero work done on Hunt's volume to do the same.

 

To go back a little further, I think that you are also missing the bigger picture.

 

You noted: "What I find interesting is the degree to which Joseph Smith's environment influenced how the book appeared in English." But this seems to miss the very first minimal observation that should be the starting point of this discussion. Why is the Book of Mormon in English? Why doesn't Joseph Smith translate it into German? Or Spanish? The Book of Mormon (like most other texts) is written in translation to an audience. And it is that idealized audience that drives the language of the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is translated in a particular time and place (which it was) then there is every reason to believe that this time and place influenced the way that the Book of Mormon appears in English. This shouldn't be all that interesting because it happens with every text that is written - including every text that is translated.

 

If you haven't read my review of Grunder, you really should read at least part one, because I spend a fair amount of time going over this idea, along with its implications for texts more generally.

 

Ben M.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[jkwilliams]

To go back a little further, I think that you are also missing the bigger picture.

 

You noted: "What I find interesting is the degree to which Joseph Smith's environment influenced how the book appeared in English." But this seems to miss the very first minimal observation that should be the starting point of this discussion. Why is the Book of Mormon in English? Why doesn't Joseph Smith translate it into German? Or Spanish? The Book of Mormon (like most other texts) is written in translation to an audience. And it is that idealized audience that drives the language of the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is translated in a particular time and place (which it was) then there is every reason to believe that this time and place influenced the way that the Book of Mormon appears in English. This shouldn't be all that interesting because it happens with every text that is written - including every text that is translated.

 

If you haven't read my review of Grunder, you really should read at least part one, because I spend a fair amount of time going over this idea, along with its implications for texts more generally.

 

Ben M.

 

No, I haven't read your review but will do so in a moment. And I completely agree with you above in that translating the original language, whatever it was, into English necessarily changes the meaning, structure, and so on. People who learn a second language realize that words and concepts don't always have exact correspondence in both languages. For example, missionaries in my mission used the word "fallar" all the time, but there's no corresponding word in English. When I was working on the translator's edition of the triple combination, it was interesting (and logical) to me that the attempt was made to link footnotes to concepts rather than words. As far as the idealized audience, that goes one step farther in expressing in English the ideas for a 19th-century American audience. I don't disagree with any of this.

 

Again, what I find interesting is the notion that, despite the layers of translation, whatever they may be, these Hebraisms survived such that they can be clearly identified as intentional. I honestly don't know how you determine whether such a structure is intentional, but that's beside the point. It just seems to me that trying to label anything in the text as clearly ancient or clearly modern is a bit futile.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Again, what I find interesting is the notion that, despite the layers of translation, whatever they may be, these Hebraisms survived such that they can be clearly identified as intentional. I honestly don't know how you determine whether such a structure is intentional, but that's beside the point. It just seems to me that trying to label anything in the text as clearly ancient or clearly modern is a bit futile.

Right. I don't find Hebraisms to be exceptionally good evidence for the Book of Mormon being a translation of an ancient text. But, I do believe that it can be evidence. Part of this is because I tend to have some different views on the value of certain kinds of literary mechanisms. And I generally put up a higher evidentiary bar than many do.

 

In terms of an intentional structure, the issue is all about how the rhetorical figure changes the way we understand a text. We speak of Chiasmus as a Hebraism, but what exactly do we mean by this? In general, Hebrew literature (and by this we mean primarily their scriptural tradition) contains a lot of poetic material. The poetics is filled with parallelisms. And parallelisms serve an invaluable function within a text. It isn't discussed a lot in part because it is assumed, I think by the group who tends to read the text in this way. As a way of illustrating this, I am working my way through a book titled Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible (Published in 2012 by De Gruyter). The first essay in that collection is by Moshe Bar-Asher and he has some related comments in his introduction:

 

 

Certain aspects of this phenomenon have been well known for a long time, while others less so. The best known aspect is an explanation that becomes evident in the language of Biblical poetry from the use of synonyms in parallel hemistiches.

In other words, the inclusion of parallelisms isn't always just an aesthetic feature of the text, it can also reflect meaning for interpretation and reading (an interpretation of itself so to speak, written by an author). In this context, Chiasmus becomes highly visible and clearly intentional - a part of the rhetorical strategy. If a text has a string of these parallels - A : A', B : B', C : C', D : D', E : E', and then it jumps to a chiastic pattern - F : G : H : H' : G ' : F' and then back to the original poetic structure of I : I', J : J', and so on, we can feel relatively confident that the shift is intentional. It may even be a purely aesthetic shift (for all intents and purposes), but often it can be discovered to have a purpose. And that purpose can be embedded in the parallels. That is, the main theme in F may be represented by an ambiguous word. And as we read through F and G and H, that ambiguity hangs there until it begins to resolve itself in H' and G' until we have an unambiguous parallel in F'. We can then re-read the section without the ambiguity (if we choose to). But the point is that chiasmus as a rhetorical figure needs to have a point. It is possible that the point is simply aesthetic. To create a certain style in the text - but that sort of feature would need to be highly visible (something you get in poetics, but not in prose). Within prose, we get stronger and weaker arguments discussing the value of the figure.

 

There are clearly features of a chiasm that we can often use to exclude them as intentional. A chiasm that crosses natural boundaries in the text is weakened a great deal. For example, a chiasm that starts in the last chapter of 1 Nephi and runs into the first chapter of 2 Nephi would do this in a way that would virtually exclude it from being intentional, or a chiasm that moves from prose by one author into a quote or citation of another author would be just as dramatic. Not so clear (but still helpful) is the way the chiasm in English interacts with sentence structure and paragraphs. The structure itself may be necessary (it is how the chiasm is made after all) but is a relatively minor part of the argument over intentionality. So, let's go to a great example of a short text that we are all familiar with that can easily be formatted as a chiasm:

 

A: Hickory, ****ory, Dock

B: The mouse ran up the clock

C: The clock struck one

B': The mouse fell down

A': Hickory, ****ory, Dock

 

Now, this could be a nice tight chiasm. But, we run into the problem of the purpose of the chiasm. If we look at the text, we might know it as potentially having its origins as a counting rhyme. And we can see the rhyming easily enough. So what if we re-formatted this as a rhyme (and by the way, the phrasing doesn't change, just our labels):

 

A: Hickory, ****ory, Dock

A: The mouse ran up the clock

B: The clock struck one

B: The mouse fell down

A: Hickory, ****ory, Dock

 

Now, this becomes a limerick. And if we see the text as using the rhyming pattern more than the parallelism (which I do), we recognize an inherent intention in the text, and we opt for a limerick as the structure as opposed to a chiasm. This is not a Hebraism - no matter how hard we try to make it one.

 

So, this takes me to the first example from Grunder's bibliography in the entry under Hunt's book (this is the best example that Grunder finds for a chiasm in Hunt's text).

 

 

THE frailty of man speaketh volumes [1];

one man accuseth another [2a]; but where is he who is perfect [2b]?

Man deviseth mighty plans in his own mind [3a], but he accomplisheth them not [3b].

He is wise in his own conceit [3a], but his wisdom faileth him [3b]:

he seeth folly in others [2a], but perceiveth not his own [2b];

 

he is as a reed shaken with the wind [1].

In Hunt's work, this is broken into three verses. Since the proposed chiasm doesn't cross out of these verses, and since it all occurs in the same chapter, those features are not an issue. Grunder observes this about this small piece of text:

 

 

This is an unpretentious chiasm compared to some which I see offered by Book of Mormon defenders. In its defense, however, I will point out that all of the passage's actual words and punctuation are transcribed here verbatim, with no deletions or paraphrasing. The passage stands alone as a proverb/commentary unit: verse 4 which follows it begins a military narration . . .

And all of this is quite true. In fact, there are a half dozen or so such short introductory units leading into a chapter. It isn't really standing alone as it is intended as a commentary on the comments of the chapter. It is illustrated best in 36:20-22:

 

 

... where Wilkinson the chief captain, expected to be joined by the army of Hampton, from Champlain. But in this he was disappointed; for lo! Hampton sent one of his captains, whose name was Atkinson, to Wilkinson, with the tidings that he had declined to meet him, and was returning to his camp on the lake. Now when the army of Wilkinson heard those things, they were discouraged; and all the plans that had been devised by Armstrong, the chief captain, and scribe of the great Sanhedrin, were of no avail.

At any rate, Grunder observes (as do I) that this is written as a proverb. Now, in this proverb, Hunt doesn't just imitate biblical language, he quotes it (in at least three places more on this in a moment). This isn't unexpected. The first of these little bits comes in the first verse of Chapter 4:

 

Let the children of Columbia beware of false prophets which come in sheep's clothing; for it is written, Ye shall know them by their fruits.

This one is probably pretty easy to recognize, right? Much of it comes from Matthew 7:15-16: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" As a side note, this is the only one of these little bits introducing chapters that appears to be formattable into a chiastic structure.

So this piece in Chapter 36 (that Grunder labels as a Hebraism) uses scripture. Verse 3 contains the references. First to Proverbs 26:12: “Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.” The second is Ecclesiastes 10:3 “Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.” Both of these, by the way, come from what we term “wisdom literature” – the language of proverbs. The last piece is taken from Matthew 11:7: “And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?” So, what does all of this mean?

 

From my perspective, it no longer really looks like a chiasm. Instead it looks like couplets that are defining themselves. Most interesting to me is the occurrence of the colon in verse 3. That punctuation is a connector - what follows defines what comes before it:

 

He is wise in his own conceit, but his wisdom faileth him: (Hunt's phrase)

he seeth folly in others, but perceiveth not his own; (repeated this time using biblical language)

 

Because of the way this is placed in the text, it runs counter to our expectation given Grunder's break down of the text. Further, we have this sort of repeated theme (not in chaistic form - just repeated) with two related phrases, the second responding to the first (and not so much responding to another element in the proposed chiasm):

 

one man accuseth another; but where is he who is perfect

Man deviseth mighty plans in his own mind, but he accomplisheth them not.

He is wise in his own conceit, but his wisdom faileth him:

he seeth folly in others, but perceiveth not his own;

 

Now, what is most interesting to us along these lines is the way these lines are constructed. Proposition 1, "but" Proposition 2. This is a format most familiar to us from Proverbs (not entirely unexpected, mind you given the tone and the source of two of the quotes from the Old Testament - both from Wisdom literature). So, compare that with this from Proverbs 14:

 

 

20 The poor is hated even of his own neighbour: but the rich hath many friends.

21 He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he.

22 Do they not err that devise evil? but mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good.

23 In all labour there is profit: but the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury.

24 The crown of the wise is their riches: but the foolishness of fools is folly.

25 A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.

This is much better read as a series of proverbs reflecting on Hampton's foolishness. So, when I get done reading these three verses in Hunt, what I don't see is the rhetorical figure of a chiasm, along with the reflected intention of an author to use this rhetorical figure (either aesthetically, or to convey to us some additional information).

 

Is that helpful?

 

I am not saying that Book of Mormon chiasmi are necessarily better. I think that many of them are not likely to be intentional either. But I can probably present a few that seem quite complex by comparison to this one - and unlike Grunder's comments, when we talk about intentionality, complexity and the way things fit into the larger rhetorical strategy of an author are significant and far more important than simply having an "unpretentious chiasm" in which "all of the passage's actual words and punctuation are transcribed here verbatim, with no deletions or paraphrasing."

 

Ben M.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[omni]

 

If the book was to be an historical account, why undermine that purpose with such nebulous phraseology? The reader of history wants to learn facts about that history without having to endure flowery phrases that are difficult to figure out what they mean.

 

 

 

Interesting, I've been using that same argument against the BoM.  Why would God in all his infinite wisdom dictate or allow Joseph to transcribe the "plain and simple truths" of the BoM using "flowery phrases that are difficult to figure out what they mean."  This is the most important book in the world and was written for our day, why not translate it into the easier to understand 19th century vernacular of Joseph's day?  IMO, the closest he have to modern scripture are the General Conference addresses and the First Presidency messages in the Ensign.  They are still written in a beautiful, yet simple to understand vernacular.  Do they lose some meaning because they aren't written in the "language of scripture"? 

[prismsplay]

Why would God in all his infinite wisdom dictate or allow Joseph to transcribe the "plain and simple truths" of the BoM using "flowery phrases that are difficult to figure out what they mean."  This is the most important book in the world and was written for our day, why not translate it into the easier to understand 19th century vernacular of Joseph's day?

 

The Book of Mormon is not made up of flowery phrases like The Late War is. And the Book of Mormon does not deliberately make statements that shy away from plainness like The Late War does:

 

"... the chief Governor, whom the people had chosen to rule over the land of Columbia; even James, whose sir-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedron of the people, who were assembled together. And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia, whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth; albeit, he had slept with his fathers."

 

Why not just write President James Madison?

 

Why refer to "the Great Sanhedron" when no such organization by that name existed in America?

 

If a written paper [sounds like a school exercise] were delivered to the Great Sanhedron, why add "who were assembled together", since that would already be implied?

 

Why refer to the city of Washington, without actually naming it, using 43 words?

 

The cuteness of hiding plain facts behind flowery phrases for dramatic effect is so unlike the Book of Mormon's plain language.

Edited November 5, 2013 by prismsplay

[jkwilliams]

The Book of Mormon is not made up of flowery phrases like The Late War is.

I'd disagree with that. So would Mark Twain.

And the Book of Mormon does not deliberately make statements that shy away from plainness like The Late War does:

 

"... the chief Governor, whom the people had chosen to rule over the land of Columbia; even James, whose sir-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedron of the people, who were assembled together. And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia, whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth; albeit, he had slept with his fathers."

 

Why not just write President James Madison?

 

Why refer to "the Great Sanhedron" when no such organization by that name existed in America?

 

If a written paper [sounds like a school exercise] were delivered to the Great Sanhedron, why add "who were assembled together", since that would already be implied?

 

Why refer to the city of Washington, without actually naming it, using 43 words?

 

The cuteness of hiding plain facts behind flowery phrases for effects is so unlike the Book of Mormon's plain manner of communication.

Everything you've just said can be (and has been) said about the Book of Mormon.

[volgadon]

The Book of Mormon is not made up of flowery phrases like The Late War is. And the Book of Mormon does not deliberately make statements that shy away from plainness like The Late War does:

 

"... the chief Governor, whom the people had chosen to rule over the land of Columbia; even James, whose sir-name was Madison, delivered a written paper to the Great Sanhedron of the people, who were assembled together. And the name of the city where the people were gathered together was called after the name of the chief captain of the land of Columbia, whose fame extendeth to the uttermost parts of the earth; albeit, he had slept with his fathers."

 

Why not just write President James Madison?

 

Why refer to "the Great Sanhedron" when no such organization by that name existed in America?

 

If a written paper [sounds like a school exercise] were delivered to the Great Sanhedron, why add "who were assembled together", since that would already be implied?

 

Why refer to the city of Washington, without actually naming it, using 43 words?

 

The cuteness of hiding plain facts behind flowery phrases for dramatic effect is so unlike the Book of Mormon's plain language.

 

I take it that you haven't lookd at the link I provided you.

[prismsplay]

Everything you've just said can be (and has been) said about the Book of Mormon.

 

The Book of Mormon does not present an array of flowery phrases for dramatic effect like The Late War does. The Book of Mormon's communications are generally terse and direct. As Raymond Treat pointed out, some of the Book of Mormon's authors mention spiritual guidance directing what to include and what to leave out of their accounts. With Hunt, content is less important than presentation, and style is more important than substance. It is a poorly written book of little value to anyone. The only real value is the history it tells, and that is so disguised behind flowery phrases that any lengthy quotes from it would have to include explanations for its strange ramblings. The only reason it was rescued from oblivion was that someone thought it might be used to attack a world famous book that millions of people actually enjoy reading because of the plain and precious truths it contains.

Edited November 5, 2013 by prismsplay

[Robert F. Smith]

I believe a parable from Hugh Nibley is appropriate here :

 

A young man once long ago claimed he had found a large diamond in his field as he was ploughing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone took sides. A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the young man was suffering from a well-known form of delusion. An historian showed that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and been deceived. A geologist proved that there were no diamonds in the area but only quartz: the young man had been fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect the stone itself, the geologist declined with a weary, tolerant smile and a kindly shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut diamonds: he was, therefore, simply speaking the common language of his time. A sociologist showed that only three out of 177 florists' assistants in four major cities believed the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not the young man but someone else who had found the stone

 

It is only "an indigent jeweler named Snite" who points out that the stone is available for examining, and the matter of its authenticity has nothing to do with all these speculative assessments.

 

Nibley then praises the Book of Mormon as "a colossal structure," a book that if "considered purely as fiction, . . . is a performance without parallel."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1420&index=3

 

This is a case of focusing on twigs while ignoring the majesty of the Black Forest.

Yes, cdowis.  You've got it.

[Robert F. Smith]

How do you show that such Hebraisms do not occur in pre-1830 English literature? That seems an impossible task.

Much of pre-1830 literature has been digitized and is searchable.  Claims can be checked.  It was virtually impossible before the computer age, and certainly before all that literature was digitized recently. Vetting the claims is crucial.

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting, I've been using that same argument against the BoM.  Why would God in all his infinite wisdom dictate or allow Joseph to transcribe the "plain and simple truths" of the BoM using "flowery phrases that are difficult to figure out what they mean."  This is the most important book in the world and was written for our day, why not translate it into the easier to understand 19th century vernacular of Joseph's day?  IMO, the closest he have to modern scripture are the General Conference addresses and the First Presidency messages in the Ensign.  They are still written in a beautiful, yet simple to understand vernacular.  Do they lose some meaning because they aren't written in the "language of scripture"? 

This bespeaks Protestant theories of inerrancy and infallibility of the biblical text, inseparable from divine control of its transmission.  No evidence supports such a view.  Joseph expressed the Book of Mormon text according to his language and understanding.  God allows us puny humans to handle such matters.  He knows that we cannot grow and be tested if he does everything for us.

[canard78]

The Book of Mormon does not present an array of flowery phrases for dramatic effect like The Late War does. The Book of Mormon's communications are generally terse and direct. As Raymond Treat pointed out, some of the Book of Mormon's authors mention spiritual guidance directing what to include and what to leave out of their accounts. With Hunt, content is less important than presentation, and style is more important than substance. It is a poorly written book of little value to anyone. The only real value is the history it tells, and that is so disguised behind flowery phrases that any lengthy quotes from it would have to include explanations for its strange ramblings. The only reason it was rescued from oblivion was that someone thought it might be used to attack a world famous book that millions of people actually enjoy reading because of the plain and precious truths it contains.

Plain and precious yes, but still plenty of flowery language. I love the poetry of lots of the Book of Mormon. Nephi's lament is flowery, but also one of my favourite pieces of prose/poetry anywhere is all of literature.

[Tiki]

It's quite obvious Joseph Smith was influenced by Jonathan Swift's 1826 publication of Gulliver's Travels, which of course is the journeys of "Mr. Lemuel Gulliver" to a far off unknown continent. It even includes the firm testimony of Lemuel Gulliver's cousin, Richard Sympson of the veracity of Lemuel Gulliver's writings.

The first chapter even begins quite similar to the first chapter of The Book of Mormon, with Lemuel Gulliver mentioning his father and his brothers.

These similarities, from the name of Lemuel, overseas travels by ship, witnesses, etc, are obviously such striking similarities to The Book of Mormon, that they cannot be ignored but to have had a considerable influence on Joseph Smith.

Hopefully, the Lilliputians intent on proving The Book of Mormon was plagiarized, etc., will find this most helpful.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Tiki

[prismsplay]

Plain and precious yes, but still plenty of flowery language. I love the poetry of lots of the Book of Mormon. Nephi's lament is flowery, but also one of my favourite pieces of prose/poetry anywhere is all of literature.

 

You and I are using the word "flowery" in different ways. By "flowery" I mean "padded with unnecessary phrases for dramatic effect," like the Wizard of Oz's speeches to the scarecrow, the tin man, and the lion, or like The Late War's ramblings. I do not find flowery ramblings in the Book of Mormon. I agree with Raymond Treat that since the engravers of the Book of Mormon frequently mention spiritual guidance concerning what to include and what not to include, everything in the Book of Mormon is there for a purpose known to God and for us to discover.

 

Concerning poetry, I have written several pieces that were inspired by passages in the Book of Mormon. Here is one:

 

Nephi's Vision

 

At journey's end the tree of life stands lovely more than all we know.

The whiteness of the fruit it bears exceeds in brightness sunlit snow.

The taste thereof has sweeter tang than honey and the honeycomb.

The joy therefrom surpasses throbs sojourners feel in finding home.

Joy must be shared or is not joy. There is a search through swimming eyes

To find and call familiar souls to come and taste of paradise.

Though many doubt or even jeer to try to prompt a sense of shame,

The tree is there, its fruit is free, the path to it has precious name.

A virgin fairer than the fair became the mother of our God.

In children and in childlike hearts the love of Him is shed abroad.

At journey's end the tree of life stands lovely more than all we know.

The whiteness of the fruit it bears exceeds in brightness sunlit snow.

Edited November 6, 2013 by prismsplay

[volgadon]

 I do not find flowery ramblings in the Book of Mormon. I agree with Raymond Treat that since the engravers of the Book of Mormon frequently mention spiritual guidance concerning what to include and what not to include, everything in the Book of Mormon is there for a purpose known to God and for us to discover.

 

 

Special pleading. Nowhere in the BoM do we find such a Quranic understanding of the text, especially when there are numerous passages underlining the authors' weaknesses and shortcomings.

[omni]

This bespeaks Protestant theories of inerrancy and infallibility of the biblical text, inseparable from divine control of its transmission.  No evidence supports such a view.  Joseph expressed the Book of Mormon text according to his language and understanding.  God allows us puny humans to handle such matters.  He knows that we cannot grow and be tested if he does everything for us.

 

The church teaches that it is intimately guided by the Lord in every facet of its organization.  We believe we are able to receive divine inspiration and revelation in every aspects of our lives--from a bishop calling the Primary chorister to the revelation on removing the priesthood ban.  If Heavenly Father inspires each bishop who to call as a nursery worker, why couldn't he inspire Joseph to translate the BoM and its plain and precious truths in an easy to comprehend verancular?  If the BoM is truly scripture shouldn't its contents stand on its own rather than what could be seen as a parlor trick needed to convince the masses?

Edited November 6, 2013 by omni

[wenglund]

The church teaches that it is intimately guided by the Lord in every facet of its organization.  We believe we are able to receive divine inspiration and revelation in every aspects of our lives--from a bishop calling the Primary chorister to the revelation on removing the priesthood ban.  If Heavenly Father inspires each bishop who to call as a nursery worker, why couldn't he inspire Joseph to translate the BoM and its plain and precious truths in an easy to comprehend verancular?  If the BoM is truly scripture shouldn't its contents stand on its own rather than what could be seen as a parlor trick needed to convince the masses?

 

Three questions:

 

1) Since human languages changes over time, is there a way to translate so as to be equally easy to comprehend throughout time?

 

2) How effective is learning without effort and struggle?

 

3) Is there a venacular that will enable 1st-graders to comprehend trigonometry?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[omni]

Three questions:

 

1) Since human languages changes over time, is there a way to translate so as to be equally easy to comprehend throughout time?

 

2) How effective is learning without effort and struggle?

 

3) Is there a venacular that will enable 1st-graders to comprehend trigonometry?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

1.  The closer the venacular to the time period of the translation the easier it's going to be to understand.  As we've seen with the Bible, It would be impossible to translate a book it into a language that would be relevant for thousands of years--so we continually update it order to facilitate better comprehension.   When the KJV was commissioned, would it have made sense for clergymen to have translated the scripture into Middle English?  Would it have made any sense for the translators of the NIV to translate it into early 19th century English?  Of course not, but that's essentially what Joseph did.

 

2.  If effort and struggle improve your scripture study, why not read Wycliffe's Bible?  Big complicated words not commonly used in conversational English score you points when your audience is Ph.D's and your looking to publish in a journal, however scripture is meant for the masses; young and old, the ignorant and the educated.  Why are OD2, Proclamation on the Family, and the General Conference addresses written in contemporary English if the goal is to expend unnecassary effort to struggle through them?

 

3.  I'm not sure how that's relevant.

[wenglund]

1.  The closer the venacular to the time period of the translation the easier it's going to be to understand.  As we've seen with the Bible, It would be impossible to translate a book it into a language that would be relevant for thousands of years--so we continually update it order to facilitate better comprehension.   When the KJV was commissioned, would it have made sense for clergymen to have translated the scripture into Middle English?  Would it have made any sense for the translators of the NIV to translate it into early 19th century English?  Of course not, but that's essentially what Joseph did.

 

Had Joseph translated the BoM in 19th Century English, that may have made it easier for 19th Century English speakers to understand, but not 21st Century speakers. In other words, whether the BoM was translated into 17th or 19th century English, the complaint you raise is unavoidable in regards to people speaking later generation English.  With the passage of time and the inevitable change of language over time, you will forever have cause for complaint.

 

2.  If effort and struggle improve your scripture study, why not read Wycliffe's Bible?

 

Yes, why not? And, if ease in understanding is the objective, why not translate the BoM at a first-grade level? Could there be a happy medium? And, if so, who gets to decide?

 

The point being, it doesn't matter how difficult or plain or the level of language at which the BoM was translated, people like you will always have reason to complain and miss the simple point of my question.

 

3.  I'm not sure how that's relevant.

 

If you have cause to complain about the difficulty understanding certain English translations, then it would make sense that you would have cause to complain about the difficulty in understanding complex religious concepts. It is just that complex religious concept, like certain English translations, inherently don't lend themselves to ease of understanding, nor necessarily should they. It wouldn't make a difference if Isaiah was written in KVJ English or 21st Century English, it would still be difficult to comprehend "save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews." I believe this is by design. The language of the scriptures is such that certain spiritual insights may be hidden until the mind has been prepared to receive it.

 

But, no matter, regardless of unavoidable complexities and the value in hiding spiritual until their time, this lack of ease of understanding will nevertheless allow you cause for complaint.

 

Furthermore, if you scan the topical guide you will see that individual concepts are scatter hither and thither throughout the scriptures instead of line upon line and precept upon precept. This makes it rather difficult for most anyone to develop a systematic understanding of the gospel. I believe this, too, is by design, though, because of the difficulty in understand, it may offer you yet another cause for complaint.

 

In short, the scriptures are written in such a way that you will never be at a loss for gripes. Isn't that special?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[prismsplay]

Special pleading. Nowhere in the BoM do we find such a Quranic understanding of the text, especially when there are numerous passages underlining the authors' weaknesses and shortcomings.

 

Here is Raymond Treat's list of examples in his 1992 presentation "What is in the Book of Mormon is There for a Purpose." I have changed his references to LDS versification:

 

1 Nephi 14:28 instruction: leave out "the remainder of the things I saw"

1 Nephi 19:3 instruction: put in "the ministry, and the prophecies, the more plain and precious parts of them"

Words of Mormon 1:6-7 instruction: put in the small plates of Nephi

3 Nephi 26:11 instruction: leave out the rest of the words of Jesus

3 Nephi 26:12 instruction: put in "the things which have been commanded me of the Lord"

Ether 4:4-5 instruction: put in "the very things which the brother of Jard saw"

Ether 5:1 instruction: put in "the words which were commanded me, according to my memory"

Ether 8:23-26 instruction: put in information about secret combinations

Ether 13:13 instruction: leave out the rest of the prophecies of Ether

 

Treat also calls attention to 3 Nephi 23:6-13 and asks: "Why was this [embarrassing moment for Nephi] included in the Book of Mormon? Treat's answer: "Mormon included this account of Christ correcting Nephi's omission from the large plates because he wanted to affirm to us the divine control of the contents of the large plates and hence, of his abridgment."

Edited November 6, 2013 by prismsplay

[omni]

Had Joseph translated the BoM in 19th Century English, that may have made it easier for 19th Century English speakers to understand, but not 21st Century speakers. 

 

Of course 19th century English would be easier for us to understand, just as Elizabethan English is easier to understand than Middle English which is in turn easier to understand than Old English.

 

 

 

Yes, why not? And, if ease in understanding is the objective, why not translate the BoM at a first-grade level? Could there be a happy medium? 

 

 

 

I think a happy medium would have been the language similar to how Joseph recorded the 1838 version of the First Vision.  Modern newspapers are written at the eighth-grade reading level--they seem to be able to connect to a wide audience while not having to compromise the quality of their content.

 

And, if so, who gets to decide?

 

 

Presumably God, or I would at least expect him to have some significant input.

 

In short, the scriptures are written in such a way that you will never be at a loss for gripes. Isn't that special?

 

 

Whew...for a moment there I thought I was running out of gripes

[Robert F. Smith]

It's quite obvious Joseph Smith was influenced by Jonathan Swift's 1826 publication of Gulliver's Travels, which of course is the journeys of "Mr. Lemuel Gulliver" to a far off unknown continent. It even includes the firm testimony of Lemuel Gulliver's cousin, Richard Sympson of the veracity of Lemuel Gulliver's writings.

The first chapter even begins quite similar to the first chapter of The Book of Mormon, with Lemuel Gulliver mentioning his father and his brothers.

These similarities, from the name of Lemuel, overseas travels by ship, witnesses, etc, are obviously such striking similarities to The Book of Mormon, that they cannot be ignored but to have had a considerable influence on Joseph Smith.

Hopefully, the Lilliputians intent on proving The Book of Mormon was plagiarized, etc., will find this most helpful.

               

[Robert F. Smith]

The church teaches that it is intimately guided by the Lord in every facet of its organization.  We believe we are able to receive divine inspiration and revelation in every aspects of our lives--from a bishop calling the Primary chorister to the revelation on removing the priesthood ban.

God does not micromanage the Church.  We do.  Otherwise we would never learn anything.  We need the experience of both failure and success.  We need to learn how to avail ourselves of the influence of fhe Holy Spirit.  We are not robots in God's hands.  We are independent entities, coeternal with God.  If you want a very practical description of what this means in the real world, read or listen to Elder Richard Scott's amazing, yet for him normal experience at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/how-to-obtain-revelation-and-inspiration-for-your-personal-life?lang=eng&query=scott,+(name%3a%22Richard+G.+Scott%22)  (in Ensign, 42/5 [May 2012], 45-47).

 

If Heavenly Father inspires each bishop who to call as a nursery worker, why couldn't he inspire Joseph to translate the BoM and its plain and precious truths in an easy to comprehend verancular?  If the BoM is truly scripture shouldn't its contents stand on its own rather than what could be seen as a parlor trick needed to convince the masses?

The answer is that He does!!  See 2 Nephi 31:3, "he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding," and D&C 1:24, "Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."

 

It was given to Joseph in his weak language and understanding, i.e., it is expressed in Joseph's language.  Joseph was a full participant in the process, doing what every translator does in expressing the text in his language and style.

 

Or, as BYU Professor Robert Millett puts it, at http://lds.org/pages/king-james-symposium-video-gallery?lang=eng#what-the-bible-means-to-mormons ,

 

“When God chooses to speak through an individual, that person does not become a mindless ventriloquist, an earthly sound system through which the Almighty can voice himself.  Rather the person becomes enlightened and filled with intelligence or truth.”

[omni]

 

It was given to Joseph in his weak language and understanding, i.e., it is expressed in Joseph's language.  Joseph was a full participant in the process, doing what every translator does in expressing the text in his language and style.

 

 

 

Elizabethan English was no more Joseph's language than early 19th century English is our language.  If someone commissioned you to translate a document would you do so in early 19th century English?