Evidence Case Study

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I am a bit confused here by the discussion about the type of script or characters that were on the plates and how that fits in with EMod. I guess the part I don't understand is, if there was a 16th century translation into English of some sorts, why is the script that Joseph Smith was using still in some for of reformed Egyptian? If there was an English translation available why make him work off of an older version in  a language he did not understand? Why make him or Cowdery study it out in their minds when it already was in English?

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what is being theorized.

The traditional understanding is that we have Mormon and Moroni engraving Reformed Egyptian on golden plates, and Joseph was given the ability to translate this Reformed Egyptian into English (even if the plates weren't present at the time, it is still presumed that the text is derived from what was engraved on the plates, even if there were errors in what was engraved).

 

This new theory posits an additional step.  The plates are buried around around 400 AD.  Then, sometime in the middle ages, some unknown agent who is familiar with both the Reformed Egyptian and the English vernacular of the time (or "tyme"), gets access to the plates, either physically or through a vision, and then translates them.  Then, when Joseph is assigned to render a version in English in the late 1820s, he is given a spiritual dictation of this olde English version, instead of creating a new version himself (or God having an English speaker from the 1820s do it).

Or, when it comes time for Joseph to do the translation, God assigns the task of doing the actual  translation to an angelic being who studied English in the middle ages and he or she performs the translation from the Reformed Egyptian to English.  They are apparently also told not to correct errors or "loan shifting" in the process.   Again, why God would do this instead of assigning an Angelic Being who knew 1820s English is a mystery.

 

[CA Steve]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

This new theory posits an additional step.  The plates are buried around around 400 AD.  Then, sometime in the middle ages, some unknown agent who is familiar with both the Reformed Egyptian and the English vernacular of the time (or "tyme"), gets access to the plates, either physically or through a vision, and then translates them.  Then, when Joseph is assigned to render a version in English in the late 1820s, he is given a spiritual dictation of this olde English version, instead of creating a new version himself (or God having an English speaker from the 1820s do it).

Or, when it comes time for Joseph to do the translation, God assigns the task of doing the actual  translation to an angelic being who studied English in the middle ages and he or she performs the translation from the Reformed Egyptian to English.  They are apparently also told not to correct errors or "loan shifting" in the process.   Again, why God would do this instead of assigning an Angelic Being who knew 1820s English is a mystery

Why make Joseph study out the reformed Egyptian "caractors" in his  mind if an EMod version was  available? 

[Ahab]

32 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what is being theorized.

The traditional understanding is that we have Mormon and Moroni engraving Reformed Egyptian on golden plates, and Joseph was given the ability to translate this Reformed Egyptian into English (even if the plates weren't present at the time, it is still presumed that the text is derived from what was engraved on the plates, even if there were errors in what was engraved).

 

This new theory posits an additional step.  The plates are buried around around 400 AD.  Then, sometime in the middle ages, some unknown agent who is familiar with both the Reformed Egyptian and the English vernacular of the time (or "tyme"), gets access to the plates, either physically or through a vision, and then translates them.  Then, when Joseph is assigned to render a version in English in the late 1820s, he is given a spiritual dictation of this olde English version, instead of creating a new version himself (or God having an English speaker from the 1820s do it).

Or, when it comes time for Joseph to do the translation, God assigns the task of doing the actual  translation to an angelic being who studied English in the middle ages and he or she performs the translation from the Reformed Egyptian to English.  They are apparently also told not to correct errors or "loan shifting" in the process.   Again, why God would do this instead of assigning an Angelic Being who knew 1820s English is a mystery.

 

A thought just occurred to me which I have never before considered.  How did Moroni learn to speak 1820s English?  Do they teach English as a second language in the spirit world? 

I'm thinking they must, unless maybe God gave Moroni the gift of tongues for his sessions with Joseph.

Now I'm wondering if someday I will learn how to speak Hebrew and write in reformed Egyptian ???

Edited July 3, 2018 by Ahab

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Why make Joseph study out the reformed Egyptian "caractors" in his  mind if an EMod version was  available? 

Apparently God wanted Joseph to learn how to read reformed Egyptian, eventually, as he gradually thought about each character or string of characters enough to remember them when he saw them again. 

This in opposition to the "just ask me and I'll tell you without you giving any thought to what you are looking at and instead just asking me to do everything for you" concept, which God apparently did not, and I think still does not, condone.

[CA Steve]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Apparently God wanted Joseph to learn how to read reformed Egyptian, eventually, as he gradually thought about each character or string of characters enough to remember them when he saw them again. 

This in opposition to the "just ask me and I'll tell you without you giving any thought to what you are looking at and instead just asking me to do everything for you" concept, which God apparently did not, and I think still does not, condone.

If he wanted him to learn how to read reformed Egyptian, why bother with the 16th century translation? If this was just a test in concentration, why bother with the plates? And I would note that given what Joseph was going through to produce all this anyways, it seems a little over the top to suggest God needed to add more opposition into the mix in the way of having Joseph stare at a language he wasn't translating anyways.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Some characters in common isn't the same as agreeing with demotic or its variant. Indeed you're basically conceding my point and of course didn't mention the other active Mormon people with Egyptology degrees.

The characters referred to are not part of the Caractors Transcript.  Didn't you bother to read the article?  There are very few LDS members with Egyptology degrees, and I have not polled them.  Gee has in the past been very critical in print of idiotic attempts to decipher the Caractors Transcript, but I have not heard him make a formal analysis of that Transcript, and don't know his opinion on it.  Meantime, I have not in any way conceded your point, and have made it clear that I do not share your views at all on his matter.

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If these people shared the view with you that this is just Meroitic I'd have expected a paper along those lines by now making the demonstration.

Again, which of the current professors at BYU with a background in Egyptian agree the script (not a few characters) is meroitic? John Gee, by your own admission, only agrees some characters are the same. What about the others?

Gee was commenting only on those characters treated by Urrutia, and I have not heard him refer to them as Meroitic.  I know of no Mormon Egyptologists qualified to discus Meroitic.  Only Nibley and Parker mentioned that similarity, so why would you latch onto it so strongly?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, EdGoble said:

You say that "it makes no sense to you at all."  I am of the opinion that you are automatically biased against anything that I say, and that you give no profound thought anything that I say to actually analyze what I say, because you are dead set to be against anything I have to say, regardless of whether what I say actually has value.  This is absolutely clear from my interaction with you for all the time I have been on this message board.

Its not a cipher.  Its a priestly way of writing, exactly in the same type of way as hieratic was, but for the Nephites.

There is no "cipher" thing here that is out of the ordinary for Nephite writing.  All writing is an encoding of information in some way, and in the Afro-Asiatic languages, it is usually an encoding of consonants, but there is no intent here for a cipher as if they are "hiding" information.  The fact that Egyptian sometimes encoded more than one consonant to be represented by a symbol is of absolute relevance here, despite the fact that you are dismissing my comment.

You manifest your negative bias toward the KEP by these things that you are saying.

Sorry to disappoint you, Ed, but my comments were not directed at you.  My opinion on KEP was formulated long before you began writing on the subject.  I have provided you with material which might be helpful in understanding KEP, but choose not to pursue that area myself.  I just don't see it as productive.  I would be happy to see you prove me wrong, but I have thus far preferred to see everything in the Book of Abraham controversy through the lens of standard Egyptology.  You are a Johnny-come-lately to the debate, Ed.

[EdGoble]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry to disappoint you, Ed, but my comments were not directed at you.  My opinion on KEP was formulated long before you began writing on the subject.  I have provided you with material which might be helpful in understanding KEP, but choose not to pursue that area myself.  I just don't see it as productive.  I would be happy to see you prove me wrong, but I have thus far preferred to see everything in the Book of Abraham controversy through the lens of standard Egyptology.  You are a Johnny-come-lately to the debate, Ed.

I'm not going to dignify the comment of "standard Egyptology" again.  Of course you don't personally see it as productive.  I have hashed that point out with you before.

Johnny-come-lately to the debate.  Nice.  Well sir, I'm sure that you are decades older than me.  I can't help when the Lord chose to send me into mortality.  I can certainly engage in the debate as much as anyone, and when I have something meaningful to add, I have, despite what you think of it.

[Ahab]

52 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If he wanted him to learn how to read reformed Egyptian, why bother with the 16th century translation? If this was just a test in concentration, why bother with the plates? And I would note that given what Joseph was going through to produce all this anyways, it seems a little over the top to suggest God needed to add more opposition into the mix in the way of having Joseph stare at a language he wasn't translating anyways.

16th century translation?  I must have missed something.  I don't know what you are referring to.  I wasn't talking about someone else's idea of what he was translating.  I was talking about what he actually translated, which were plates dating backwards beginning around 400 A.D. which were written in reformed Egyptian.  God told him to study in his mind what he was looking at, which were plates with reformed Egyptian writing on them, while asking God to help him translate into English what he saw written in reformed Egyptian.  He wasn't to just look at them and give up and say to himself something like "What the heck am I  looking at here !!!":  He was supposed to look at the characters, consider them, notice their differences and how often they were written, while asking  God to help him figure it all out. 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

16th century translation?  I must have missed something.  I don't know what you are referring to.  I wasn't talking about someone else's idea of what he was translating.  I was talking about what he actually translated, which were plates dating backwards beginning around 400 A.D. which were written in reformed Egyptian.  God told him to study in his mind what he was looking at, which were plates with reformed Egyptian writing on them, while asking God to help him translate into English what he saw written in reformed Egyptian.  He wasn't to just look at them and give up and say to himself something like "What the heck am I  looking at here !!!":  He was supposed to look at the characters, consider them, notice their differences and how often they were written, while asking  God to help him figure it all out. 

That is pretty much the explanation that I was taught growing up in the church.

But my question was for those that believe that the EMod (Early Modern English) Royal Skousen finds in the Book of Mormon is a result of a 16th century translation.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

That is pretty much the explanation that I was taught growing up in the church.

But my question was for those that believe that the EMod (Early Modern English) Royal Skousen finds in the Book of Mormon is a result of a 16th century translation.

Oh, well, I suppose I can answer that if by EMod Royal was referring to the English language common in King James' time.  The English language commonly referred to as the King James version of the Bible.

So yes it is a 16th century translation in the sense that the reformed Egyptian language was translated into a 16th century language commonly referred to as King James' language.  A language Joseph was familiar with when he translated the reformed Egyptian writings because he was familiar with that version of the Bible.

 

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Typically from the size and weight you can figure out what they're for. However certainly from words it's much more difficult - especially if the terminology changes over time. i.e. perhaps the words remain the same but the object referenced changes. A not at all uncommon facet of life for anyone who makes it to middle age and finds language changed.

Yes of course, a very small point can be assumed to be for an arrow.  I'm just cautioning against using the term "arrowhead" when a more generic one, such as "point" or "projectile point" might be more appropriate.  But even "projectile point" might be presumptive, as it appears that some Folsom points appeared to have been used as knives -- an edge is an edge of course.

This is just me at my pedantic best. No particular axe to grind here.

And completely off topic, but this is something I find fascinating:

 

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Stargazer

[clarkgoble]

On 7/3/2018 at 1:26 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Gee was commenting only on those characters treated by Urrutia, and I have not heard him refer to them as Meroitic.  I know of no Mormon Egyptologists qualified to discus Meroitic.  Only Nibley and Parker mentioned that similarity, so why would you latch onto it so strongly?

I'll fully confess I don't know the background of most Mormon Egyptologists. Speaking from this position of ignorance, are you saying none of the main figures (Gee, Muhlestein, Griggs, Smoot, or Rhodes) are capable of knowing if the transcript is Meroitic?

On 7/3/2018 at 1:26 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The characters referred to are not part of the Caractors Transcript.  Didn't you bother to read the article?  There are very few LDS members with Egyptology degrees, and I have not polled them.  Gee has in the past been very critical in print of idiotic attempts to decipher the Caractors Transcript, but I have not heard him make a formal analysis of that Transcript, and don't know his opinion on it.  Meantime, I have not in any way conceded your point, and have made it clear that I do not share your views at all on his matter.

Yes I had. Out of curiosity I emailed John. (We used to be roommates although I've no idea if he remembers me) I'll let you know his thoughts if he answers.

[cinepro]

On 7/3/2018 at 1:00 PM, Ahab said:

16th century translation?  I must have missed something.  I don't know what you are referring to.  I wasn't talking about someone else's idea of what he was translating.  I was talking about what he actually translated, which were plates dating backwards beginning around 400 A.D. which were written in reformed Egyptian.  God told him to study in his mind what he was looking at, which were plates with reformed Egyptian writing on them, while asking God to help him translate into English what he saw written in reformed Egyptian.  He wasn't to just look at them and give up and say to himself something like "What the heck am I  looking at here !!!":  He was supposed to look at the characters, consider them, notice their differences and how often they were written, while asking  God to help him figure it all out. 

That doesn't work though.

Imagine that you don't speak, read or write Chinese. Then you are presented with a page of Chinese writing, like the one below.

I will give you a nice hotel room, with an unlimited room service tab, for as long as you need.  If you can translate the document without the use of any outside aids or references, I will give you $50 million. 

How long do you think it would take for you to figure it out?  A month? A year?  I suspect...never.  And suggesting Joseph Smith could study Reformed Egyptian and figure out the translation on his own (even a single word) makes him one of the most brilliant minds in the history of the world, and if he could do that then he could probably just make up the whole thing on his own, so that kind of negates the whole "uneducated farm boy" theory.

Now, I will change the deal.  I will give you an iPad with a new translation program installed on it.  This program can take Chinese text and render it into English.  This program uses "deity" software that had been proven to be all-knowing and all-powerful.  You simply have to point to a character or series of characters, and it will read the translation aloud to you.

What kind of an end result do you think we'd end up with?  If there were errors in the translation, would they be your fault?  As the iPad read off the translation to you (including the names of people and unknown animals), how much of your own culture and experience and knowledge would you be injecting into the process?

 

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by cinepro

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That doesn't work though.

Imagine that you don't speak, read or write Chinese. Then you are presented with a page of Chinese writing, like the one below.

I will give you a nice hotel room, with an unlimited room service tab, for as long as you need.  If you can translate the document without the use of any outside aids or references, I will give you $50 million. 

How long do you think it would take for you to figure it out?  A month? A year?  I suspect...never.  And suggesting Joseph Smith could study Reformed Egyptian and figure out the translation on his own (even a single word) makes him one of the most brilliant minds in the history of the world, and if he could do that then he could probably just make up the whole thing on his own, so that kind of negates the whole "uneducated farm boy" theory.

Now, I will change the deal.  I will give you an iPad with a new translation program installed on it.  This program can take Chinese text and render it into English.  This program uses "deity" software that had been proven to be all-knowing and all-powerful.  You simply have to point to a character or series of characters, and it will read the translation aloud to you.

What kind of an end result do you think we'd end up with?  If there were errors in the translation, would they be your fault?  As the iPad read off the translation to you (including the names of people and unknown animals), how much of your own culture and experience and knowledge would you be injecting into the process?

 

 

There is a reason we say Joseph translated the Book of Mormon through the gift and power of God.  And we're not just talking about the interpreters God gave him, either.  So what was it that Joseph did, exactly?  (I ask while already knowing the answer)  Did Joseph just look at the text in reformed Egyptian characters and, voila, he automatically knew what it said without ay effort on his part?  Was all he had to do was just to ask God, with God instantly translating it for him, without any other effort on his part, other than to ask God? 

As I was saying, Joseph had to at least pay attention to what he was looking at.  He had to notice the characters on each page as he looked at them, rather than just giving it a quick glance and considering it all to be just a bunch of gobbeldygook.  And then as he did that God helped him to translate it, while Joseph paid attention to what God was telling him.  That's right.  Or no response yet.  Joseph tuning in and becoming more familiar with the text as God was speaking to him so that gradually Joseph got better and better at translating the text and understanding what God was telling him.   Just as you would be able to do if you looked at a page of Chinese characters, while paying attention to what you were looking at, with God helping you to translate Chinese into English.

[Robert F. Smith]

50 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll fully confess I don't know the background of most Mormon Egyptologists. Speaking from this position of ignorance, are you saying none of the main figures (Gee, Muhlestein, Griggs, Smoot, or Rhodes) are capable of knowing if the transcript is Meroitic?..........................................

Meroitic is a specialization within Egyptology, like Demotic or Coptic.  Egyptologists are not omnicompetent.  Griggs is retired and never read Egyptian (he knew Greek and Coptic), although he did do late Egyptian archeology, Smoot is just beginning his advanced training at UofToronto.  Rhodes is retired.  Muhlestein (PhD UCLA) does regular Egyptian archeology in Egypt.  Not sure what John S. Thompson (PhD Univ of Penn) is doing at BYU, and I only know that Val Sederholm (PhD UCLA) has a blog -- http://valsederholm.blogspot.com/   Like Gee, most of these guys are brilliant, but I doubt that any of them focus on Meroitic.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Meroitic is a specialization within Egyptology, like Demotic or Coptic.  Egyptologists are not omnicompetent.  Griggs is retired and never read Egyptian (he knew Greek and Coptic), although he did do late Egyptian archeology, Smoot is just beginning his advanced training at UofToronto.  Rhodes is retired.  Muhlestein (PhD UCLA) does regular Egyptian archeology in Egypt.  Not sure what John S. Thompson (PhD Univ of Penn) is doing at BYU, and I only know that Val Sederholm (PhD UCLA) has a blog -- http://valsederholm.blogspot.com/   Like Gee, most of these guys are brilliant, but I doubt that any of them focus on Meroitic.

But whether they are retired or not, the texts in question have been available for a while. Again, I'll fully confess my ignorance here, it just seems odd not one of the above have even asked the question of Hieratic or Meroitic. Or thought it worthy of inquiry. It definitely raises my skepticism flag when no one is willing to put the argument of how they're the same in print.

It's rather common to see Meroitic as an example of a reformed Egyptian script. Saying our Book of Mormon extant characters are like it seems to require a bit more. (IMO) After all if we have Meroitic coming from Joseph Smith in the 1820's that's rather significant to say the least from an apologetic position. Yet we have two indirect distant Egyptologists saying it's similar but no Mormon Egyptologist willing to commit to the idea beyond Nibley saying they look similar. (He brought it up in class as this weird aside once)

I'll fully admit that to my eye they don't look much alike. But obviously I'm not qualified to say much, not knowing the variations in Meroitic. But I can certainly understand why someone might say stylistically they resemble one an other with at least some characters. (And of course anyone making copies of the BoM characters freehand but ignorant of the script would be expected to distort them)

I should edit this to note that I did understand Robert to only be claiming John had commented on a speculative reconstruction in the Ensign from years ago. That was Frederick Williams claiming Joseph said the symbol for Mormon looked like an L with two dots under it. The author, Benjamin Urrutia, speculated the symbol could have derived from some hieroglyphics for "mor" and "mon." If I am misunderstanding I hope Robert will clarify. Again I fully confess my ignorance of Egyptian here.

Edited July 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

On 7/3/2018 at 3:55 PM, Ahab said:

Oh, well, I suppose I can answer that if by EMod Royal was referring to the English language common in King James' time.  The English language commonly referred to as the King James version of the Bible.

So yes it is a 16th century translation in the sense that the reformed Egyptian language was translated into a 16th century language commonly referred to as King James' language.  A language Joseph was familiar with when he translated the reformed Egyptian writings because he was familiar with that version of the Bible.

Those appealing to EMod typically point out elements not in the KJV but are in the BoM. Few are willing to commit to the implications of this data - whether it is a pocket are archaic English in New York, someone who learned archaic English doing the translation, or a 15th or 16th century translation. The one theory you hear around is hard to accept. This theory is that Moroni was wandering the world Michael Landon style and came to England in the 16th century where he learned English. He then used that English in the 19th century to translate the document to Joseph in a loose fashion making use of the English and ideas he'd picked up. (Such as Arminianism)

Edited July 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Those appealing to EMod typically point out elements not in the KJV but are in the BoM.

Okay, but I'm still thinking EMod (Early Modern) is a reference to the language, itself, rather than what is being said in that language. 

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Okay, but I'm still thinking EMod (Early Modern) is a reference to the language, itself, rather than what is being said in that language. 

Not sure what you mean by that difference. It reflects some phrases that disappeared. So in that sense it relates to what is said. 

[Ahab]

33 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you mean by that difference. It reflects some phrases that disappeared. So in that sense it relates to what is said. 

 The language is the words that are used.  Thee, thou, mayest, etc.  Stuff like that.  The message the language is used to convey is something other than the language.

Like:

Thou goest to feast after thy labors?  (EMod)

vs.

Are you going out to eat after you get off of work tonight?  (me speak)

Notice some of the content of my message disappeared in the EMod language, although both languages convey basically the same message.

 

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 The language is the words that are used.  Thee, thou, mayest, etc.  Stuff like that.  The message the language is used to convey is something other than the language.

Like:

Thou goest to feast after thy labors?  (EMod)

vs.

Are you going out to eat after you get off of work tonight?  (me speak)

Notice some of the content of my message disappeared in the EMod language, although both languages convey basically the same message.

 

Right but grammar sort of is in the middle. It's not content in the sense of meaning and it's not the words although particular grammatical structures may only occur with certain words. Likewise some phrases that are tied to a time and place have a meaning, but what's unique about them isn't the meaning (either denotative or connotative) but that particular phrase. So when people focus on 16th century and the Book of Mormon it's this issue of putting certain words in a particular type of structure that then dies out over time.

I'm not at all well versed in this although I did search for some of the examples and it seems legit. There have been several papers on the subject posted over at The Interpreter. While I'm not 100% convinced this is unavailable in 1820's New York, it does seem pretty likely.

Edited July 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right but grammar sort of is in the middle. It's not content in the sense of meaning and it's not the words although particular grammatical structures may only occur with certain words. Likewise some phrases that are tied to a time and place have a meaning, but what's unique about them isn't the meaning (either denotative or connotative) but that particular phrase. So when people focus on 16th century and the Book of Mormon it's this issue of putting certain words in a particular type of structure that then dies out over time.

I'm not at all well versed in this although I did search for some of the examples and it seems legit. There have been several papers on the subject posted over at The Interpreter. While I'm not 100% convinced this is unavailable in 1820's New York, it does seem pretty likely.

Thank you for your help In understanding this but I'm still not sure I get it.  People often have their own way of speaking, with some phrases they picked up from where they have lived or people they heard while they were there who themselves may have lived in different places. And with people moving around you could hear pretty much anything anywhere, or not much difference if it was a small place with few people who never moved around much.  So you can't really say that only people in Tennessee talk that way, because people from Tennessee can move around and speak that way in other places too.\

And here we're talking about Joseph in 1820 using 16th century KJV English for the Book of Mormon while probably also throwing some of his own words and some God inspired ideas in the mix. 

Good luck to anyone trying to figure what really happened in every case!

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Thank you for your help In understanding this but I'm still not sure I get it.  People often have their own way of speaking, with some phrases they picked up from where they have lived or people they heard while they were there who themselves may have lived in different places.

The problem is that it's not one or two phrases but many that are extinct in use by the time of Joseph Smith. If it was just a few examples then that objection would make sense. Once you have dozens of dead grammatical constructs it becomes far less likely.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Those appealing to EMod typically point out elements not in the KJV but are in the BoM. Few are willing to commit to the implications of this data - whether it is a pocket are archaic English in New York, someone who learned archaic English doing the translation, or a 15th or 16th century translation. The one theory you hear around is hard to accept. This theory is that Moroni was wandering the world Michael Landon style and came to England in the 16th century where he learned English. He then used that English in the 19th century to translate the document to Joseph in a loose fashion making use of the English and ideas he'd picked up. (Such as Arminianism)

Moroni was a deliveryman.  We know of no instances in which a resurrected being took the initiative in translating anything.  Wild speculation not tied to the rules makes no sense at all.  That's not God's way.