Book of Mormon text analysis -- computer study idea

[stemelbow]

49 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Please don't confuse discussions about the nature of the translation with whether or not there was a translation. That is a different issue, and responds to different arguments.

I likely confused everything said, at this point.  But I don't think I confused it as you describe. 

49 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

We cannot use language-based issues to suggest that there couldn't have been a translation. In the case you mention, possible similarities in Book of Mormon language to language available to Joseph Smith is descriptive--but doesn't say anything about whether it was a translation. It can only speak to the result of the translation.

That's what I'm agreeing with.  Sorry for the confusion. 

49 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

We will all believe as we learn to, and we should all improve our understanding as go along. Perhaps we will think our earlier selves more naive, but that should only be in ephemera, and not in the essentials of the divine provenance of the text. That information responds to different evidence than that we have been discussing.

 

[champatsch]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

The problem is that you are assuming that these are quotes from the NT.  You should compare these scriptures with their original source, which is obviously not the NT for the believing LDS.  At best, the NT is quoting the original and may have contain  errors == viz both the BOM and the NT are independently quoting the same source.  

Finally, the OT quotes are the Bible which is the record of Judah compared with the Brass Plates, the record of Joseph.

I think we're thinking of different things, in part.  Perhaps you are also referring to the presence of short bits of biblical language found in a large number of BofM passages.  I was only thinking of lengthier biblical passages, so when I wrote NT it meant Matthew 5 to 7.

[champatsch]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It does?  If it tells us it's extremely likely that the divine was involved then there's really little reason for people to reject the notion.  Is that what you're saying?  Based on this eModE stuff it is far more likely the divine was involved than not?

Yes, which should be clear by now, since I've explained the philological perspective in general terms: dozens of instances of archaic vocabulary and syntax and syntactic systems that a philologist would have been very hard pressed to generate in the 1820s, and there were no philologists involved in crafting the form and structure of the text.

Of course many are ideologically driven to conclusions, rather than being driven by objective evidence. And many lack clear judgment, for a variety of reasons.  And many don't understand the evidence.  And many don't care about the evidence.  Etc.

The last part of what you wrote was unclear to me.  Tight control argues against "any words that magically appeared could have been a good representative of what was in his head".  As for your last sentence, "Overall I'd guess the resultant text in English is a pretty loose representation of what Nephi and Mormon etched on plates", there is loosely translated material and tightly translated material in the text.  Overall, a partially free translation, with both free parts and many less free parts.

[JarMan]

As long as we're speculating about the translation process, it would make more sense to me if the process took place on earth and was done by mortals. If Moroni could deliver the plates to Joseph couldn't he deliver them to an intermediary that knew Nephite Egyptian and some other intermediate language (as has already been suggested)? Maybe there were multiple intermediate languages and translation processes that occurred over the centuries. Maybe the "last" translation was really a series of English translations/revisions done in the 15th to 17th centuries.

Is it possible to tell whether the original eModE in the Book of Mormon is more similar to British or American (or some other form of) eModE? Perhaps we should be looking for Elizabethean England in the Book of Mormon instead of 1820's New York to understand some of the apparent anachronisms.

[AKS]

I know this much:  Joseph Smith didn't translate anything.  This leaves only 2 possibilities, he either received divine information and relayed it to scribes or the whole affair is a scam.  If the book content was indeed transmitted (however) by God why would there be any eModE at all?  After all the book was intended for 19th+ century man, doesn't archaic language usage seem counter-productive?   

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

Yes, which should be clear by now, since I've explained the philological perspective in general terms: dozens of instances of archaic vocabulary and syntax and syntactic systems that a philologist would have been very hard pressed to generate in the 1820s, and there were no philologists involved in crafting the form and structure of the text.

Of course many are ideologically driven to conclusions, rather than being driven by objective evidence. And many lack clear judgment, for a variety of reasons.  And many don't understand the evidence.  And many don't care about the evidence.  Etc.

Hey if it's convincing it should win out in the market place of ideas, no problem.  The problem is it doesn't seem to be winning out.  Why does it feel like there are far too many other options to it than God inspiring Joseph? 

I mean I'm a believer but it ain't easy.  I don't want to go to GD class next week and start quoting this notion that philologists agree that it's extremely likely God had a hand in getting us the BoM because it has syntax that Joseph couldn't have come up with. 

Someone might ask why and I'll answer "well because Stanford Carmack recently looked at 600+ instances in Holinshed's Chronicles.  Like the BofM, it has many cases of the auxiliary should being used in the finite clause after the verb, and much less often shall.  The only time no auxiliary is used appreciably in this Tudor history (1577) is when the subject of the complementary clause is second person, thou or ye or you.  We see the same thing in the BofM.  That's an arcane match.  There are many such matches between the BofM and eModE usage.  It's possible now to find the matching.  In the 1820s it would have been extremely difficult for a philologist to know about these esoteric matches and even more difficult to implement them in a text with complex content."

I'm certain I'll get cheers, but not a soul would be impressed if he/she actually listened to what I would have just said. 

"you mean the word should didn't appear in a Tudor history nor the Book of Mormon when the subject of the complementary clause is second person?  Wow.  Color me whatever'd...God must have done it". 

Don't get me wrong, it's not like your findings are uninteresting, but it also is not like the prove God in any way. 

Quote

The last part of what you wrote was unclear to me.  Tight control argues against "any words that magically appeared could have been a good representative of what was in his head". 

I don't know how so.  Are we saying tight control means the English words of the Book of Mormon must strictly represent the notions expressed in the etchings on the plates?  I'm still at a loss how we could ever conclude anything about that.  I thought tight control had less to do with "translation" and more to do with transcription. 

Quote

As for your last sentence, "Overall I'd guess the resultant text in English is a pretty loose representation of what Nephi and Mormon etched on plates", there is loosely translated material and tightly translated material in the text.  Overall, a partially free translation, with both free parts and many less free parts.

Sure.  If it's truly a translation, you'd think there'd be a mix. 

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm at a loss as to what this tight vs loose control has to do with this as well.  The only control we can assume is what Joseph spoke vs what was written.  We simply can't confirm whether the resulting English text was a good representative of the original text, though.  Or can we?  Joseph could have been told phrases while his head was buried in a hat, rather than seeing actual words, though.  Or any words that magically appeared could have been a good representative of what was in his head, I suppose. 

Overall I'd guess the resultant text in English is a pretty loose representation of what Nephi and Mormon etched on plates. 

If Joseph heard the phrases in his head he would have been able to recite them as he heard them. However, Emma Smith reported that when Joseph "came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out." This, to me, indicates that the process was pretty much entirely visual and word for word. I do not mean word for word as they were on the plates. My belief is that the divine translator rendered a translation that accurately conveyed the information that was on the plates. That is my understanding of what a translator tries to do, i.e. render the concepts and information from one language into another. The translator, to be effective, must be fluent in both the original language and the target language. (Joseph was not fluent in any language at the time. Functionally literate maybe. But I am no expert.) To me, Joseph was pretty much like a telegraph operator in that he dictated (instead of writing down) what "came off the wire." That is what I understand to be "tight control."

The presence of the Early Modern English in such heavy concentrations effectively demolishes the argument that Joseph was just mimicking Biblical language when he produced the Book of Mormon. That may be a reason or the reason that it was included. (Speculation alert)

The debate between believers in tight control and loose control is still a debate between believers. I don't think Brant, Stanford, Royal, et al will lose any Celestial Points because of their respective positions.

Glenn

[champatsch]

Well, stemelbow, it should be clear to others that you've taken details and general statements about BofM language and largely ignored the latter while belittling the former.

[AKS]

24 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Well, stemelbow, it should be clear to others that you've taken details and general statements about BofM language and largely ignored the latter while belittling the former.

Would it be possible, in your opinion, for Smith to have faked the BOM?

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, AKS said:

Would it be possible, in your opinion, for Smith to have faked the BOM?

Champatsch should certainly respond for himself, but I a pretty confident that his answer is an emphatic NO. His argument is that the language in the text does not represent language that was available to Joseph, ergo he could not have beien the author--and no one would have had the linguistic sophistication to introduce these forms.

You did not ask for my opinion, but I'll offer it anyway. I also say an emphatic NO, but based on different types of evidence.

[AKS]

58 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Champatsch should certainly respond for himself, but I a pretty confident that his answer is an emphatic NO. His argument is that the language in the text does not represent language that was available to Joseph, ergo he could not have beien the author--and no one would have had the linguistic sophistication to introduce these forms.

You did not ask for my opinion, but I'll offer it anyway. I also say an emphatic NO, but based on different types of evidence.

So is that to say that you don't find Champatsch's evidence compelling?  Why would you emphatically say no?

[Benjamin Seeker]

I wanted to present a possible pathway for Early Modern English to have found it's way into the Book of Mormon. Freemasonry contains an oral tradition dating back to the 1600s, and in it's early, 19th century form contained at least some examples of Early Modern English (see below) . Passing through the degrees requires significant amounts of word-for-word memorization, which would provide a mechanism for preserving archaic language. Though there is no evidence that Joseph Smith passed through the degrees prior or during dictation of the Book of Mormon, there is a large body of evidence showing that he was familiar with at least some aspects of Freemasonry.

Enochian Legend and the Book of Mormon
The most important points of contact come in the Enochian legend from the 13th, 14th, and 21st (I think) degrees of Royal Arch Freemasonry. The legend has Enoch constructing a stone vault in Mount Moriah complete with arches, a brass pillar with the creation account written on it, another pillar, spheres/globes on the pillars containing the maps of the universe that also acted as oracles, a stone lid, and most importantly a gold plate preserving the name of God, which had originally been given to Adam. The purpose of the vault was to preserve divine knowledge past the coming flood. According to the legend, in the time of King Solomon, the vault was uncovered, and on top of a pillar was was found a book, which had the entire Gospel of John written in it.

If the parallels with the Book of Mormon haven't hit you over the head yet, early accounts of Joseph retrieving the gold plates include the stone lid having "arches" and the artifacts being on "pillars." The liahona was a sphere that gave directions. The brass plates contained the books of Moses, of which Genesis contains the creation account. Joseph Smith found the gold plates in a stone box in a hill and restored ancient knowledge. That hill's name is cuMORAH, which is readily seen as related to MORIAH. Also, according to Nick Frederick's work, Joseph Smith's revelations are highly intertextual with the Gospel of John, and it could be argued that the Gospel of John is central to the theological exposition of the text. In the Book of Moses, Enoch learns the name of God in the "language of Adam." Scholars have been exploring these connections for over half a century, and there is more than what I've listed here (one recent example: http://www.academia.edu/14586250/The_Book_of_the_Law_Masonic_Usages_in_the_Story_of_the_Coming_Forth_of_the_Book_of_Mormon, and there are many before her including mentions in The Refiner's Fire and the infamous address by Reed C. Durham).

While there is no official record of Joseph's membership in a lodge, his brother was a member and his father was possibly a member. More importantly, Joseph lived in the geographic vicinity of Batavia, NY, where the anti-freemason movement of 1830s-50s began. William Morgan, a disaffected freemason, was kidnapped in 1826 after threatening to publish freemason secrets (his wife joined the church in 1834 and became a plural wife of Joseph Smith soon after). This was the crime of the decade, a hot topic of conversation and press, and spurred the anti-freemason movement. It seems plausible that in an environment such as this Joseph could have been exposed to freemasonry without becoming an official member.

Freemasonry and Archaic Language
Despite not knowing exactly how Smith became influenced by Freemasonry, the possibility that it deeply affected him demands consideration considering the heavy overlap between the Enochian legend and  many elements from Joseph Smith's life including the Book of Mormon text, the book of Moses, and his interactions with the Book of Mormon artifacts. Grammar may be another area of overlap. Granted, I'm not a linguist, but reading an 1853 exposition of Masonic ceremony published in NY (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433075953525;view=1up;seq=7 ), it quickly becomes clear that the English is archaic to the time period. Following are some examples that I could pick out.

A few examples from the Entered Apprentice (first) degree:

• "From whence came you?" p. 33
• "I did not so recieve it, neither can I so impart it." p. 36
• "What came you here to do?" p.38
• "Where was you first prepared to be made a mason?" "Where was you secondly prepared?" "How did you know this to be a door, you being hood-winked?" p. 40
• "How was you then disposed of?" p. 41
• "What was you next presented with?" p. 43
• "Finally, brethren, be ye of one mind..." p. 55

There are plenty more examples of "was you" throughout the questions of the degree ceremony. This is just a quick peek, and it's kind of late. We really need to see what the language was like in the 1820s, when I'm proposing Joseph somehow became familiar with Freemasonry. However, this is enough to establish that this is a valid line of inquiry and a potential path for Early Modern English to have made it into the Book of Mormon.

Archaic Language in Joseph's 1832 History
Finally, a small attestation that Joseph used archaic English in a non-revelatory setting can be found in the 1832 account of the first vision and coming forth of the Book of Mormon. After finishing the first vision account, Joseph switches from writing himself to dictating. At this point he begins to slip into a more scriptural language, including beholds, therefores, and it came to passes. The archaic grammar includes at least the following:

• "there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni & his fathers"
• "and found where the plates was deposited"
• "I supposed it had been a dreem of Vision"
• "therefore thou was left unto temptation that thou mightest be made accquainted with the power of the advisary"
• "thou shalt obtain them"

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/4

 

[Brant Gardner]

8 hours ago, AKS said:

So is that to say that you don't find Champatsch's evidence compelling?  Why would you emphatically say no?

I don't disagree with the evidence he provides as a description of the text. I don't think it requires someone other than Joseph, and that is where the problem comes in when I attempt to support my understanding of what his data mean. The problem is finding enough examples from Joseph to show that his dialect retained those features. I suspect that it did, but two things slow down a complete response; the lack of appropriate data and my inexperience with those grammatical forms. 

For my part, I find that the evidence of the complexity of the way the text was constructed makes it highly unlikely that Joseph could have created it. For example, I see seams in the text where the best explanation for those particular seams is that Mormon had to make a physical movement to shift from copying a source and simply creating a narrative. Had Joseph created the text, those particular seams have no inherent reason--yet they are consistent, and seem to be diagnostic of Mormon's work.

Beyond that, I see the correspondence to a real place, time, and events that underlie the English text as the strongest indicator that there is an ancient text behind it. The English text clearly used more modern language and conventions, but the story it tells fits into history extremely closely, and that history elucidates the text the way a cultural and historical context ought to augment the reading of a translation. 

[stemelbow]

 

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If Joseph heard the phrases in his head he would have been able to recite them as he heard them. However, Emma Smith reported that when Joseph "came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out." This, to me, indicates that the process was pretty much entirely visual and word for word. I do not mean word for word as they were on the plates. My belief is that the divine translator rendered a translation that accurately conveyed the information that was on the plates. That is my understanding of what a translator tries to do, i.e. render the concepts and information from one language into another. The translator, to be effective, must be fluent in both the original language and the target language. (Joseph was not fluent in any language at the time. Functionally literate maybe. But I am no expert.) To me, Joseph was pretty much like a telegraph operator in that he dictated (instead of writing down) what "came off the wire." That is what I understand to be "tight control."

The presence of the Early Modern English in such heavy concentrations effectively demolishes the argument that Joseph was just mimicking Biblical language when he produced the Book of Mormon. That may be a reason or the reason that it was included. (Speculation alert)

The debate between believers in tight control and loose control is still a debate between believers. I don't think Brant, Stanford, Royal, et al will lose any Celestial Points because of their respective positions.

Glenn

Sure I see that reasoning.  I'm not necessarily trying to argue Joseph didn't see words, but it's also possible it was a bit of a mix...in that Joseph was told some and yet other parts he read and spelled out.  I think all this not knowing puts into question the conclusion of a tight control translation, although I could agree tight control seems to fit the description in that the scribe wrote down what Joseph said. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, champatsch said:

Well, stemelbow, it should be clear to others that you've taken details and general statements about BofM language and largely ignored the latter while belittling the former.

I dont' think so.  While it's true I don't put all stock in the details, I don't think I've belittled anything.  One statement from Whitmer, I believe, is that when Joseph peered into his hat he'd see a character from the plates and the translation.  I don't know why, but that strikes me as his guesswork.  It certainly could have been, but it also could be that Whitmer thought that's what Joseph saw.  Whatever the case I agree with this conclusion by BH Roberts:

Quote

The translation of the Book of Mormon by means of the "Interpreters" and "Seer Stone," was not merely a mechanical process, but required the utmost concentration of mental and spiritual force possessed by the prophet

I get the impression that if God is involved it was more complicated than the witnesses and scribes were aware. 

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I wanted to present a possible pathway for Early Modern English to have found it's way into the Book of Mormon. Freemasonry contains an oral tradition dating back to the 1600s, and in it's early, 19th century form contained at least some examples of Early Modern English (see below) . Passing through the degrees requires significant amounts of word-for-word memorization, which would provide a mechanism for preserving archaic language. Though there is no evidence that Joseph Smith passed through the degrees prior or during dictation of the Book of Mormon, there is a large body of evidence showing that he was familiar with at least some aspects of Freemasonry.

Enochian Legend and the Book of Mormon
The most important points of contact come in the Enochian legend from the 13th, 14th, and 21st (I think) degrees of Royal Arch Freemasonry. The legend has Enoch constructing a stone vault in Mount Moriah complete with arches, a brass pillar with the creation account written on it, another pillar, spheres/globes on the pillars containing the maps of the universe that also acted as oracles, a stone lid, and most importantly a gold plate preserving the name of God, which had originally been given to Adam. The purpose of the vault was to preserve divine knowledge past the coming flood. According to the legend, in the time of King Solomon, the vault was uncovered, and on top of a pillar was was found a book, which had the entire Gospel of John written in it.

If the parallels with the Book of Mormon haven't hit you over the head yet, early accounts of Joseph retrieving the gold plates include the stone lid having "arches" and the artifacts being on "pillars." The liahona was a sphere that gave directions. The brass plates contained the books of Moses, of which Genesis contains the creation account. Joseph Smith found the gold plates in a stone box in a hill and restored ancient knowledge. That hill's name is cuMORAH, which is readily seen as related to MORIAH. Also, according to Nick Frederick's work, Joseph Smith's revelations are highly intertextual with the Gospel of John, and it could be argued that the Gospel of John is central to the theological exposition of the text. In the Book of Moses, Enoch learns the name of God in the "language of Adam." Scholars have been exploring these connections for over half a century, and there is more than what I've listed here (one recent example: http://www.academia.edu/14586250/The_Book_of_the_Law_Masonic_Usages_in_the_Story_of_the_Coming_Forth_of_the_Book_of_Mormon, and there are many before her including mentions in The Refiner's Fire and the infamous address by Reed C. Durham).

While there is no official record of Joseph's membership in a lodge, his brother was a member and his father was possibly a member. More importantly, Joseph lived in the geographic vicinity of Batavia, NY, where the anti-freemason movement of 1830s-50s began. William Morgan, a disaffected freemason, was kidnapped in 1826 after threatening to publish freemason secrets (his wife joined the church in 1834 and became a plural wife of Joseph Smith soon after). This was the crime of the decade, a hot topic of conversation and press, and spurred the anti-freemason movement. It seems plausible that in an environment such as this Joseph could have been exposed to freemasonry without becoming an official member.

Freemasonry and Archaic Language
Despite not knowing exactly how Smith became influenced by Freemasonry, the possibility that it deeply affected him demands consideration considering the heavy overlap between the Enochian legend and  many elements from Joseph Smith's life including the Book of Mormon text, the book of Moses, and his interactions with the Book of Mormon artifacts. Grammar may be another area of overlap. Granted, I'm not a linguist, but reading an 1853 exposition of Masonic ceremony published in NY (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433075953525;view=1up;seq=7 ), it quickly becomes clear that the English is archaic to the time period. Following are some examples that I could pick out.

A few examples from the Entered Apprentice (first) degree:

• "From whence came you?" p. 33
• "I did not so recieve it, neither can I so impart it." p. 36
• "What came you here to do?" p.38
• "Where was you first prepared to be made a mason?" "Where was you secondly prepared?" "How did you know this to be a door, you being hood-winked?" p. 40
• "How was you then disposed of?" p. 41
• "What was you next presented with?" p. 43
• "Finally, brethren, be ye of one mind..." p. 55

There are plenty more examples of "was you" throughout the questions of the degree ceremony. This is just a quick peek, and it's kind of late. We really need to see what the language was like in the 1820s, when I'm proposing Joseph somehow became familiar with Freemasonry. However, this is enough to establish that this is a valid line of inquiry and a potential path for Early Modern English to have made it into the Book of Mormon.

Archaic Language in Joseph's 1832 History
Finally, a small attestation that Joseph used archaic English in a non-revelatory setting can be found in the 1832 account of the first vision and coming forth of the Book of Mormon. After finishing the first vision account, Joseph switches from writing himself to dictating. At this point he begins to slip into a more scriptural language, including beholds, therefores, and it came to passes. The archaic grammar includes at least the following:

• "there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni & his fathers"
• "and found where the plates was deposited"
• "I supposed it had been a dreem of Vision"
• "therefore thou was left unto temptation that thou mightest be made accquainted with the power of the advisary"
• "thou shalt obtain them"

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/4

 

Interesting idea.  I'm not saying there's not something significant to this eModE, but I really can't see how Stanford maintains the claim that it somehow makes God extremely likely.  Without being able to prove the existence of God it seems like mere chance is more likely than God as a possibility. 

[champatsch]

stemelbow, I looked over what you wrote above and I stand by what I wrote as an accurate assessment.  You proposed an unsuitable venue where you might state technical details about the English language of the BofM, saying it wouldn't fly.  Gospel Doctrine classes are almost never the occasion for such input, as you well know.  That would be reserved for rare events on point.  So that was a belittling, jeering move on your part, and there were other bits that support that conclusion.  Unless it appears to me that you are approaching this topic more seriously, respectfully, and professionally, I doubt I will take the trouble to address your points.

In a dedicated fireside to the topic, one might say in an introduction or summary something like the following:  The BofM is full of archaic, literate language that is not found in the King James Bible or in contemporary pseudo-biblical writings.  If we go back hundreds of years we can find much of the BofM's systematic usage and vocabulary in the writings of both famous and little-known authors and translators.  There is so much archaic and obsolete usage and vocabulary in the BofM that it makes human production in the 1820s virtually impossible.

This is a technical field full of details that cumulatively make a big picture.  If one doesn't like the big picture, it's easy to mock various details.  I don't make a practice of it, since it strikes me as an exercise in futility.

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, champatsch said:

stemelbow, I looked over what you wrote above and I stand by what I wrote as an accurate assessment.  You proposed an unsuitable venue where you might state technical details about the English language of the BofM, saying it wouldn't fly.  Gospel Doctrine classes are almost never the occasion for such input, as you well know.  That would be reserved for rare events on point.  So that was a belittling, jeering move on your part, and there were other bits that support that conclusion.  Unless it appears to me that you are approaching this topic more seriously, respectfully, and professionally, I doubt I will take the trouble to address your points.

In a dedicated fireside to the topic, one might say in an introduction or summary something like the following:  The BofM is full of archaic, literate language that is not found in the King James Bible or in contemporary pseudo-biblical writings.  If we go back hundreds of years we can find much of the BofM's systematic usage and vocabulary in the writings of both famous and little-known authors and translators.  There is so much archaic and obsolete usage and vocabulary in the BofM that it makes human production in the 1820s virtually impossible.

This is a technical field full of details that cumulatively make a big picture.  If one doesn't like the big picture, it's easy to mock various details.  I don't make a practice of it, since it strikes me as an exercise in futility.

I think I see exactly where you are coming from and understand your point here.  My apologies for any offense.  You have a point regarding the belittling. that certainly wasn't a good move on my part.  I will say I was astounded by the claim of extremely likely that the divine was involved.  That seemed to be an overstated point and as such I thoughtlessly created a scenario to illustrate how or why I disagreed.  I could have done better and for that I apologize.

But I sincerely would like to thank you for your efforts.  I find it interesting even if I'm failing to fully grasp it.  I guess I grow cautious when different pieces are set up to be a savior in terms of making Mormonism and the book of Mormon look more credible.  I'm not saying the scripture needs it, necessarily.  But I will say your work really adds a level of complexity that can only grow our understanding and that surely is a good thing.  I hope if or as I understand it better I will be able to see it as clearly as you do.  And I hope my onerous manners aren't too troubling. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

Yeah, I think Freemasonry at the very at least provides an indicator that there were archaic forms of English in active use in 19th century New York, and it merits further investigation.

I'm just doing a little more digging, and I'm reading through Morgan William's Exposition of Freemasonry, which was published in 1827 after his kidnapping. It shows alternate forms of the same questions I copied above.

Morgan's version:

• "From whence come you as an Entered Apprentice Mason?"
• "What comest thou hither to do?"
• "You being hoodwinked how did you know it to be a door?"

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/captmorgansfreemasonry4.htm

It's worth mentioning that the masonic phrase (also used in Rosicrucianism), "So mote it be," which is still in use today, dates back to a masonic document in the 15th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_mote_it_be).

My argument is only that these are indicators that Freemasonry could be one vector for Early Modern English.

[champatsch]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Archaic Language in Joseph's 1832 History
Finally, a small attestation that Joseph used archaic English in a non-revelatory setting can be found in the 1832 account of the first vision and coming forth of the Book of Mormon. After finishing the first vision account, Joseph switches from writing himself to dictating. At this point he begins to slip into a more scriptural language, including beholds, therefores, and it came to passes. The archaic grammar includes at least the following:

• "there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni & his fathers"
• "and found where the plates was deposited"
• "I supposed it had been a dreem of Vision"
• "therefore thou was left unto temptation that thou mightest be made accquainted with the power of the advisary"
• "thou shalt obtain them"

There was certainly plural was in Joseph's dialect, and I suggested this in a paper on the subject.  The big picture, however, when we take into account nearby variation with were and other archaizing features and systematic use, tells us that it is unlikely that the plural was of the BofM stemmed from his dialect.

Joseph's 1832 History is a 2,000-word text.  I saw no affirmative, declarative, periphrastic did in this account and there were many main verbs used in the positive past tense.  This agrees with independent linguistic studies which did not find any appreciable maintenance in modern dialects of this eModE phenomenon.  As a result, the distinctive past-tense usage of the BofM says no emphatically to Joseph being its English-language translator.  Also, I saw some {-th} forms in this history, but no {-th} plural.  Again, the {-th} plural was very rare in the 1820s, according to the textual record, but it is not rare in the BofM, and so this fact also casts into doubt Joseph as translator.  I saw no personal which in this account; I saw personal who.  This is again a problem for those who favor Joseph being the English-language translator, since the BofM text is very heavy in its use of personal which (much of it edited out).  All of this is directly relevant to the following:

4 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I don't disagree with the evidence he provides as a description of the text. I don't think it requires someone other than Joseph, and that is where the problem comes in when I attempt to support my understanding of what his data mean. The problem is finding enough examples from Joseph to show that his dialect retained those features. I suspect that it did, but two things slow down a complete response; the lack of appropriate data and my inexperience with those grammatical forms.

[cdowis]

"Freemasonry"

Just curious.

Legal documents are written in archaic English.  Is there any possible connection to the English in the BOM?  I guess that I am getting to the idea that the Lord is using a formal "scripture language", just as there is a specialized language in the law and Freemasonry.  It is similar to King James English, but not exactly the same.f

Since we are speculating here, perhaps the Lord may be trying to teach us something -- about the Adamic language, or the language of theocracy (the Millennium), or a divine/legal formal language?  Prayer language requires Thou, Thee, but there may be more to it as we learn how to properly petition the Lord.

Edited October 25, 2016 by cdowis

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

There was certainly plural was in Joseph's dialect, and I suggested this in a paper on the subject.  The big picture, however, when we take into account nearby variation with were and other archaizing features and systematic use, tells us that it is unlikely that the plural was of the BofM stemmed from his dialect.

Joseph's 1832 History is a 2,000-word text.  I saw no affirmative, declarative, periphrastic did in this account and there were many main verbs used in the positive past tense.  This agrees with independent linguistic studies which did not find any appreciable maintenance in modern dialects of this eModE phenomenon.  As a result, the distinctive past-tense usage of the BofM says no emphatically to Joseph being its English-language translator.  Also, I saw some {-th} forms in this history, but no {-th} plural.  Again, the {-th} plural was very rare in the 1820s, according to the textual record, but it is not rare in the BofM, and so this fact also casts into doubt Joseph as translator.  I saw no personal which in this account; I saw personal who.  This is again a problem for those who favor Joseph being the English-language translator, since the BofM text is very heavy in its use of personal which (much of it edited out).

In summary, in the 1832 section about the gold plates, Joseph clearly goes for scriptural language, and he does use a few archaic sounding things. However, he doesn't come close to the Early Modern English present in the Book of Mormon, and you've given some of the most significant elements that are absent in the 1832 account. Beautiful rebuttal.

Now, to see if any of these grammatical elements can be found prevalently in 19th century Freemasonry in NY.

[AKS]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

"Freemasonry"

Just curious.

Legal documents are written in archaic English.  Is there any possible connection to the English in the BOM?  I guess that I am getting to the idea that the Lord is using a formal "scripture language", just as there is a specialized language in the law and Freemasonry.  It is similar to King James English, but not exactly the same.f

Since we are speculating here, perhaps the Lord may be trying to teach us something -- about the Adamic language, or the language of theocracy (the Millennium), or a divine/legal formal language?  Prayer language requires Thou, Thee, but there may be more to it as we learn how to properly petition the Lord.

Isn't it kind of a stretch to think God is a stickler for language and grammar?  

[Benjamin Seeker]

Here is an example of did and do with the verb agree from a degree ceremony of Royal Arch masonry (the system of masonry with the Enoch legend, which the Book of Mormon and its discovery echo):

"As we three did agree, in peace, love, and unity, the sacred word to keep, So we three do agree..." p. 123 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433075953525;view=1up;seq=147

 

 

 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, AKS said:

Isn't it kind of a stretch to think God is a stickler for language and grammar?  

 To call God a "stickler" is simply inappropriate.

Just as we address our Creator with Thee and Thou, we need to be cautious in how we talk about God.  This is what I think.

Edited October 25, 2016 by cdowis