1500S Grammar In The Book Of Mormon. Help Me See Why That's "dramatically Exciting"

[canard78]

If its just getting started then why is he concluding that the most compelling argument for BoM translation is that it came from a divine source?

No one accepts that but believers at this point.

 

 

And?  No one but believers accept the Bible as coming from a Divine Source, either.....

 

I suppose the point is that if this evidence is only credible to believers then what's it really useful for?

 

I can recognise that there are strong pieces of evidence in favour of the Book of Mormon, despite my doubts about its divine origin.

 

I'm just struggling to see this as one of them.

[churchistrue]

My understanding of Royal Skousen's most recent presentation is that the BOM was translated in the 1500's with 1500's doctrine and even events injected into the text.  A criticism of Joseph Smith was that he injected 1800's topics into the text, such as anti-masonry, infant baptism, etc.  Skousen refutes this by saying that the 1500's is a much better fit than the 1800's for this, but seems to agree that modern topics (ie modern defined as more modern than when the text was originally written by BOM prophets).  Is he alone on this, or does this represent the view other apologists take who are saying there is something important about this Old English in the bible topic?  How is this an improved explanation of how the BOM came about?

[stemelbow]

I suppose the point is that if this evidence is only credible to believers then what's it really useful for?

 

I can recognise that there are strong pieces of evidence in favour of the Book of Mormon, despite my doubts about its divine origin.

 

I'm just struggling to see this as one of them.

Sure, but also why call it evidence? I'm not sure what it's evidencing. How can this study explain to anyone that it came from a divine source?

[churchistrue]

Another question I have on this is the following.  I might be butchering this, so please help.

 

The evidence is not the existence of Old English, it's the frequency.  

 

But, reading various comments and discussion on this, I'm finding the following:

--frequency in KJV was probably understated in the original article

--Joseph might not have had access to a lot of books written originally in the 1500's, but he did have access to books referencing or copying Old English, such as Pilgrim's Progress which had high frequency of Old English

 

Further, the case of the critics is that Joseph as copying oldish sounding English, so doesn't it make sense to find higher than average frequency?  If something sounded Old English to him, wouldn't have he kept going back to it over and over, making the frequency higher?

 

And what's the answer for why Old English appears in the D&C?

[canard78]

Another question I have on this is the following. I might be butchering this, so please help.

The evidence is not the existence of Old English, it's the frequency.

But, reading various comments and discussion on this, I'm finding the following:

--frequency in KJV was probably understated in the original article

--Joseph might not have had access to a lot of books written originally in the 1500's, but he did have access to books referencing or copying Old English, such as Pilgrim's Progress which had high frequency of Old English

Further, the case of the critics is that Joseph as copying oldish sounding English, so doesn't it make sense to find higher than average frequency? If something sounded Old English to him, wouldn't have he kept going back to it over and over, making the frequency higher?

And what's the answer for why Old English appears in the D&C?

Very well articulated. I think all of those add up to this whole argument being on very thin ice.

[Uncle Dale]

And?  No one but believers accept the Bible as coming from a Divine Source, either.....

 

I don't think that over-generalization is quite true. In South Asia

I met with Hindus who were at least somewhat acquainted with

the Protestant Holy Bible. Some of them accepted or honored

various biblical teachings as divine.

 

Members of the Masonic organizations need not be a professed

Christian or Jew in order to join -- but the teachings, rituals,

symbolism, etc. of "the Craft" promote many biblical teachings

as being of divine origin.

 

I attended a Unitarian-Universalist congregation, in which very 

few of the members were Christians, and yet there were quotations

from the Holy Bible displayed on the walls, as embroidered art.

 

Bahais, Sikhs, Eckankarists, Theophists, Rosicrucians, etc. typically

accept at least portions of the Holy Bible as being of divine origin.

One of the few preserved non-canonical sayings of Jesus, from

antiquity, is inscribed on the wall of a Muslim mosque in India, and

Muslims generally accept Jesus' words as being those of a prophet.

 

I could add to the list -- but, as you can see -- many of these types

of people can accept portions of the Bible as being of divine origin,

without necessarily believing the Bible itself to be God's Word, nor

the divine source of those portions of the text originating with YHWH.

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

If its just getting started then why is he concluding that the most compelling argument for BoM translation is that it came from a divine source?

No one accepts that but believers at this point.

Seems like a non sequitur to me, but maybe I am missing your point.  Please explain who makes this claim and in what context.

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................................  

 

I can recognise that there are strong pieces of evidence in favour of the Book of Mormon, despite my doubts about its divine origin.

.........................................................

What sort of "strong pieces of evidence" do you have in mind, canard?

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................................................   

 How is this an improved explanation of how the BOM came about?

I know of no one who claims that the explanation from Skousen and Stanford is an improvement.  It is thus far inexplicable, which is  why there is so much discussion of it.  It is an anomaly demanding an explanation.

[canard78]

What sort of "strong pieces of evidence" do you have in mind, canard?

 

There are lots, but the first that come to mind are:

• NHM and Bountiful being exactly where we would expect them to be. I think this is probably the best external/material evidence for the BoM's historicity
• Broader 'Lehi in the Desert' patterns and parallels. The alter being built 3-days from the temple. The deference Nephi pays to father Lehi. The symbolism in Lehi's dream. The confidence in verbal oaths. None of them alone are strong... but when put together they are convincing
• Mormon's Codex and similar works (I'm yet to read Brant's contribution, I hope to one of these days). Within that I can recognise the viable geography being proposed. The cement buildings in the north. The narrow pass and the narrow neck. I'm impressed by the find or art depicting people with light and dark skin in an area we'd expect them to be and the lighter skinned group leaving that area when we'd expect them to (circa. 200BC) 
• The consistency of it all. The writer doesn't trip up once on geography, continuity, family and political relationships. That makes it far more likely that the writer was documenting history, not making it up
• The theology and beauty within it. There are passages in the Book of Mormon that have a brilliant theological basis. Alma 32 for a start. Not only that, but parts are expressed with impressive passion, poetry and sincerity. Nephi's lament for example. I still get choked up when I read that section out loud. I struggle to believe that Joseph Smith could have made it up and come up with such brilliant content himself
• The 3 and 8 witnesses (and the few other witnesses, including Emma). The fact that so many of them left the church before Joseph's death or didn't follow the main body to Utah is, in some ways, only further evidence in favour of them being genuine and believable
• My own witness. At 10 years old, having read a verse a day, every day, for 2 years, I knelt down and asked God whether the Book of Mormon was true. I have had many spiritual experience since that day, in both Mormon and non-mormon contexts and in response to a whole range of concerns or questions... but... that 10yo's prayer and answer remains branded in my memory. While I have doubts about the source and implications of spiritual experiences I will never patronise myself by trying to pretend the experience didn't happen. If there is a God, and I hope there is, and if he communicates directly with his children, then he did with me that day

The weight of evidence against the Book of Mormon and the weight for it tips slightly one way and the other. Having spent countless hours studying both for and against I've reached the conclusion that I'll probably never be able to reach a position of: "case closed" either way. 

 

I used to think that if the Book of Mormon was true then that single testimony would become a domino that confirms every other aspect of Mormonism to be true. I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't. There are many aspects of Mormonism that I firmly believe are not true or of a divine origin. I think they are the well-meaning constructs of a group of humans trying to make sense of life and creating frameworks based on their personal, cultural and social influences.

 

I think it's possible that Joseph, like many other religious writers through history, had divine help to create a body of sacred texts. Whether they are a translation or simply inspired dictation of fiction, I'm not sure. As long as I have a belief or hope in God's existence, I'll be willing to believe that the Book of Mormon is, in some way, divinely influenced. 

[Robert F. Smith]

There are lots, ..............................................

..............................................

Nice list.

How do you feel about Mike Ash's list?

How about my list, “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf ?  Anything useful there?

[canard78]

Nice list.

How do you feel about Mike Ash's list?

How about my list, “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf ?  Anything useful there?

 

Thanks - I'll have a proper read through later. Having skim read the titles I would agree that there are lot of good ones I've heard of in there and a few that are new to me.

 

I'm not familiar with Mike Ash's list - is it online?

[omni]

 

Further, the case of the critics is that Joseph as copying oldish sounding English, so doesn't it make sense to find higher than average frequency?  If something sounded Old English to him, wouldn't have he kept going back to it over and over, making the frequency higher?

 

 

 

This is to the point I was trying to make earlier.  While it's possible he read all or some of the 16th century books that have been listed in this thread, I think the simpler and more likely answer is something along what you've stated above.  When someone is trying to imitate a style of speech, they won't generally get it 100% correct and will often overemphasize (consciously or subconsciously) something that makes it distinct.  

 

Let's create a hypothetical example using our British friend Canard.  If he were writing a screenplay set in rural Western America, he may frequently use the phrase "howdy partners" because he had seen a few Hollywood movies and knew this was a distinctive Western phrase.  However, having never actually been to the Western U.S., Canard wouldn't have realized that even though this phrase is still occasionally used, it's much less frequent than in the past.   By chance, Canard's usage of "howdy partner" may actually match the frequency of its usage at sometime in the past 150 years.

 

If examples of 16th century syntax in the BoM are evidence that JS didn't write the BoM (and after 10 pages of this thread, I still haven't figured out how this constitutes evidence), then what do we make of the 19th century rural American syntax found in the original manuscript?

[canard78]

This is to the point I was trying to make earlier. While it's possible he read all or some of the 16th century books that have been listed in this thread, I think the simpler and more likely answer is something along what you've stated above. When someone is trying to imitate a style of speech, they won't generally get it 100% correct and will often overemphasize (consciously or subconsciously) something that makes it distinct.

Let's create a hypothetical example using our British friend Canard. If he were writing a screenplay set in rural Western America, he may frequently use the phrase "howdy partners" because he had seen a few Hollywood movies and knew this was a distinctive Western phrase. However, having never actually been to the Western U.S., Canard wouldn't have realized that even though this phrase is still occasionally used, it's much less frequent than in the past. By chance, Canard's usage of "howdy partner" may actually match the frequency of its usage at sometime in the past 150 years.

If examples of 16th century syntax in the BoM are evidence that JS didn't write the BoM (and after 10 pages of this thread, I still haven't figured out how this constitutes evidence), then what do we make of the 19th century rural American syntax found in the original manuscript?

Howdy partner!

Indeed.

Until someone provides a grammatical structure or even a word that is definitely solely found in 1500s I still think that there's nothing to see here.

[Glenn101]

This is to the point I was trying to make earlier.  While it's possible he read all or some of the 16th century books that have been listed in this thread, I think the simpler and more likely answer is something along what you've stated above.  When someone is trying to imitate a style of speech, they won't generally get it 100% correct and will often overemphasize (consciously or subconsciously) something that makes it distinct.  

 

Let's create a hypothetical example using our British friend Canard.  If he were writing a screenplay set in rural Western America, he may frequently use the phrase "howdy partners" because he had seen a few Hollywood movies and knew this was a distinctive Western phrase.  However, having never actually been to the Western U.S., Canard wouldn't have realized that even though this phrase is still occasionally used, it's much less frequent than in the past.   By chance, Canard's usage of "howdy partner" may actually match the frequency of its usage at sometime in the past 150 years.

 

If examples of 16th century syntax in the BoM are evidence that JS didn't write the BoM (and after 10 pages of this thread, I still haven't figured out how this constitutes evidence), then what do we make of the 19th century rural American syntax found in the original manuscript?

 

Howdy partner!

Indeed.

Until someone provides a grammatical structure or even a word that is definitely solely found in 1500s I still think that there's nothing to see here.

 

Here you are talking almost apples oranges. Comparing a colorful colloquialism that has enjoyed a lot of repitition in certain types and books to an obscure grammatical construct which no one noticed until it was found by linguists. Stanford research was done after Royal Skousen's work on the critical text project noted the presence of EmodE English in the Book of Mormon. Stanford's research found a significant level of usage in no other contemporary texts, including those which attempted to mimic the KJV style. 

 

The "it came to pass" phrase is a more apt comparison, but no one is claiming that phrase to be EmodE.

 

If you "feel" it would be easy for Joseph to have done it, it should also have been "easy" for other contemporaries that wanted to sound profound to do it. Show Stanford up and find those works,

 

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks - I'll have a proper read through later. Having skim read the titles I would agree that there are lot of good ones I've heard of in there and a few that are new to me.

 

I'm not familiar with Mike Ash's list - is it online?

See Michael R. Ash, Of Faith and Reason: Scholarly Evidences Supporting Joseph Smith (Springville: Cedar Fort, 2008).

I don't think it is online.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...Stanford's research found a significant level of usage in no other contemporary texts, including those which attempted to mimic the KJV style. 

...

 

Does that include the KJV Apocrypha itself, Josephus, Milton, Bunyan. etc?

 

I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread the sorts of post-1611 published

works which would have preserved quotations and lengthy excerpts from

pre-Tudor English, even though published in the decades following.

 

Perhaps there is a list of the texts thus compared with the Book of Mormon,

somewhere to be consulted?

 

For one thing, I'd like to examine the texts of the late 1500s, to see just

which Book of Mormon style phraseology was fading out and disappearing 

from the language (such as were "dead" by 1611, when the Jamesian scholars

were admittedly still using considerable vocabulary and grammatical constructions

popular in the previous century). Also, whether any of that "dead" language

is affected in the 1623 "First Folio" (it being the text of plays presumably given

even in late Tudor days).

 

???

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

Does that include the KJV Apocrypha itself, Josephus, Milton, Bunyan. etc?

 

I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread the sorts of post-1611 published

works which would have preserved quotations and lengthy excerpts from

pre-Tudor English, even though published in the decades following.

 

Perhaps there is a list of the texts thus compared with the Book of Mormon,

somewhere to be consulted?

 

For one thing, I'd like to examine the texts of the late 1500s, to see just

which Book of Mormon style phraseology was fading out and disappearing 

from the language (such as were "dead" by 1611, when the Jamesian scholars

were admittedly still using considerable vocabulary and grammatical constructions

popular in the previous century). Also, whether any of that "dead" language

is affected in the 1623 "First Folio" (it being the text of plays presumably given

even in late Tudor days).

.......................................................

You will certainly want to consider the two most important books in the American Colonies, the Geneva Bible and the Book of Common Prayer.  Not the King James Version, which achieved priority only much later.  All these and the works you speak of have been digitized and are available for statistical research.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think that over-generalization is quite true. In South Asia

I met with Hindus who were at least somewhat acquainted with

the Protestant Holy Bible. Some of them accepted or honored

various biblical teachings as divine.

 

Members of the Masonic organizations need not be a professed

Christian or Jew in order to join -- but the teachings, rituals,

symbolism, etc. of "the Craft" promote many biblical teachings

as being of divine origin.

 

I attended a Unitarian-Universalist congregation, in which very 

few of the members were Christians, and yet there were quotations

from the Holy Bible displayed on the walls, as embroidered art.

 

Bahais, Sikhs, Eckankarists, Theophists, Rosicrucians, etc. typically

accept at least portions of the Holy Bible as being of divine origin.

One of the few preserved non-canonical sayings of Jesus, from

antiquity, is inscribed on the wall of a Muslim mosque in India, and

Muslims generally accept Jesus' words as being those of a prophet.

 

I could add to the list -- but, as you can see -- many of these types

of people can accept portions of the Bible as being of divine origin,

without necessarily believing the Bible itself to be God's Word, nor

the divine source of those portions of the text originating with YHWH.

 

UD

When I hear the word "believer" I think "theist".

 

Apparently you think it applies only to Christians.

[mfbukowski]

I think it's possible that Joseph, like many other religious writers through history, had divine help to create a body of sacred texts. Whether they are a translation or simply inspired dictation of fiction, I'm not sure. As long as I have a belief or hope in God's existence, I'll be willing to believe that the Book of Mormon is, in some way, divinely influenced. 

The problem of course in deciding if they are a "dictation of fiction" or a "translation" is that there is no possible way to know either way.

 

It is hard to imagine what kind of God would "dictate fiction" and have someone "receive the dictation" with "accuracy".   It is hard to imagine what such a concept even means.   An invisible being dictating fiction?  And being able to know it is "fiction" with no evidence either way?  What difference could it possibly make?

 

For that reason I bracket the problem as non-existent.  In short, it doesn't matter if it is "fact" or "fiction", since it is unknowable.  Roll the dice!

 

Their importance is the beliefs cannot possible be based on "facts" but on the effects of the beliefs in our lives.  Do those beliefs help us to make decisions?  Do those beliefs make us happy and become "sweet" to us?  Do those beliefs give us peace?

 

It is impossible to know if a service man who believes he might "die for his country" will really make a contribution to "saving" anyone should he actually die, yet is the BELIEF that his sacrifice would be justified which gives his life, and possibly his death, meaning.  Have any wars in the last 50 years made a "difference" in the world for the "better"?   Is the belief they did or did not "fact" or "fiction"?   Unknowable.  It depends on what you want to believe.

 

We get to choose which belief makes a difference in our lives to determine whether we become a pacifist or join the service.  On a less dramatic level, we get to vote for the party, perhaps, which advocates one side or the other, based on beliefs that resonate with us.

 

Insofar as any of it has anything to do with "evidence" the interpretation of the "evidence" is always up to us and the beliefs which resonate in our hearts. The "facts" are seldom there or provide no real help on what we should actually do with our lives.

Edited March 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

Apparently you think it applies only to Christians.

 

Christianity is the umbrella religion which encompasses so many

sects that rely upon "belief," as the doorway to admission -- but

not all are evangelical. The Amish who lived around me in Ohio

had their "beliefs" and even more so, their "traditions." -- But it

would never have occurred to any of them to share such belief

with me, or to invite me to baptism into their sect. In fact, the only

time I witnessed anything even close to that, was when a fellow 

thought (for a while) that he might talk one of the girls into marrying

him (with or without leaving the group).

 

But -- "belief" ??? Yes, I think it typifies Christianity in general. It is

a biblical precept -- and perhaps can be traced back to the very

first people who called themselves Christians.

 

Islam? -- Maybe, to an extent. But the Muslims I've associated with

never spoke of beliefs. They spoke of their religion as a surrender:

a surrender in which God accepts the convert's new way of life. I

do not see the same level of emphasis there upon "belief."

 

Judaism -- forget it. One does not become a Jew by being evangelized

to believe in the Mosaic Covenant -- at least not in the past 1500 years.

 

Hindus? Yes, they "believe" in many things. Some believe in practically

everything. Some believe in nothing but release from rebirth. I always

thought that the Vedantists and the Muslims shared a patch of common

ground -- but it's a very small patch indeed.

 

Unitarians? -- Nope? Freemasons? -- Not so much belief as a desire for

belonging and "getting on" in the world, I'd say. Deists? -- Nope. Atheists?

 

Oh, their are non-Christians who "believe" in something of another, to the

point of wagering their eternal souls upon those beliefs. But, again, I'd say

that the greatest set of "believers," who wish to spread their "beliefs" for

the belief that doing so will save others from hellfire, must be the Christians.

 

I spent a good deal of my early life studying them -- their origins -- their

history -- their wars and divisions. An interesting set of people.

 

I myself am most comfortable associating with the non-evangelical portion

of that set -- the sub-set whose "beliefs" seem to now and then be compatible

with logic, reason, and empathy for those unlike themselves.

 

UD

[Uncle Dale]

 

... All these and the works you speak of have been digitized and are available for statistical research.

.

Lucky thing, that -- for I'd hate to have to type out a couple of pages from

Sir. John Maundeville. Early Modern English -- so "early" that it overlaps

Middle English in college Literature courses. But, from his "Travels," is this:

 

 

(Speaking of scattered Israelites)...In that same regioun ben the Mountaynes of Caspye, that men clepen Uber in the

Contree. Betwene tho Mountaynes, the Jewes of 10 Lynages ben enclosed, that men clepen Gothe and Magothe:

and thei mowe not gon out on no syde. There weren enclosed 22 Kynges with hire peple, that duelleden betwene the

Mountaynes of Sythye. There Kyng Alisandre chacede hem betwene tho Mountaynes; and there he thoughte for

to enclose hem thorghe werk of his men. But whan he saughe, that he myghte not don it, ne bryng it to an ende,

he preyed to God of Nature, that he wolde parforme that that he had begonne. And alle were it so, that he was

a Payneme, and not worthi to ben herd, zit God of his grace closed the Mountaynes to gydre: so that thei

dwellen there, alle faste y lokked and enclosed with highe Mountaynes alle aboute, saf only on o syde; and on that

syde is the See of Caspye. Now may sum men asken, Sithe that the See is on that o syde, wherfore go thei not

out on the See syde, for to go where that hem lykethe? But to this questioun, I schal answere, That See of Caspye

gothe out be Londe, undre the Mountaynes, and rennethe be the Desert at o syde of the Contree; and aftre it

strecchethe unto the endes of Persie. And alle thoughe it be clept a See, it is no See, ne it touchethe to non other

See: but it is a Lake, the grettest of the World. And thoughe thei wolden putten hem in to that See, thei ne

wysten never, where that thei scholde arryven. And also thei conen no Langage, but only hire owne, that no man

knowethe but thei: and therfore mowe thei not gon out. And also zee schulle undirstonde, that the Jewes han no

propre Lond of hire owne for to dwellen inne, in alle the World, but only that Lond betwene the Mountaynes. And

zit thei zelden Tribute for that Lond to the Queen of Amazoine, the whiche makethe hem to ben kept in cloos

fulle diligently, that thei schalle not gon out on no syde, but be the Cost of hire Lond. For hire Lond marchethe

to tho Mountaynes. And often it hathe befallen, that stime of the Jewes han gon up the Mountaynes, and avaled

down to the Valeyes; but gret nombre of folk ne may not do so. For the Mountaynes ben so hye and so streghte

up, that thei moste abyde there, maugre hire Myghte. For thei mowe not gon out, but be a littille issue, that was

made be strengthe of men; and it lastethe wel a 4 grete Myle. And aftre, is there zit a Lond alio Desert, where

men may fynde no Watre, ne for dyggynge, ne for non other thing. Wherfore men may not dwellen in that

place: so is it fulle of Dragounes, of Serpentes, and of other venymous Bestes, that no man dar not passe, but

zif it be strong Wyntre. And that streyt passage, men clepen in that Contree, Clyron. And that is the passage,

that the Queen of Amazoine makethe to ben kept. And thoghe it happone, sum of hem, be Fortune, to gon out;

thei conen no maner of Langage but Ebrow: so that thei can not speke to the peple. And zit natheless, men seyn,

thei schalle gon out in the tyme of Antecrist, and that thei schulle maken gret slaughtre of Cristene men. And therfore

alle the Jewes, that dwellen in alle Londes, lernen alle weys to speken Ebrew, in hope that whan the other Jewes

schulle gon out, that thei may undirstonden hire Speche, and to leden hem in to Cristendom, for to destroye the

Cristene peple. For the Jewes seyn, that they knowen wel, be hire Prophecyes, that thei of Caspye schulle gon

out and spreden thorghe out alle the World; and that the Cristene men schulle ben undrc hire Subieccioun, als longe

as thei han ben in subieccioun of hem. And zif that zee wil wyte, how that thei schulle fynden hire Weye, aftre that I

have herd seye, I schalle telle zou. In the time ofAntecrist, a Fox schalle make there his trayne, and mynen an

hole, where Kyng Alisandre leet make the Zates: andso longe he schalle mynen, and perce the Erthe, til that

he schalle passe thorghe, towardes that folk. And whanthei seen the Fox, thei schulle have gret marveylle of

him, be cause that thei saughe never suche a Best. For of alle othere Bestes, thei han enclosed amonges

hem, saf only the Fox. And thanne thei schullen chacen him andpursuen him so streyte, tille that he come

to the same place that he cam fro. And thanne thei schullen dyggenand mynen so strongly, tille that thei

fynden the Zates, that Kyng Alisandre leet make of grete Stones andpassynge huge, wel symented and made

stronge for the maystrie. And tho Zates thei schulle breken, and so gon out, be fyndynge of that issue.

 

 

If the boy Joseph Smith, Jr. read such stuff, in order to emulate

pre-Tudor English, he must have been an amazing little fellow.

 

At that age I was catching frogs, playing marbles, and reading

nothing more difficult than the logo on a box of Wheaties.

 

UD

(Clever guy, that Manchester village scryer, eh?)

[Uncle Dale]

....

 

At that age I was catching frogs, playing marbles, and reading

nothing more difficult than the logo on a box of Wheaties.

 

Here's a later (and more readable text) published when the Jamesian

scholars were still in knee-britches. I suppose it marks the end of

the period we're thinking about here.

 

Ethan Smith thought that the Mexican Quetzalcoatl was Moses, come

to America in preColumbian times -- so, perhaps he was familiar with

the legend of Moses' sons going abroad (and maybe reaching America).

This is story separate from Israel's Assyrian captivity, so I don't think the

supposed Mosaic colonization of the New World can be very closely

linked to Ephraim, Manasseh, Lehi, Mulek, or whomever; but, as an

example of "late" early modern English, it will suffice.

 

I doubt that any library west of Dartmouth College would have had a copy

of Peter Morwyng's 1561 English translation of Joseph ben Gorion's

"History;" but here is an excerpt from "The Tenne Captivities of the Jewes,"

 

 

 

 

"The Leuits [Levites - read v for u] stoode singing a song whiles slaughter was made of them, but they were not able

to finish it, before the enemies entred the Temple, and found them standing in their place, with Harpes in theyr

hands. Therfore he carried away in this captiuity the Leuites which were of the seede of Moses, 6 cm., whom

when the Gentiles had brought unto the Riuers of Babylon, they demaunded of the Jewes, Sing vs a song of Sion.

And by and by they gnawed of the tops of their fingers with their teeth, saying, Howe shal we sing the song of

the Lorde in a strange land? And the blessed Lord seeing that they wold not sing a song he loosed them & placed

them on the further side of Sambatia.

 

Like I said, Ethan Smith might have had access to such "seede of Moses"

lore, in a 1561 British book (or, more likely in some later reprint) -- but it

strains my imagination, to picture Hyrum Smith coming home from a day

on the Dartmouth campus, bringing a book for his little brother Joe, to

read, from that institution's library.

 

Move much past 1561 in British imprints and we're into Elizabethan 

and Jacobin English -- the stuff of Shakespeare's plays. Too late for

the topic being here discussed.

 

UD

Edited March 23, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

Christianity is the umbrella religion which encompasses so many

sects that rely upon "belief," as the doorway to admission -- but

not all are evangelical. The Amish who lived around me in Ohio

had their "beliefs" and even more so, their "traditions." -- But it

would never have occurred to any of them to share such belief

with me, or to invite me to baptism into their sect. In fact, the only

time I witnessed anything even close to that, was when a fellow 

thought (for a while) that he might talk one of the girls into marrying

him (with or without leaving the group).

 

But -- "belief" ??? Yes, I think it typifies Christianity in general. It is

a biblical precept -- and perhaps can be traced back to the very

first people who called themselves Christians.

 

Islam? -- Maybe, to an extent. But the Muslims I've associated with

never spoke of beliefs. They spoke of their religion as a surrender:

a surrender in which God accepts the convert's new way of life. I

do not see the same level of emphasis there upon "belief."

 

Judaism -- forget it. One does not become a Jew by being evangelized

to believe in the Mosaic Covenant -- at least not in the past 1500 years.

 

Hindus? Yes, they "believe" in many things. Some believe in practically

everything. Some believe in nothing but release from rebirth. I always

thought that the Vedantists and the Muslims shared a patch of common

ground -- but it's a very small patch indeed.

 

Unitarians? -- Nope? Freemasons? -- Not so much belief as a desire for

belonging and "getting on" in the world, I'd say. Deists? -- Nope. Atheists?

 

Oh, their are non-Christians who "believe" in something of another, to the

point of wagering their eternal souls upon those beliefs. But, again, I'd say

that the greatest set of "believers," who wish to spread their "beliefs" for

the belief that doing so will save others from hellfire, must be the Christians.

 

I spent a good deal of my early life studying them -- their origins -- their

history -- their wars and divisions. An interesting set of people.

 

I myself am most comfortable associating with the non-evangelical portion

of that set -- the sub-set whose "beliefs" seem to now and then be compatible

with logic, reason, and empathy for those unlike themselves.

 

UD

Well that's two lengthy dissertations, I guess against the assertion that only people who believe that there IS such thing as a "divine source" (ie: God) would believe that God revealed the Bible or for that matter any scripture.   In fact the phrase "divine source" does not even necessitate the existence of "God" in the Christian sense.

 

The Divine Source could the The Universe for all I know- all it seems to me that is being said is divine writings come from a "divine source"

 

It sound almost tautologous to me and hardly worth arguing about.

Edited March 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

See Michael R. Ash, Of Faith and Reason: Scholarly Evidences Supporting Joseph Smith (Springville: Cedar Fort, 2008).

I don't think it is online.

Mike is great- I have had several discussions with him