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

[volgadon]

In your post you quoted an expert who essentially said that the spoken form of Jacobean English was on its way out when the KJV Bible was produced.  But in Kevin's post, Nibley claims that two hundred years later in Joseph's time the language wasn't far removed and some authors still even used it. 

 

Oh, I get it now. You are using the cheap ploy of pitting two people against each other in order to avoid addressing the issue.

[omni]

 

 

The notion of an omniscient God is most at home in Protestant and Catholic concepts of Scripture being inerrant and infallible, something quite foreign to Mormon theology.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if you're saying LDS theology doesn't include an omniscient God or if our theology doesn't include inerrant scripture.  If the former, then for straters 2 Nephi 9:20 clearly disagrees with you.  If the latter, then I would agree with you in part.   In all my years in the church I can't recall (outside of internet forums) anyone ever teaching the errors of the BoM.  However, I've been taught more times than I can count that it's the "most correct book of Earth" and that the Bible is full of errors.  Apparently I'm alone here, but if the BoM/D&C/PoGP were translated/revealed by the power of God I would expect him to realize the problems created with the usage of the KJV language and simply instruct Joseph write it in his own language.

 

We all have our preferences, and I see nothing wrong with that. Your intolerant tendency to make absolute and uninformed judgments is, however, unacceptable. You ought to be broadminded enough to accept the reality that not everyone shares your narrow view.

 

 

Of course the very same thing could be said of you.

[omni]

Oh, I get it now. You are using the cheap ploy of pitting two people against each other in order to avoid addressing the issue.

 

If only I were that mischievous.  I simply pointed out the two contradictory statements and asked which one was correct.

[Robert F. Smith]

The notion of an omniscient God is most at home in Protestant and Catholic concepts of Scripture being inerrant and infallible, something quite foreign to Mormon theology.

 

I'm not sure if you're saying LDS theology doesn't include an omniscient God or if our theology doesn't include inerrant scripture.  If the former, then for straters 2 Nephi 9:20 clearly disagrees with you.  If the latter, then I would agree with you in part.   In all my years in the church I can't recall (outside of internet forums) anyone ever teaching the errors of the BoM.  However, I've been taught more times than I can count that it's the "most correct book of Earth" and that the Bible is full of errors.  Apparently I'm alone here, but if the BoM/D&C/PoGP were translated/revealed by the power of God I would expect him to realize the problems created with the usage of the KJV language and simply instruct Joseph write it in his own language.

You might try diagramming the sentence to find out where the notion of an omniscient God is most at home (in Roman Catholic and Protestant concepts of inerrant and infallible scripture), and then try to discover what Mormon theology is and why it might find some or all of that stuff foreign.  That requires that you understand what the absolute word "omniscient" entails.  It also requires that you know how such a word is often used in an honorific and not absolute sense in scripture (as Wittgenstein showed us, words mean what they are used to mean, and not necessarily as defined in some dictionary).

 

I am not sure why anyone would teach a class on the errors of the Book of Mormon, but (since you are in the mood to cite scripture), you might take a look at D&C 1:24, "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."  Cf. also Ether 12:40 "weakness in writing."   Mormon 8:12, "And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it," 17, " And if there be faults they be the faults of a man" = Title Page, "  if there are faults they are the mistakes of men." 

As to why KJV language might have been used by Joseph to do the translation, contrary to your false claim (and as many on this board have shown you), such language was certainly Joseph's language, and was used regularly to make translations of ancient texts in his day.  Cf. II Ne 31:3, "For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding."  Why would God prevent Joseph from using the very type of language which Joseph knew to be scriptural?  Your comments make no sense.

 

You ought to have simply quoted our canonical 8th Article of Faith, instead of developing your own improper interpretation: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."  You'll note that it doesn't say that " the Bible is full of errors."

Edited November 9, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

If only I were that mischievous.  I simply pointed out the two contradictory statements and asked which one was correct.

That means, volgadon, that he is not saying a mea culpa any time soon.

[omni]

You might try diagramming the sentence to find out where the notion of an omniscient God is most at home (in Roman Catholic and Protestant concepts of inerrant and infallible scripture), and then try to discover what Mormon theology is and why it might find some or all of that stuff foreign.  That requires that you understand what the absolute word "omniscient" entails.  It also requires that you know how such a word is often used in an honorific and not absolute sense in scripture (as Wittgenstein showed us, words mean what they are used to mean, and not necessarily as defined in some dictionary).

 

 

I'm not sure how far I want to go down this road since it's a major thread hijack (apologies to Canard), but I'm really not interested in Catholic and Protestant or Wittgenstein's concepts of an omniscient God.  Here's what our scriptures along with our modern prophets and apostles have to say on the matter: 

 

 

O how great the ^aholiness of our God! For he ^bknoweth ^callthings, and there is not anything save he knows it.

-2 Nephi 9:20.

 

The same which ^aknoweth all things, for ^ball things are ^cpresent before mine eyes;

D&C 38:2

 

My ^aname is Jehovah, and I ^bknow the end from the beginning; therefore my hand shall be over thee.

Abraham 2:8

 

We pray to our Father in Heaven in the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the great Mediator. Though omnipotent and omniscient, all-powerful and all-knowing

-Elder Robert D Hales

 

-Now God, being omniscient, foresaw this predicament. He knew that death would pass upon all men because of Adam’s partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

-Elder Marion G. Romney

 

Or from the LDS guide to the scriptures

 

Omniscient-The divine trait of having all knowledge (Matt. 6:8; 2 Ne. 2:24)

 

 

 

As to why KJV language might have been used by Joseph to do the translation, contrary to your false claim (and as many on this board have shown you), such language was certainly Joseph's language, and was used regularly to make translations of ancient texts in his day.  Cf. II Ne 31:3, "For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding."  Why would God prevent Joseph from using the very type of language which Joseph knew to be scriptural?  Your comments make no sense.

 

 

 

We're obviously going in circles on this and it's apparent neither of us are going to change our minds.  Quite frankly, your tone has changed over the last couple of days (heck, I even just gave you a rep point) and I feel it's best we simply agree to disagree on the matter.

[Benjamin McGuire]

but if the BoM/D&C/PoGP were translated/revealed by the power of God I would expect him to realize the problems created with the usage of the KJV language and simply instruct Joseph write it in his own language.

We have some writings of Joseph's from that time period. I can't imagine that this would be an improvement for the rest of us.

 

You know why we always say that it was "translated by the power of God" right? It is because of a statement in the Book of Mormon itself, found in Omni verse 20:

 

 

And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.

This get's used by Oliver when he writes the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, creeps into our language, and we have been using it ever since - usually completely unaware that when we say this, we are simply quoting from the Book of Mormon. It is hard to see this as a meaningful description of the process of translation. It is more of a proof text - pointing to the translation process as proof of the calling (and not so much as an explanation of the text).

 

No matter what language you translate the Book of Mormon into, you have problems. The one Book of Mormon author who seems keenly aware of this problem is Nephi. That is, if you want to convey the meaning intended by the author, then you need to know a great deal about the author and the message he is conveying, along with an adequate knowledge of the time and place (the influences and societal concerns and so on). Nephi recognizes that his own people have lost this with respect to the Old Testament. Despite his having given them a lot of Isaiah to read, he tells us:

 

 

Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.

And then he notes:

 

 

I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. … but behold, I, of myself, have dwelt at Jerusalem, wherefore I know concerning the regions round about

And finally:

 

 

For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; … But behold, I, Nephi, have not taught my children after the manner of the Jews;

To replace this, Nephi presents his people with an alternative reading strategy - to liken the scriptures unto themselves. In this sense, texts stop having a determinate meaning. We all read them differently and can carry away from them different messages (well, as Nephi points out at the end of his second book, this happens anyways - its just better to go into the process with this recognition) - and each of these meanings can be quite valid without competing with each other. Much of our complaint about the language of the Book of Mormon has far more to do with an underlying assumption that there is some fixed meaning of the text, and we simply need to get to where we understand it. But this isn't the case (at least for Nephi). So as far as this issue is concerned, our obsession with the language style itself reflects our own structuralist and modernist attempts to find meaning in a text. And it becomes a distraction from the purposes of the text as described by the text itself.

 

 Ben M.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[omni]

We have some writings of Joseph's from that time period. I can't imagine that this would be an improvement for the rest of us.

 

You know why we always say that it was "translated by the power of God" right? It is because of a statement in the Book of Mormon itself, found in Omni verse 20:

 

 

This get's used by Oliver when he writes the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, creeps into our language, and we have been using it ever since - usually completely unaware that when we say this, we are simply quoting from the Book of Mormon. It is hard to see this as a meaningful description of the process of translation. It is more of a proof text - pointing to the translation process as proof of the calling (and not so much as an explanation of the text).

 

No matter what language you translate the Book of Mormon into, you have problems. The one Book of Mormon author who seems keenly aware of this problem is Nephi. That is, if you want to convey the meaning intended by the author, then you need to know a great deal about the author and the message he is conveying, along with an adequate knowledge of the time and place (the influences and societal concerns and so on). Nephi recognizes that his own people have lost this with respect to the Old Testament. Despite his having given them a lot of Isaiah to read, he tells us:

 

 

And then he notes:

 

 

And finally:

 

 

To replace this, Nephi presents his people with an alternative reading strategy - to liken the scriptures unto themselves. In this sense, texts stop having a determinate meaning. We all read them differently and can carry away from them different messages (well, as Nephi points out at the end of his second book, this happens anyways - its just better to go into the process with this recognition) - and each of these meanings can be quite valid without competing with each other. Much of our complaint about the language of the Book of Mormon has far more to do with an underlying assumption that there is some fixed meaning of the text, and we simply need to get to where we understand it. But this isn't the case (at least for Nephi). So as far as this issue is concerned, our obsession with the language style itself reflects our own structuralist and modernist attempts to find meaning in a text. And it becomes a distraction from the purposes of the text as described by the text itself.

 

 Ben M.

Thank you for your response. I think everyone here is aware of my position, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not sure how far I want to go down this road since it's a major thread hijack (apologies to Canard), but I'm really not interested in Catholic and Protestant or Wittgenstein's concepts of an omniscient God.

You have a habit of rearranging what one says to mean something they did not mean. It appears deliberate. Especially since you continued to do it here even after I clarified matters.

Wittgenstein commented on "use" of words to indicate their actual (rather than pretended) meaning. He did not comment on God or omniscience.

You seem to accept Protestant and Roman Catholic definitions of "omniscient," even though you seem unaware of that. Mormon theology does not accept such absolute definitions, despite your very Protestant inferences from Mormon Scripture (while of course ignoring the Mormon Scripture I cited).

---------------------------

 

We're obviously going in circles on this and it's apparent neither of us are going to change our minds.  Quite frankly, your tone has changed over the last couple of days (heck, I even just gave you a rep point) and I feel it's best we simply agree to disagree on the matter.

Thanks for the undeserved rep point. As to my tone, yeh, I'm annoyed that you obfuscate rather than discuss matters frankly. Heck, I'll give you a rep point too. That should make us even.

[Bernard Gui]

 

Writing on brass is also mentioned in The Late War:

"But the imaginary evils which the children of men commit are oftentimes graven in brass, whilst their actual good deeds are written in sand." (LW 36:26)

Apparently the author did not know the difference between brass and copper, or maybe the terms

used to be used interchangeably.

 

P.74:11

Now the land of Columbia is a most plentiful land,

yielding gold and silver, and brass and iron abundantly.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

http://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/  Just saw this posted in the Mormon Stories FB group.  What think ye about it?   

[Calm]

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-late-war-against-the-book-of-mormon/

[Tacenda]

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-late-war-against-the-book-of-mormon/

Thank you, wasn't aware of this!

[T-Shirt]

http://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/  Just saw this posted in the Mormon Stories FB group.  What think ye about it?   

Beware of the ellipses.

 

The website you referenced makes the following quote:

 

... near Moravian Town ... And it came to pass ... the army ... were under ... a chief warrior, whom they called Tecumseh [...] smote their chief warrior [Tecumseh], and slew him ... he fell tothe earth.

 

Here is where he got the quote (see the red highlights):

 

 

14 And when Harrison came to Sandwich, Procter

and his army had departed from the place, and fled towards

the river Thames, near Moravian Town.

 

15 (Now the Thames emptieth its waters into the

lake St. Clair, and the Moravian Towns lie upon the

river, about an hundred miles from Malden, towards the

north, in the province of Upper Canada.)

 

16 Moreover, as they journied on, the brave M’Arthur

crossed over with his band to the strong hold of

Detroit, and took it.

 

17 But the savages and the men of Britain had destroyed

those things which they could not carry away,

and fled in haste.

 

18 So M’Arthur, in whom the chief captain put

much faith, remained at Detroit in the charge thereof.

 

19 And it came to pass, when Harrison saw that the

host of Britain fled before him, he departed from Sandwich

and went after them it being on the second day

of the next month.

 

20 And his whole army followed after him, in all about

three thousand brave men from the back-woods of

the state of Kentucky and the pleasant villages of

Ohio.

 

21 Now Harrison was a mighty man of valor, and no

man could make him afraid; and the captains and the

captains and officers that were with him were all

valiant men.

 

22 And, when some of his captains said unto him, Lo !

there is a feast to-day: go thou and partake thereof,

and refresh thy self, and we will watch ;

 

23 He answered and said unto them, Nay, shall I go

and riot, whilst the warriors of Columbia lie on the

frozen ground ?

 

24 No, their fate shall be my fate; and their glory

shall be my glory.

 

25 So he wrapped himself in his cloak, and lay down

in his own tent.

 

26 And the husbandmen of Kentucky were led on

by their valiant governor, whose name was Shelby,

and he was a man well stricken in years; even at the

age of threescore did he go out against the enemies of

Columbia; and ail the people rejoiced in him.

 

 

 

And the gallant Ferry staid not behind; but freely

offered his strength, and was one of the right hand men

of Harrison, with whom he followed after the host of

Britain.

 

2S Nevertheless, it happened that a band of the savages

strove to give hindrance to the army of Columbia.

 

23 But the men of Columbia let two of the destroying

engines loose upon them, and they fled into the wilderness

like wild deer.

 

 

 

 

CHAP, XXXIII

 

Battle of the Thames — Gen. Harrison captures the

British army under Gen Proctor — illuminations on

account of it — news of it received in England.

 

 

 

And it came to pass, on the fifth day of the same

month, that Proctor, with the savages and the army of

the king, rested upon advantageous ground, on the

banks of the rive Thames,

 

2 Where he drew his army up in the order of battle,

after the fashion of these days, and prepared himself to

meet the host of Columbia.

 

3 Now the army of Proctor was mighty; for he had

a thousand horsemen : but the number of the savages

that followed after him are not known to this time;

howbeit, they were many.

 

4 And they were under the charge of a chief warrior,

whom they called Tecumseh, a savage whom the king

had made a chief captain.*

 

5 And it came to pass, on the same day, in the latter 

part of the day that the army of Harrison drew nigh 

unto the place. 

6 And he called together his captains of fifties, and 

his squadrons, and encouraged them, and commanded 

them to prepare themselves for the fight. 

7 And he put the host of Columbia in battle array 

against the host of Britain, army against army. 

8 Now the sound of the trumpet, the cymbal, the 

Bugle-horn, and the noisy drum, echoed through the 

deep wilderness. 

9 And the red savages appeared in the field before 

the men of Britain, for they had put them as a shield, 

in the front of the battle. 

10 And they yelled with dreadful yellings, and sounded

aloud the war-whoop, which was the signal of death. 

11 But the army of Columbia rushed upon them 

with the fierceness of lions. 

12 And the weapons of war were used without mercy;

the foxes and the beavers crept into their holes, for 

the destroying engines frightened the wild beasts, so 

that they looked for their hiding places. 

13 The gallant Johnson fell upon them with a 

band of chosen horsemen, and he drove them before 

him like chaff before the wind, and smote their chief 

warrior and slew him with his own hand, so that he 

fell to the earth. 

 

 

He then compares this to a quote in the Book of Mormon.  Here is his quote:

 

... people of Morianton ... And it came to pass ... the army ... was led by a man whose name was Teancum [...] they did pursueTeancum, and slew him ... he was dead, and had gone the way of all the earth.

 

Here is where he got it:

 33 Therefore Moroni sent an army, with their camp, to head the people of Morianton, to stop their flight into the land northward.

 34 And it came to pass that they did not head them until they had come to the borders of the land Desolation; and there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east.

 35 And it came to pass that the army which was sent by Moroni, which was led by a man whose name was Teancum, did meet the people of Morianton; and so stubborn were the people of Morianton, (being inspired by his wickedness and his flatteringwords) that a battle commenced between them, in the which Teancum did slay Morianton and defeat his army, and took them prisoners, and returned to the camp of Moroni. And thus ended the twenty and fourth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi.

Twelve chapters later:

 

 

 36 And it came to pass that Teancum in his anger did go forth into the camp of the Lamanites, and did let himself down over the walls of the city. And he went forth with a cord, from place to place, insomuch that he did find the king; and he did cast a javelin at him, which did pierce him near the heart. But behold, the king did awaken his servants before he died, insomuch that they did pursue Teancum, and slew him.

 37 Now it came to pass that when Lehi and Moroni knew that Teancum was dead they were exceedingly sorrowful; for behold, he had been a man who had fought valiantly for his country, yea, a true friend to liberty; and he had suffered very many exceedingly sore afflictions. But behold, he was dead, and had gone the way of all the earth.

 

You be the judge

Edited February 20, 2014 by T-Shirt