The Book of Mormon's Use of the Tower of Babel and the Adamic Language as the Power of God

[Benjamin Seeker]

Over in the Book of Mormon as fiction thread, there was a discussion about how much of the tower of Babel narrative the Book of Mormon really adopts. An intertextual examination of Ether vs. Gen. 11's account of the tower of babel is enlightening, I think. 

Here is the introduction to the tower narrative in the Book of Mormon with its KJV counterpart below:

Quote

Ether 1

33 Which Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered.

 

Quote

Gen. 11

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Ether 1 is using the same phraseology from KJV Genesis 11, consisting of two phrases with some variation that are presented in the same sequence. In terms of sequence, it's notable that Gen. 11 employs the each phrase twice with some variation. Ether 1 seems to follow suit, but only paraphrasing the second of two concepts.

Another point of contact is that Ether 1:33 describes the Lord swaring or speaking. While the content of the God's speech in Gen. 11 doesn't make direct reference to scattering, the Lord's speech in Gen. 11 could be summed up as the Lord swearing to scatter the people, considering that scattering is explicitly what the people want to avoid in Gen 11:4 and the result of the Lord's confounding according to verses 8 and 9.

Obviously, both Gen 11 and Ether 1 describe the edifice as a "tower."

Moving onto verse 34 and its KJV counterpart:

Quote

Ether 1

34 And the brother of Jared being a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord, Jared, his brother, said unto him: Cry unto the Lord, that he will not confound us that we may not understand our words.

 

Quote

Gen 11

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

Another parallel use of language. I've bolded only exact words matches so as to highlight the way that the Book of Mormon apparently borrows and adapts the words of God from Gen 11 and puts them into Jared's mouth in Ether 1.

The title page of the Book of Mormon also describes the tower narrative:

Quote

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven.

The first two concepts we are already familiar with (two of the primary aspects of the original Genesis narrative, also emphasized in Ether 1), and now we have the idea that "they were building a tower to get to heaven" also present in the Book of Mormon text.

Quote

Gen 11

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

Again, I've bolded only the matching language (even partials), to illustrate how the Book of Mormon appears to adapt the language of the KJV Gen 11. All of this is to say, the Book of Mormon text as it stands, clearly invokes many of the primary aspects of tower narrative and uses exact or similar language from the KJV to do so.

While the BOM text doesn't mention the name Babel or the idea of one language, the possibility that the Jaredites language is the pure or Adamic language can be inferred from the Book of Mormon and Moses. For example, Moroni describes the written language of the Jaredites as "mighty even as [God]" and "overpowering" of those that read them (Ether 12:24). The text clarified earlier that this written language had been "confounded" (Ether 3:24), and it's safe to assume this has reference to the tower event. The comparison of the power of the Jaredites written language to the power of God is paralleled by the description of language in Moses . For example, Moses 6:6-7 describes the "pure and undefiled" language of Adam and his children and calls it a "priesthood." A few generations later Enoch's language is described as powerful:

Quote

Moses 7

...and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.

It can be assumed that the text has Enoch speaking Adamic, but there is also an implication that he is using it differently than others around him. Maybe he knows more of it or uses it in conjunction with God's power. Also, this verse clearly parallels the description of Melchizedek and his priesthood or the "order of the Son of God" in JST Gen 14:

Quote

JST Gen 14

26 Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire.

30 For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself; that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course;

To sum it up, in Moses 6 the pure language is called priesthood. Enoch's use of the pure language references priesthood theology and is described as being "given him" by "God." Similarly, the Jaredite's written language is powerful "even as" God, and it was confounded at the tower event, which strongly implies that it is the "one language" or Adamic language described in Gen 11.

[clarkgoble]

The big difference is that the Jaredite account (which is a summary/interpretation by Moroni who has the brass plates - so it's almost certainly contaminated by whatever version of the Genesis narratives Lehi had access to) doesn't mention the attempt to get to heaven. As I mentioned in the other thread, I'd suggest that the confounding of the languages in 1:33-34 can't be separated from the writing in the confounded language in 3:34. That is this is primarily about maintaining a secret priestly record with the tools necessary to be able to read their own writings. I'd also say that the emphasis in the account is the scattering (which of course the Jaredites participated in)

The idea that there was something special about Adam's language was of course common. A great book on the various interpretations on what this meant is Umberto Eco's The Search for the Perfect Language. The two extremes were a perfect Aristotelian language where there was a one to one mapping of word to object or a perfect metaphoric language (exemplified by Kabbalistic schemes) where the language was perfectly open. Joseph Smith with a lot of apparent influences coming out of the esoteric  renaissance traditions (of which masonry was but one remnant) bought into this. There's a fair bit of evidence that he may have thought the Egyptian was tied to this and thus his work on the GAEL (Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). For the record I don't think that's true of the Book of Mormon although he may have. But of course the Jaredites are (if the Genesis dates are to be trusted -- which I'm not sure they are) just a few centuries after Noah arrives in the middle east. So perhaps we have some remnant of Noah's language that the Jaredites were insistent on maintaining. 

As to the language of Adam having special powers, again that's an old tradition although I think this confuses language with knowing what to say. Scientific language has power but of course the power is due to the capabilities of the person using it. To Moses 7 I think we should probably interpret language there more akin to being inspired when giving a blessing. That is if Enoch had power it was by his priesthood but nothing inherent to the language. It's more akin to what we find in the Book of Mormon in Helaman 10.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

While the BOM text doesn't mention the name Babel or the idea of one language, the possibility that the Jaredites language is the pure or Adamic language can be inferred from the Book of Mormon and Moses.

In adding to what Clark mentions, we run into this problem of a widespread cultural interpretation going on that the early LDS understanding fits into (and this interpretation impacts a lot of things - including Moses, but also the GAEL materials, and so on). The connection to "pure language" especially as we see it in Moses 6, comes from Zephaniah 3:9 - "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent." This issue comes up fairly early within Mormonism, as it is an issue where Sidney Rigdon had some disagreements with Campbell (and Rigdon is very much a participant in the production of the Book of Moses). Later we have the encounter that Michael Hull Barton has with Mormonism (baptized in 1833, but it is in 1831 that he writes his book on the pure language:
https://books.google.com/ books?id=dAISAAAAIAAJ&pg= PA112#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/ books?id=dAISAAAAIAAJ&pg= PA113#v=onepage&q&f=false
And so on. And while we have some discussion of the language of Adam, it isn't exactly clear that the goal was to restore that specific language as opposed to creating a new language. And this concept of the new language was far more interested in creating a system that wasn't ambiguous in its vocalization (not so much in its meaning). That is, creating a phonetic system that was unambiguous was more important that creating a system where the embedded meaning was unambiguous (something we probably wouldn't worry about quite so much today). We can see this in the way that the GAEL is laid out. But we also see this idea in things like the discussion over the name James/Jacob in the King Follett Discourse, where the greatest liability of the King James text, it is suggested, is in the way that things are presented (spelled) in terms of names (and not so much over the concept of doctrine). Which is why Joseph Smith suggests that for the New Testament, it is Luther's translation into German that is best.

At any rate, my point is that the bit in Moses represents something quite different from the material in Ether. And in Moses, we have an outcome that is due in part from an interpretation drawn from the Genesis account and the Ether text. But it's way of describing it is due more towards the notion of the pure language coming from Zephaniah, and early Mormonism's sense that the prophecy in Zephaniah had to be fulfilled as part of the preparations needed to clear the way for the Second Coming (just as the rest of the sects who fit into that restorationist movement also believed). So I am wary of extending the interpretation in Moses back on to Ether. Ether seems at least in part to be Moroni's re-understanding of the Genesis narratives in terms of the Jaredite record.

(More or less what Clark was saying above).

Ben M.

[Benjamin Seeker]

I need to provide quick clarification on the use of priesthood in Moses 6. This text dates to 1830-31, and JS didn't the term priesthood wasn't used to denote power at this point. Instead, it was used to describe an order of priests who wielded the power of God. In the case of Moses 6, the priesthood is Adam and his descendants, and they are wielding the "pure and undefiled" language of God, which JS's texts describe as having various powers (addressed in the OP).

Quote

The big difference is that the Jaredite account (which is a summary/interpretation by Moroni who has the brass plates - so it's almost certainly contaminated by whatever version of the Genesis narratives Lehi had access to) doesn't mention the attempt to get to heaven.

In the OP, I pointed to the title page of the Book of Mormon, which specifically mentions getting to heaven. Whether that is Jaredite or Nephite, the "get to heaven" element is in the text.

Quote

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'd suggest that the confounding of the languages in 1:33-34 can't be separated from the writing in the confounded language in 3:34. That is this is primarily about maintaining a secret priestly record with the tools necessary to be able to read their own writings. I'd also say that the emphasis in the account is the scattering (which of course the Jaredites participated in)

While that is possible, considering the text only mentions one confounding event that, without contortion, covers the confounding of written language, it seems like the more straightforward reading is that the written language was confounded at the tower event.

Quote

The idea that there was something special about Adam's language was of course common. A great book on the various interpretations on what this meant is Umberto Eco's The Search for the Perfect Language. The two extremes were a perfect Aristotelian language where there was a one to one mapping of word to object or a perfect metaphoric language (exemplified by Kabbalistic schemes) where the language was perfectly open. Joseph Smith with a lot of apparent influences coming out of the esoteric  renaissance traditions (of which masonry was but one remnant) bought into this. There's a fair bit of evidence that he may have thought the Egyptian was tied to this and thus his work on the GAEL (Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). For the record I don't think that's true of the Book of Mormon although he may have. But of course the Jaredites are (if the Genesis dates are to be trusted -- which I'm not sure they are) just a few centuries after Noah arrives in the middle east. So perhaps we have some remnant of Noah's language that the Jaredites were insistent on maintaining. 

As to the language of Adam having special powers, again that's an old tradition although I think this confuses language with knowing what to say. Scientific language has power but of course the power is due to the capabilities of the person using it. To Moses 7 I think we should probably interpret language there more akin to being inspired when giving a blessing. That is if Enoch had power it was by his priesthood but nothing inherent to the language. It's more akin to what we find in the Book of Mormon in Helaman 10.

I believe my reading is a more literal interpretation. Moses 6 associates language with priesthood, and then Moses 7 specifically talks about language having power and clearly references priesthood theology also found in JST 14. The proximity of these two passages begs a common theology of language. As far as I can tell this language theology is consistent across JS' dictated texts. It's present in the Book of Mormon in the description of the Brother of Jared's written language. It's also present in his teaching to pray addressing to the Lord by his name, Ahman (God's name in Adamic according to the revelation on Pure Language), as a partial key to receiving an answer:

Quote

the Great God has a name By wich He will be Called which is  Ah man-- also in asking have Referance to a personage Like Adam for God made Adam Just in his own Image Now this a key for you to know how to ask & obtain. (1841)

Lastly, language having power and being part of a priesthood is consistent with Moses 6 prophecy that "this priesthood" would be had in the end of the world as well. It seems that priesthood restoration couldn't be complete without restoration of the Adamic language.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

53 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And while we have some discussion of the language of Adam, it isn't exactly clear that the goal was to restore that specific language as opposed to creating a new language. 

JS does seem to be interested in restoration however. Moses 6:7 sets the precedent for restoration of Adamic, so according to JS' revealed theology, restoring Adamic was on the to-do list, and the association of Egyptian with the pure language places JS' efforts with the GAEL straightforwardly in the restoration category.

Quote

At any rate, my point is that the bit in Moses represents something quite different from the material in Ether. And in Moses, we have an outcome that is due in part from an interpretation drawn from the Genesis account and the Ether text.

We don't need to extend Moses back to Ether, because all we have to do is look to the original inspiration in Genesis, which specifically mentions one language. I believe Moses represents a more developed theology around the one language.

Thanks for the comments about Zephaniah. That brings another angle and source text to the discussion, which I hadn't been aware of yet. 

What is clear to me is that the bible and 19th century culture undergirds JS' language theology, which can be seen evolving across the Book of Mormon, Moses, and later of JS' projects.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

JS does seem to be interested in restoration however. Moses 6:7 sets the precedent for restoration of Adamic

I must be missing your exegesis. (I assume you mean verse 5, not 7 otherwise I'm really confused) We have a 'book of remembrance' in Adam's language (unsurprisingly). I'm not aware of any claim there that this book would come forth or require knowing 'adamese.'

Quote

We don't need to extend Moses back to Ether, because all we have to do is look to the original inspiration in Genesis, which specifically mentions one language. I believe Moses represents a more developed theology around the one language.

Could you expand? (Edit: OK, missed your other post. See below) I don't see it making any claims that the language was special. Moses 6:6 just seems to indicate they need to know the language to read their writings. So it seems more akin to what I mentioned in one of the other threads about the Jaredite 'confounding' really being about being able to read writings. 

Quote

I need to provide quick clarification on the use of priesthood in Moses 6. This text dates to 1830-31, and JS didn't the term priesthood wasn't used to denote power at this point. Instead, it was used to describe an order of priests who wielded the power of God. In the case of Moses 6, the priesthood is Adam and his descendants, and they are wielding the "pure and undefiled" language of God

But it doesn't say they are wielding the language or anything like that. Even to the degree we make that connection it conflates three things -- spoken language, written language, the particulars of what is said. So a prophet making demands that happen with words have the power because God does it. It doesn't follow that somehow the language as the system of signs (either written or oral) has the power.

You first off have to be much more detailed in your exegesis but importantly avoid equivocating between these senses of language.

Quote

 and the association of Egyptian with the pure language places JS' efforts with the GAEL straightforwardly in the restoration category

But of course assuming that the Book of Mormon's reformed Egyptian was 'adamese' is deeply problematic to the text of the Book of Mormon. Not the least of which being Moroni's noting it was modified by them. i.e. wasn't even the same language that Nephi used. (See Mormon 9:32)

There is indication Joseph thought this. I think this is a strong indication of first his ignorance of his own texts and second probably emphasizing the Egyptian part and missing the reformed part.

There were traditions out of the late renaissance period connecting Adam to Egyptian hieroglyphics and avoided the confusion of languages at Babel. (Thomas Brown in the 17th century wrote about that but there are others mentioned in that Eco book I mentioned) I expect Joseph had become exposed to those ideas, possibly through masonry or Sidney Rigon or others, and that the GAEL reflect his taking that tradition and trying to work backwards to a grammar. I think in terms of his own writings this makes no sense to have thought reasonable.

Edited March 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

54 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I must be missing your exegesis. (I assume you mean verse 5, not 7 otherwise I'm really confused) We have a 'book of remembrance' in Adam's language (unsurprisingly). I'm not aware of any claim there that this book would come forth or require knowing 'adamese.'

Could you expand? (Edit: OK, missed your other post. See below) I don't see it making any claims that the language was special. Moses 6:6 just seems to indicate they need to know the language to read their writings. So it seems more akin to what I mentioned in one of the other threads about the Jaredite 'confounding' really being about being able to read writings. 

But it doesn't say they are wielding the language or anything like that. Even to the degree we make that connection it conflates three things -- spoken language, written language, the particulars of what is said. So a prophet making demands that happen with words have the power because God does it. It doesn't follow that somehow the language as the system of signs (either written or oral) has the power.

You first off have to be much more detailed in your exegesis but importantly avoid equivocating between these senses of language.

I agree that verse 6 makes no special mention of anything special about the language beyond it being pure and undefiled (which may be able to be unpacked through intertextuality, but I haven't tackled that). However, it's verse 7 that deepens the meaning. It states that "this priesthood which in the beginning of the world shall be in the end of the world also." Verse 6's ending subject, which verse 7 takes up with the word 'this', is pure undefiled language. There is little to no room to argue that priesthood in verse 7 references anything else but something to do with this language.

With the link between language and priesthood in mind (Moses 6:6-7) we are prepared to, using other early Mormon texts, understand fully what the term priesthood likely references in verse 7. Does it just reference language? Maybe, but that wouldn't be consistent with his other texts. No other early text uses the term priesthood to refer to anything but a holy order after the Son of God or something along those lines (i.e. A group of people). So, that's how I come up with my likely definition of the term, as it's used in Moses 6:7. Adam and his children are the participants, and the pure language provides at least part of the order of priesthood. This is entirely consistent with Enoch and his powerful language, which is "given him" by God, and the intertextual relationship between the description of Enoch's language and the description of priesthood in JST Gen. 14.

A quick tangeant addressing your delineation between written and spoken language: Whether the language is written or spoken shouldn't matter considering the term language generally encompasses both writing and speaking. This is true both in the 19th century and in JS' text, or at least there is nothing in any of the texts, Moses or Ether, telling us they spoke a different language than what they wrote. Perhaps the significant delineation between speaking and reading/writing in JS' dictated texts is a reflection of JS' own struggle with writing. He was a speaker, not a writer, at least generally. 

 

54 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But of course assuming that the Book of Mormon's reformed Egyptian was 'adamese' is deeply problematic to the text of the Book of Mormon. Not the least of which being Moroni's noting it was modified by them. i.e. wasn't even the same language that Nephi used. (See Mormon 9:32)

I wouldn't argue that anyone viewed the reformed Egyptian as being Adamic, maybe related to Adamic because of the Egyptian element you mentioned. I'm arguing that JS viewed the Jaredite language as Adamic or closely related. Maybe you could be more specific as to what your responding to here?

54 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There is indication Joseph thought this. I think this is a strong indication of first his ignorance of his own texts and second probably emphasizing the Egyptian part and missing the reformed part.

I would love to see this indication. Sounds like it's fairly relevant. Can you dig it up when you have a chance?

54 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There were traditions out of the late renaissance period connecting Adam to Egyptian hieroglyphics and avoided the confusion of languages at Babel. (Thomas Brown in the 17th century wrote about that but there are others mentioned in that Eco book I mentioned) I expect Joseph had become exposed to those ideas, possibly through masonry or Sidney Rigon or others, and that the GAEL reflect his taking that tradition and trying to work backwards to a grammar. I think in terms of his own writings this makes no sense to have thought reasonable.

I would like to learn some more about 19th century conception of Adamic, etc. From what I understand, Egyptian and Hebrew were considered the languages most closely related to Adamic, but not the real thing. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

We have several attempts (apart from the 1831 book that I linked), of newly made versions of the "pure language" that aren't connected back to Hebrew or Egyptian.

Apart from the Eco book (which I also have, and which is very good), there are a couple of journal articles of some interest on this topic -

Sam Brown, "Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden" in Church History 78:1 (March 2009), 26–65.

and

Christoper Eagle, "“Thou Serpent That Name Best”: On Adamic Language and Obscurity in Paradise Lost" in Milton Quarterly,Vol. 41, No. 3, 2007

Ben McGuire

[Benjamin Seeker]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We have several attempts (apart from the 1831 book that I linked), of newly made versions of the "pure language" that aren't connected back to Hebrew or Egyptian.

Apart from the Eco book (which I also have, and which is very good), there are a couple of journal articles of some interest on this topic -

Sam Brown, "Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden" in Church History 78:1 (March 2009), 26–65.

and

Christoper Eagle, "“Thou Serpent That Name Best”: On Adamic Language and Obscurity in Paradise Lost" in Milton Quarterly,Vol. 41, No. 3, 2007

Ben McGuire

That's certainly an interesting twist. The overlap of the GAEL with Phelp's letter giving symbols to Joseph's revelation on pure language suggests that restoration of Adamic via Egyptian was in the Early Mormon air, particularly considering the likely use of Masonic symbols in both, which Masonry was also considered ancient.

I'm not put off by the idea of creating a new pure language. I think it's really intriguing actually. What in JS' work makes you think they were trying to construct something new as opposed to restore something ancient? 

It's so easy to see restoration as modus operandi considering that was the general doctrine of the day. There is just so much in JS' career that is consistent with restoring ancient things: BOM, Moses (and other examples from the JST), BoA, Nauvoo endowment's inspiration in the "apostate priesthood" (or something along those lines according to JS) of Masonry, vicarious baptism, popygamy, fulness of the priesthood, patriarchal priesthood, etc. Then of course there is the verse I've already pointed out, Moses 6:7, which doesn't necessitate it be the same ancient language that returns, but certainly implies it.

[clarkgoble]

Quote

There is little to no room to argue that priesthood in verse 7 references anything else but something to do with this language.

I'd admit that "this same priesthood" is a bit odd, but I'd put the antecedent as verse 4 "then began these men to call upon the name of the Lord" or 5:59 "And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance." The chapter breaks aren't likely original. (I didn't look it up to see who put them in but I bet it was Orson Pratt) I confess I just don't think it makes sense for it to refer to the language which reads as an aside.

Quote

A quick tangeant addressing your delineation between written and spoken language: Whether the language is written or spoken shouldn't matter considering the term language generally encompasses both writing and speaking.

I think the distinction is important since the signs are different. So when I write English a different sign is used than when I speak it. And I can take the same language (English in abstract) but represent it in many ways. This is crucial since arguably with the Book of Mormon we have Hebrew being written with a non-Hebrew written sign system. So to say it shouldn't matter seems inherently wrong given the emphasis the Book of Mormon gives it. More significantly it's crucial for the GAEL because of the indication Joseph ties the characters of the Book of Mormon to Egyptian that gets this odd expansion. More to the point it problematizes the notion of a language of Adam that is Egyptian since the language is Hebrew.

However the biggest problem is the equivocation over the other sense of language between language as a system of signs versus particular things said with that language. With regards to Moses 7:13 it seems to me the language in question is the particular things Enoch spoke. Most importantly the key part of that verse is that this happened because of his faith. i.e. we're not speaking of a magical/technological language that does things. 

Quote

I wouldn't argue that anyone viewed the reformed Egyptian as being Adamic, maybe related to Adamic because of the Egyptian element you mentioned. I'm arguing that JS viewed the Jaredite language as Adamic or closely related. Maybe you could be more specific as to what your responding to here?

There are hints Joseph saw the GAEL in terms of the renaissance ideas of Egyptian as Adamaic that was popular in the renaissance and that could have come to Joseph in a variety of ways. There are strong indications that the GAEL is influenced by the theories of Kircher's from prior to the Rosetta Stone. Kircher's ideas in particular were very popular in those more esoteric traditions some tie to Joseph's environment especially via masonry.

Tying Jaredite to Adamic seems fine. That's not really the issue. The question is whether there's anything special to that language and whether the confounding was due to the script being secret as I think Ether 3 suggests.

Quote

I would love to see this indication. Sounds like it's fairly relevant. Can you dig it up when you have a chance?

I'll see what I can find when I get a chance. It's not something I'm knowledgeable on but have just heard a few people mention it in passing. I've not seen the arguments for it so I can't speak to their strength.

Quote

I would like to learn some more about 19th century conception of Adamic, etc. From what I understand, Egyptian and Hebrew were considered the languages most closely related to Adamic, but not the real thing. 

The Eco book is the thing to read. The 19th century conceptions are remnants of the earlier renaissance and early modern views.

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That's certainly an interesting twist. The overlap of the GAEL with Phelp's letter giving symbols to Joseph's revelation on pure language suggests that restoration of Adamic via Egyptian was in the Early Mormon air, particularly considering the likely use of Masonic symbols in both, which Masonry was also considered ancient.

I don't think there are any masonic symbols in the GAEL. The masonic cipher is really, really simple and based upon two grids, one rotated 45 degrees to the other. This leads to some characters that are pretty generic and pop up in lots of character sets, including ASCII with the ^. But there's almost certainly no causal connection.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

Something to look at - as an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_towards_a_Real_Character_and_a_Philosophical_Language

https://archive.org/details/AnEssayTowardsARealCharacterAndAPhilosophicalLanguage

Quote

Concepts are divided into forty main Genera, each of which gives the first, two-letter syllable of the word; a Genus is divided into Differences, each of which adds another letter; and Differences are divided into Species, which add a fourth letter. For instance, Zi identifies the Genus of “beasts” (mammals); Zit gives the Difference of “rapacious beasts of the dog kind”; Zitα gives the Species of dogs. (Sometimes the first letter indicates a supercategory— e.g. Z always indicates an animal— but this does not always hold.) The resulting Character, and its vocalization, for a given concept thus captures, to some extent, the concept's semantics.

In some ways, this sort of system shows interesting parallels to the degrees and connecting parts and so on, from the GAEL. I think there is room to see the GAEL as this sort of work to construct language (as opposed to being a translation of some sort working from the Egyptian into English as a preliminary for the BoA).

[Benjamin Seeker]

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd admit that "this same priesthood" is a bit odd, but I'd put the antecedent as verse 4 "then began these men to call upon the name of the Lord" or 5:59 "And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance." The chapter breaks aren't likely original. (I didn't look it up to see who put them in but I bet it was Orson Pratt) I confess I just don't think it makes sense for it to refer to the language which reads as an aside.

Don't forget that my loose but simple equation of Priesthood and language here is backed up by the link between Enoch's powerful language and JST 14. I think the two witnesses in such close proximity make the intent of Moses 6:7 clear.

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the distinction is important since the signs are different. So when I write English a different sign is used than when I speak it. And I can take the same language (English in abstract) but represent it in many ways. This is crucial since arguably with the Book of Mormon we have Hebrew being written with a non-Hebrew written sign system. So to say it shouldn't matter seems inherently wrong given the emphasis the Book of Mormon gives it. More significantly it's crucial for the GAEL because of the indication Joseph ties the characters of the Book of Mormon to Egyptian that gets this odd expansion. More to the point it problematizes the notion of a language of Adam that is Egyptian since the language is Hebrew.

Again, of Egyptian and Hebrew are somewhat confounded versions of Egyptian, it's all in the same ball park. Thinking simply here let's the obvious connections stand out.

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

However the biggest problem is the equivocation over the other sense of language between language as a system of signs versus particular things said with that language. With regards to Moses 7:13 it seems to me the language in question is the particular things Enoch spoke. Most importantly the key part of that verse is that this happened because of his faith. i.e. we're not speaking of a magical/technological language that does things. 

Faith is definitely a component, but it can't be ignored that the "language God had given him" was super "powerful." Just because faith is involved doesn't mean we can ignore the obvious. Considering this verse's reference to priesthood theology, it would also be wise of us to observe the importance of language in Priesthood, most significantly the later development of special keywords.

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There are hints Joseph saw the GAEL in terms of the renaissance ideas of Egyptian as Adamaic that was popular in the renaissance and that could have come to Joseph in a variety of ways. There are strong indications that the GAEL is influenced by the theories of Kircher's from prior to the Rosetta Stone. Kircher's ideas in particular were very popular in those more esoteric traditions some tie to Joseph's environment especially via masonry.

Tying Jaredite to Adamic seems fine. That's not really the issue. The question is whether there's anything special to that language and whether the confounding was due to the script being secret as I think Ether 3 suggests.

So Jaredite is central to my argument, while discussions of the GAEL and Hebrew and reformed Egyptian are more peripheral. A Secret script is a fun and plausible idea, but the text's use of the word confound is a little pointer arrow back to Gen 11.

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll see what I can find when I get a chance. It's not something I'm knowledgeable on but have just heard a few people mention it in passing. I've not seen the arguments for it so I can't speak to their strength.

Thanks! Looking forward to it.

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The Eco book is the thing to read. The 19th century conceptions are remnants of the earlier renaissance and early modern views.

I'll have to do some actual reading instead of reading this forum then ;).

[Benjamin Seeker]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think there are any masonic symbols in the GAEL. The masonic cipher is really, really simple and based upon two grids, one rotated 45 degrees to the other. This leads to some characters that are pretty generic and pop up in lots of character sets, including ASCII with the ^. But there's almost certainly no causal connection.

 

I've looked at the GAEL and what used to be thought the Anthon Transcript myself and seen plenty of correlation. That relationship doesn't have to be dependent, but if we were to argue that the symbols had to be drawn from someplace, the Masonic cipher is a likely source. JS was clearly inspired by masonry even in his earliest translations/revelations, and some of his most significant inspiration comes from royal arch masonry (legend of Enoch, gold plate, etc.). The Masonic cypher also comes from royal arch masonry.

From what I understand, the claim that JS drew symbols from masonry in the GAEL isn't controversial. In fact, I think that was one of the contributions from Schryver's infamous 2010 FAIR presentation that stayed standing.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

I wanted to make another observation on Moses 7:13. The theology implied by it is basically fits our modern priesthood doctrine. If you've followed the conversation/debate so far, you'll see that the verse teaches that"God given" language and faith play a role in priesthood power. It just struck me how mundane that sounds when we think about language as just referring to specific words.

Basically, the only unfamiliar element in my interpretation is that the God given language in the verse is a version of the Adamic language, signicantly expanding priesthood theology, but as I've demonstrated not inconsistent with JS' translations and teachings.

[clarkgoble]

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Don't forget that my loose but simple equation of Priesthood and language here is backed up by the link between Enoch's powerful language and JST 14. I think the two witnesses in such close proximity make the intent of Moses 6:7 clear.

Again I think I must be missing something. Could you make explicit the argument on language here? And again, be clear about what sense of language you're speaking of. Not a criticism. I just feel like I must be missing something obvious because I'm not seeing it.

Quote

Faith is definitely a component, but it can't be ignored that the "language God had given him" was super "powerful." Just because faith is involved doesn't mean we can ignore the obvious. Considering this verse's reference to priesthood theology, it would also be wise of us to observe the importance of language in Priesthood, most significantly the later development of special keywords.

Again though this gets at the distinction between language as a sign system and language as what someone says/does. If I'm particularly inspired when giving a talk then the powerful language is that inspired text I'm uttering not language in the more abstract sense. So to me the proper context is more Hel 10 or perhaps Ether 12:25.

Quote

So Jaredite is central to my argument, while discussions of the GAEL and Hebrew and reformed Egyptian are more peripheral. A Secret script is a fun and plausible idea, but the text's use of the word confound is a little pointer arrow back to Gen 11.

Again not quite seeing it. I think the GAEL is more plausible to make your case as the Sam Brown article notes (which I think is also in his book -- I'd have to check)

Quote

I've looked at the GAEL and what used to be thought the Anthon Transcript myself and seen plenty of correlation. That relationship doesn't have to be dependent, but if we were to argue that the symbols had to be drawn from someplace, the Masonic cipher is a likely source.

I guess my argument is more they're pretty generic and common glyphs. I really don't think they're masonic. I've heard that claim as if there was some significance to the masonic cipher. As exciting as it seems I just don't think there's much there. At least I've not seen a convincing argument.

Edited March 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

I've looked at the GAEL and what used to be thought the Anthon Transcript myself and seen plenty of correlation. That relationship doesn't have to be dependent, but if we were to argue that the symbols had to be drawn from someplace, the Masonic cipher is a likely source.

I guess my argument is more they're pretty generic and common glyphs. I really don't think they're masonic. I've heard that claim as if there was some significance to the masonic cipher. As exciting as it seems I just don't think there's much there. At least I've not seen a convincing argument.

The best of the arguments I've seen is just the idea that Joseph was a conscious fraud and just picked random characters from all over his environment. That's plausible I guess but doesn't give a lot to distinguish it from chance.

[Benjamin Seeker]

58 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I think I must be missing something. Could you make explicit the argument on language here? And again, be clear about what sense of language you're speaking of. Not a criticism. I just feel like I must be missing something obvious because I'm not seeing it.

The book of Mormon uses the term language in two senses, one in terms of rhetoric and the other just plain written/spoken language. The Book of Moses only uses the term language in two places, the one in Moses 6:6 and the one in 7:13. 6:6 refers to written/spoken language (yes, explicitly written, but spoken also by inference). 6:7 correlates language with priesthood. 7:13 could also be read as referring to generic spoken/written language and not specific kind of rhetoric. 7:13 refers to priesthood intertextually. This analysis has 6:6-7 and 7:13 both referring to a kind of generic language and priesthood. It's a consistent way to interpret the verses that is also consistent with the way the term language is used in JS' texts.

Quote

Again though this gets at the distinction between language as a sign system and language as what someone says/does. If I'm particularly inspired when giving a talk then the powerful language is that inspired text I'm uttering not language in the more abstract sense. So to me the proper context is more Hel 10 or perhaps Ether 12:25.

Hel 10 is definitely related, but doesn't rule out the possibility that the term language is to be interpreted generically and not as specific rhetoric in Moses 7:13, as I've argued until now. Ether 12:25 on the other hand is possibly an example of the language theology I'm arguing for. The nephite's language isn't as pure as the jaredites, so while it does have some power spoken, it doesn't have that same power written like the Jaredites does. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Again though this gets at the distinction between language as a sign system and language as what someone says/does. If I'm particularly inspired when giving a talk then the powerful language is that inspired text I'm uttering not language in the more abstract sense. So to me the proper context is more Hel 10 or perhaps Ether 12:25.

I'm going to cede some ground on Moses 7:13. I've been thinking about the the wording of the verse. Because it is so specific that the language was given to Enoch by God, I have to assume it's something more than just the pure language that perhaps everyone was speaking, so something more along the lines of Hel 10 (generic language seems to still be considered sacred/priesthood-like according to Moses 6:6-7 and the inference of JS' teaching about using the name Ahman in prayer as a partial key to recieving an answer). So, because 6:6-7 and 7:13 both reference priesthood, I think there is a clear link between the pure language and priesthood and the power of God, but at the same time 7:13 seems to be offering something more than generic language.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The book of Mormon uses the term language in two senses, one in terms of rhetoric and the other just plain written/spoken language.

By rhetoric I assume you mean style of speaking? I assume that's what Alma 5:61 means or 1 Nephi 3:21. I'd add the third type which I've mentioned that is the particular things said/written. Alma 46:26 is an example of that. 

Quote

6:6 refers to written/spoken language (yes, explicitly written, but spoken also by inference). 6:7 correlates language with priesthood.

By explicitly written do you mean a particular text or just the system of written signs? Again I think priesthood is bound up with language such as when we give a priesthood blessing under inspiration but I don't think there's anything particularly special in terms of English as the language I communicate that in.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

By rhetoric I assume you mean style of speaking? I assume that's what Alma 5:61 means or 1 Nephi 3:21. I'd add the third type which I've mentioned that is the particular things said/written. Alma 46:26 is an example of that. 

By explicitly written do you mean a particular text or just the system of written signs? Again I think priesthood is bound up with language such as when we give a priesthood blessing under inspiration but I don't think there's anything particularly special in terms of English as the language I communicate that in.

 

I know you've said you don't think 6:7 is using "this priesthood" to refer to the "pure and undefiled" language in verse 6, and that's where we part ways. One straightforward reading correlates Adamic with priesthood. Not only this but verse 7's promise that "this Priesthood" will return works in tandem with the passage in Zephaniah that Ben Mcquire referenced earlier, prophecying that the people would have a pure language and be "one" (which not coincidentally is another point of contact with the Enoch narrative).

when I wrote that it was explicitly written, I'm simply stating that verse 6 talks  about Adam's children being taught to read and write. 

Lastly, I don't believe generic language is important to priesthood or the power of God either, but I think it's clear from the text that Joseph Smith's theology does.

[notHagoth7]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

...The comparison of the power of the Jaredites written language to the power of God is paralleled by the description of language in Moses . For example, Moses 6:6-7 describes the "pure and undefiled" language of Adam and his children and calls it a "priesthood." A few generations later Enoch's language is described as powerful:

To sum it up, in Moses 6 the pure language is called priesthood. Enoch's use of the pure language references priesthood theology and is described as being "given him" by "God." Similarly, the Jaredite's written language is powerful "even as" God, and it was confounded at the tower event, which strongly implies that it is the "one language" or Adamic language described in Gen 11.

Spoiler alert for the movie Arrival:

 

 

 

Your comments bring to mind the movie Arrival, where studying/learning the visitors' language altered the way the linguist perceived/experienced time. Fascinating concept. It's a known fact that the words/languages we use alter the way we think/live.

Edited March 16, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

......................................................  \

Ether 1 is using the same phraseology from KJV Genesis 11, consisting of two phrases with some variation that are presented in the same sequence. In terms of sequence, it's notable that Gen. 11 employs the each phrase twice with some variation. Ether 1 seems to follow suit, but only paraphrasing the second of two concepts.

Another point of contact is that Ether 1:33 describes the Lord swaring or speaking. While the content of the God's speech in Gen. 11 doesn't make direct reference to scattering, the Lord's speech in Gen. 11 could be summed up as the Lord swearing to scatter the people, considering that scattering is explicitly what the people want to avoid in Gen 11:4 and the result of the Lord's confounding according to verses 8 and 9.

Obviously, both Gen 11 and Ether 1 describe the edifice as a "tower."

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

Another parallel use of language. I've bolded only exact words matches so as to highlight the way that the Book of Mormon apparently borrows and adapts the words of God from Gen 11 and puts them into Jared's mouth in Ether 1.

The title page of the Book of Mormon also describes the tower narrative:

The first two concepts we are already familiar with (two of the primary aspects of the original Genesis narrative, also emphasized in Ether 1), and now we have the idea that "they were building a tower to get to heaven" also present in the Book of Mormon text.

Again, I've bolded only the matching language (even partials), to illustrate how the Book of Mormon appears to adapt the language of the KJV Gen 11. All of this is to say, the Book of Mormon text as it stands, clearly invokes many of the primary aspects of tower narrative and uses exact or similar language from the KJV to do so.

While the BOM text doesn't mention the name Babel or the idea of one language, .......................................

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

Whether there must needs by a pure Adamic language or not, the entire BofM is noteworthy for utilizing KJV biblical language constantly, and this was also true of translations done by non-Mormon scholars during that and subsequent eras, up until modern times.  This aside from frequent BofM quotations from the Bible.

What should catch our attention is that the confusion of tongues episode in the Bible and BofM also appears much earlier in Sumerian cuneiform literature.  It is already an archaic tradition, as is so much else in Genesis.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I know you've said you don't think 6:7 is using "this priesthood" to refer to the "pure and undefiled" language in verse 6, and that's where we part ways. One straightforward reading correlates Adamic with priesthood. Not only this but verse 7's promise that "this Priesthood" will return works in tandem with the passage in Zephaniah that Ben Mcquire referenced earlier, prophecying that the people would have a pure language and be "one" (which not coincidentally is another point of contact with the Enoch narrative).

when I wrote that it was explicitly written, I'm simply stating that verse 6 talks  about Adam's children being taught to read and write. 

Lastly, I don't believe generic language is important to priesthood or the power of God either, but I think it's clear from the text that Joseph Smith's theology does.

Well as I said I think a case can be made from the GAEL. I'm not sure I'd call it clear. It's a possible reading for sure but not what I'd call a clear one. But it's definitely plausible especially given the folklore of the time.

[theplains]

On 15/03/2017 at 10:08 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

While the BOM text doesn't mention the name Babel ... 

Genesis 11:5 says, "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men
builded."   The 'city' aspect was either unknown or just omitted. In any case, the reader of the Jaredite
account must rely heavily on the Bible to fill in the huge gap.

Jim