The State of Mormon Apologetics

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I have read here and there in this thread that the archaic linguistic issues of the Book of Mormon are sufficiently known and understood.  I doubt that's the case for almost everyone. I find myself forgetting things I've studied carefully, since it's a vast field of inquiry.  This is what I think is required to sufficiently understand the issues: 

Just to clarify a bit Stanford (and I really need to reread your papers in a more systematic way) what would you say is the significance of rate of a grammatical structure versus the lack of a grammatical structure. I was more privileging the latter as the most significant. I tended to discount the former since I just don't think the rate in a book tells us the rate in speech or in a local community. In other words if something doesn't show up that seems a pretty big issue. However if something is common it doesn't seem as big an issue as individuals may, for aesthetic issues, have a higher rate in their own speech.

I agree with you on the rest. 

[champatsch]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Given your finding EmodE in the book of mormon text, it is your theory that what Joseph Smith received was already a finished product? Or was it something like what Shakespeare wrote and then he simply changed it to his appalachian form of english? Or is it something else?

The Book of Mormon isn't a homogeneous archaic text.  It has modern elements in it.  It has late Middle English elements in it.  There's enough nonbiblical archaism, however, to indicate that a finished translation was delivered.

The view is strengthened by the use of recognizable words with obsolete meaning, and by some intricate biblical blending of phrases such as at Moroni 10:30–31, where phraseology from Hebrews 6:18, James 1:17, 2 Corinthians 6:17, Ephesians 5:14, Isaiah 52:1,2, Isaiah 54:2, and Exodus 34:24 is used; or at Moroni 8:21 where phraseology from Ephesians 4:5, Colossians 2:2, Psalm 133:1, and 1 Thessalonians 3:12 is used.

But of course when we read archaic language we change words sometimes, or switch the order. The readback in the dictation would catch some of these, but not all of these.  Also, it is easy to misinterpret a variety of dictated language.

Edited August 11, 2018 by champatsch

[Exiled]

19 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I have read here and there in this thread that the archaic linguistic issues of the Book of Mormon are sufficiently known and understood.  I doubt that's the case for almost everyone. I find myself forgetting things I've studied carefully, since it's a vast field of inquiry.  This is what I think is required to sufficiently understand the issues: 

Careful study of the following:

• the 2009 Yale edition of the Book of Mormon — the language of the 1829 dictation
• the 1611 King James Bible and earlier 16th-century Bibles
• the 16th- and 17th-century textual record using the EEBO database
• the 18th-century textual record using the ECCO and Evans databases
• one dozen pseudo-biblical texts
• the Google Books database and the Ngram Viewer (with awareness of limitations)
• Joseph Smith’s 1832 personal history and personal letters
• linguistic analyses of relevant (morpho)syntax

I've found in my law practice that being able to explain complex legal issues to a lay client helps organize my thoughts and actually helps me to understand the issues better myself.

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, champatsch said:

The Book of Mormon isn't a homogeneous archaic text.  It has modern elements in it.  It has late Middle English elements in it.  There's enough nonbiblical archaism, however, to indicate that a finished translation was delivered.

So, why the rock and hat show?  To build faith?

[why me]

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

Again, the fact that some critics will no longer be able to say the history was "hidden" is beside the point.  Trying again - Do you really believe that much of what gets raised by critics as problematic in church history wouldn't still be a surprise TODAY to most church members? It's a simple yes-or-no question.

No. However, much depends on their reading habits. If they read church material from the internet, why would they be surprised? Of if they read Rough Stone Rolling.

[why me]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

So, why the rock and hat show?  To build faith?

He had no manuscript. The hat trick was great and it should be a wonderful faith promoter.

[champatsch]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Just to clarify a bit Stanford (and I really need to reread your papers in a more systematic way) what would you say is the significance of rate of a grammatical structure versus the lack of a grammatical structure. I was more privileging the latter as the most significant. I tended to discount the former since I just don't think the rate in a book tells us the rate in speech or in a local community. In other words if something doesn't show up that seems a pretty big issue. However if something is common it doesn't seem as big an issue as individuals may, for aesthetic issues, have a higher rate in their own speech.

I agree with you on the rest. 

I think I understand what you're saying.  Probably the lack, more often than not.  Take the more part.  The King James Bible has two, in Acts, both of the short form, without a following PP.  The Book of Mormon never uses the short form, although it could have about a dozen times, instead of using "the more part of them" or "the more part of the people".  So the Book of Mormon lacks the King James form, instead following the Coverdale form multiple times (also found in other texts).  The Book of Mormon also has two rare variants lacking in the King James Bible.  The lack of rare forms in the King James Bible and elsewhere tends to make the Book of Mormon's "more part" usage noteworthy — unlike what we can see in revivalist usage.

Edited August 11, 2018 by champatsch

[clarkgoble]

50 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I think I understand what you're saying.  Probably the lack, more often than not.  

Since I wasn't very clear, let me restate what I'm saying for others reading by way of analogy. Consider the phrase "oh my heck." It may be uncommon on a national level. But the rate in say national books tells us little about the rate in Payson, UT where it may be quite common. However if it appears no where except one place, then that's more significant. Now that's an analogy not an example. But the idea is that something uncommon in a book doesn't mean it's not uncommon in other places. The fact it happens at all tells us something whereas not finding any example for a century or two is extremely significant.

Put an other way, if I'm following what Stanford is saying, he'd agree that some of his examples don't have as strong as significance as others. Critics are tending to pick up on those but neglect the ones that are quite strong. (Correct me if I am misinterpreting you)

59 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, why the rock and hat show?  To build faith?

I think the typical view is to build Joseph's faith. It appears after the plates were returned or at least after he could start translating again he used his seer stones more and some suggest no stone at all. (Exactly when the U&T was used, when his seer stone was used, and when nothing was used is still a bit contentious -- there's threads here debating that)

The problem is always that with Joseph's method, it's not clear Joseph necessarily new what he was translating. So given the U&T it's not clear he could say what page he was on or even exactly what the relationship of the text produced to the plates was. This becomes more significant with his initial Genesis translation and especially with the Book of Abraham where there's no clear connection to the papyri. That he thought there was seems clear from the Alphabet and Grammar but it's not clear his interpretations of the connection are correct.

Edited August 11, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Exiled]

55 minutes ago, why me said:

He had no manuscript. The hat trick was great and it should be a wonderful faith promoter.

Yes, but he supposedly had those plates (the manuscript?) that were secreted in the woods, too. Why the plates if as Mr. Carmack claims Joseph was given a finished product? Maybe the answer lies in how humans love being wowed by showmanship? God, instead of just dictating the finished product himself to Joseph or even a more competent scribe, commands that all these intermediary steps take place for showmanship or faith promoting sake? Jesus says in 3 Nephi 21 that the Father was going to show his power to the gentiles and do a marvelous work. Perhaps this explains why the plates disappeared and the rock and hat and EmodE, etc., etc.?

[Exiled]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Since I wasn't very clear, let me restate what I'm saying for others reading by way of analogy. Consider the phrase "oh my heck." It may be uncommon on a national level. But the rate in say national books tells us little about the rate in Payson, UT where it may be quite common. However if it appears no where except one place, then that's more significant. Now that's an analogy not an example. But the idea is that something uncommon in a book doesn't mean it's not uncommon in other places. The fact it happens at all tells us something whereas not finding any example for a century or two is extremely significant.

Put an other way, if I'm following what Stanford is saying, he'd agree that some of his examples don't have as strong as significance as others. Critics are tending to pick up on those but neglect the ones that are quite strong. (Correct me if I am misinterpreting you)

I think the typical view is to build Joseph's faith. It appears after the plates were returned or at least after he could start translating again he used his seer stones more and some suggest no stone at all. (Exactly when the U&T was used, when his seer stone was used, and when nothing was used is still a bit contentious -- there's threads here debating that)

The problem is always that with Joseph's method, it's not clear Joseph necessarily new what he was translating. So given the U&T it's not clear he could say what page he was on or even exactly what the relationship of the text produced to the plates was. This becomes more significant with his initial Genesis translation and especially with the Book of Abraham where there's no clear connection to the papyri. That he thought there was seems clear from the Alphabet and Grammar but it's not clear his interpretations of the connection are correct.

I guess that is one way of viewing it.  Isn't that how Bushman views it, as a way to practice revelation?  Although, God could have always made it simple by just coming down and directly communicating with Joseph like you and I are right now.  But I guess that would have been too simple. In any event, another way of viewing the history is that Joseph wanted to show that his past scrying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying was actually a good thing and not the criminal practice society condemned.  Hence, the references to slippery treasures and the interpreter stones in the book of mormon itself.  These references showed the world that seer stones were a thing and that the treasures he sought were actually real because his book so stated.  He wanted to show the world that his scrying could produce something actually useful.  Whereas he had never actually found the treasures he sought in his earlier treasure hunting days, his rock now was a means of producing God's word.  Thus, he was actually justified in using his rock and was never the fraudster those anti-josephs had been claiming.  Then, when his audience became more adverse to the magic of western New York, he put the seer stone away and started to claim more of a direct line of communication to the divine.

[Teancum]

On 8/8/2018 at 5:19 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

John Tvedtnes passed on recently, and many other appologists are getting long in the tooth.

What? John Tvedtnes died?  How sad.  He was an aggressive apologist but I always liked him. He was there for me when I had a lot of questions starting to come up.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I guess that is one way of viewing it.  Isn't that how Bushman views it, as a way to practice revelation?  Although, God could have always made it simple by just coming down and directly communicating with Joseph like you and I are right now.  But I guess that would have been too simple. In any event, another way of viewing the history is that Joseph wanted to show that his past scrying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying was actually a good thing and not the criminal practice society condemned.  Hence, the references to slippery treasures and the interpreter stones in the book of mormon itself.  These references showed the world that seer stones were a thing and that the treasures he sought were actually real because his book so stated.  He wanted to show the world that his scrying could produce something actually useful.  Whereas he had never actually found the treasures he sought in his earlier treasure hunting days, his rock now was a means of producing God's word.  Thus, he was actually justified in using his rock and was never the fraudster those anti-josephs had been claiming.  Then, when his audience became more adverse to the magic of western New York, he put the seer stone away and started to claim more of a direct line of communication to the divine.

I'm not sure that works although I hear where you're coming from. The question ends up being when in 1829 did he give up his stone? However if scrying was so bad, why continue to push the narrative about the Urim & Thummin so hard? If he was, as you suggest, embarrassed by it, it seems odd to continue to emphasize it. Although one could argue that the shift to U&T instead of seer stone is significant. Although I think Don Bradley's work suggests the U&T connection was there from the start and not a later 1834 or so innovation in terminology.

44 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Yes, but he supposedly had those plates (the manuscript?) that were secreted in the woods, too. Why the plates if as Mr. Carmack claims Joseph was given a finished product? Maybe the answer lies in how humans love being wowed by showmanship? God, instead of just dictating the finished product himself to Joseph or even a more competent scribe, commands that all these intermediary steps take place for showmanship or faith promoting sake? Jesus says in 3 Nephi 21 that the Father was going to show his power to the gentiles and do a marvelous work. Perhaps this explains why the plates disappeared and the rock and hat and EmodE, etc., etc.?

I confess showmanship is the only explanation if it's fraudulent and not a self-deception of some sort (ala Taves). But I'm with you that it doesn't make a lot of sense. Too much could go wrong IMO.

If it's not fraudulent then the plates are important to demonstrate an historic connection, and the U&T to teach him how to become a seer. (Because clearly his attempts at scrying before didn't really work terribly well)

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by clarkgoble

[why me]

46 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Yes, but he supposedly had those plates (the manuscript?) that were secreted in the woods, too. Why the plates if as Mr. Carmack claims Joseph was given a finished product? Maybe the answer lies in how humans love being wowed by showmanship? God, instead of just dictating the finished product himself to Joseph or even a more competent scribe, commands that all these intermediary steps take place for showmanship or faith promoting sake? Jesus says in 3 Nephi 21 that the Father was going to show his power to the gentiles and do a marvelous work. Perhaps this explains why the plates disappeared and the rock and hat and EmodE, etc., etc.?

One can argue that Christ was a great showman too. He did wonderful magic tricks to convince people that he was special. But his wow power disappeared after he was crucified and it took another wow factor, his return to make the point to the apostles to get going with the word. Joseph did what he did with the plates. But no one who was there ever denied what he accomplished, nor denied what they experienced with the plates, the 11 witnesses.

[Exiled]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that works although I hear where you're coming from. The question ends up being when in 1829 did he give up his stone? However if scrying was so bad, why continue to push the narrative about the Urim & Thummin so hard? If he was, as you suggest, embarrassed by it, it seems odd to continue to emphasize it. Although one could argue that the shift to U&T instead of seer stone is significant. Although I think Don Bradley's work suggests the U&T connection was there from the start and not a later 1834 or so innovation in terminology.

I don't know if embarrassment was the only motivation or even the primary motivation.  Some who are attacked, retrench, get in defense mode, and push an apologetic narrative that purports to explain prior action.  I think this is what was going on with JS Jr. given the testimony of JS Sr. at the first legal proceeding for JS Jr. in 1826.  There, Sr. claimed that the seer stone was a gift from God that he hoped his son would use in a good manner.  I believe Martin Harris recounts of scrying expeditions after the 1826 trial and he still used the stone after the trial.  So, embarrassment doesn't seem to be what was going on.  However, embarrassment probably was an emotion he felt at some point.  Nevertheless, I think justification of what he had been doing was the primary motivation, as he still used the seer stone in a scrying fashion for the supposed translation of the book of mormon as well as for receiving his early revelations.  He gradually transferred his revelation methods to more of a direct model as you say.  However, I view his continued use of the seer stone, at first, as telling the world that he was not what people claimed him to be, a fraudster, but one called of God.

[Glenn101]

54 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Yes, but he supposedly had those plates (the manuscript?) that were secreted in the woods, too. Why the plates if as Mr. Carmack claims Joseph was given a finished product? Maybe the answer lies in how humans love being wowed by showmanship? God, instead of just dictating the finished product himself to Joseph or even a more competent scribe, commands that all these intermediary steps take place for showmanship or faith promoting sake? Jesus says in 3 Nephi 21 that the Father was going to show his power to the gentiles and do a marvelous work. Perhaps this explains why the plates disappeared and the rock and hat and EmodE, etc., etc.?

How far would Joseph have gotten without the plates? Would Martin Harris have mortgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon if Joseph had not copied and translated some of the characters which Martin was able to verify to his own satisfaction? The EmodE in the Book of Mormon is one of the things that tend to show that the Book of Mormon is not a 19th century document. Just a few thoughs. Don't really know why God did it though. He has not confided in me on the matter and I still have to navigate these waters by faith, after all is said and done.

Glenn

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, why me said:

One can argue that Christ was a great showman too. He did wonderful magic tricks to convince people that he was special. But his wow power disappeared after he was crucified and it took another wow factor, his return to make the point to the apostles to get going with the word. Joseph did what he did with the plates. But no one who was there ever denied what he accomplished, nor denied what they experienced with the plates, the 11 witnesses.

Perhaps the delay in actually getting Christ's words and deeds in written form is telling?  Maybe the early christian fathers loved magic, as well, and inserted a little into the narrative?  Jesus, the failed revolutionary, needed a narrative to rebuild his failure and so was "resurrected" and made to have "died for our sins" because supposedly God was powerless to forgive without a blood sacrifice.  The Jews already had a practice of killing animals so why not a human sacrifice as the last great sacrifice?  Paul, a non-witness, claimed a revelation and formed the sacrifice for sins narrative as he was creating his brand of christianity.  As far as the denials by the 11, sometimes one doesn't want to admit that one was tricked and sometimes will retrench as a reaction thereto, believing the unbelievable, going on the offensive and preaching the fraud, in order to justify their mistake.  Some still believe in the magician and continue to push their beliefs.

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

How far would Joseph have gotten without the plates? Would Martin Harris have mortgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon if Joseph had not copied and translated some of the characters which Martin was able to verify to his own satisfaction? The EmodE in the Book of Mormon is one of the things that tend to show that the Book of Mormon is not a 19th century document. Just a few thoughs. Don't really know why God did it though. He has not confided in me on the matter and I still have to navigate these waters by faith, after all is said and done.

Glenn

I agree that the tale had to be told to the believing Martin Harris.  Wasn't Martin Harris guilty of adultery many times?  I can't remember if this was what occurred but that would explain a lot.  Perhaps Martin Harris was susceptible to this kind of religious fraud as he was forever guilty for his infidelity?  He wanted to repent but couldn't control himself so believing Joseph Smith was a way to redemption.  In any event, if I misremember history, Martin Harris believed a lot of things over the years and was obviously a believing soul.  He thought he was speaking to Jesus in the form of a deer in one episode, maybe an unwitting homage to future greatful dead shows?

As far as EmodE is concerned, I still cannot eliminate the use of old style language, easily accessible from the 1611 bibles that were still floating around at the time, in order to make the work look biblical and from God. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I agree that the tale had to be told to the believing Martin Harris.  Wasn't Martin Harris guilty of adultery many times?  I can't remember if this was what occurred but that would explain a lot. 

His wife accused him of a possible affair with a neighbour.  Wiki expresses it as her being uncertain. She may have heard of the revelation to him to not covet his neighbour' wife and said that this might have been who it was talking about.

Add-on:  less indefinite than wiki sounded as she refrains from accusing him of sexual indiscretion, but specifies he was inappropriately much in her company. Found a statement where she accuses him:

https://books.google.com/books?id=CPSu6_mNvpoC&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq="With+regard+to+Mr.+Harris'+being+intimate+with+Mrs.+Haggard"&source=bl&ots=sqb3sPcfkx&sig=O3tk6e0fFke48VhfHbVrb1dIaEk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZx8OGiubcAhXH34MKHWDmAlgQ6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q="With regard to Mr. Harris' being intimate with Mrs. Haggard"&f=false

Edited August 11, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

His wife accused of an affair with a neighbour.

Here is something from some other website about Martin Harris:

Yesterday I was searching the 1830 Census Records for New York, hoping to find a particular entry, and thanks to the indexing efforts of some faithful Mormon somewhere, I was pleased to discover the object of my desire - a single record, "Daniel J. Haggart" located in Palmyra, New York.

I nearly jumped out of my skin. There it was! There was what I needed to open the book on an issue that no faithful Mormon has ever been able to accept. For your viewing pleasure, here is the digital image of the record I discovered, right-hand page, second line from the top:

https://archive.org/stream/populationsc ... 5/mode/2up

You've probably never heard of Daniel J. Haggart. Neither had I until I saw this record. However, many people on this board have probably heard about his wife, and the information I've discovered is sure to be unwelcome among the LDS faithful.

Let's go back to the beginning, to an affidavit made by Martin Harris' wife, Lucy, on November 29, 1833:

"With regard to Mr. Harris' being intimate with Mrs. Haggard, as has been reported, it is but justice to myself to state what facts have come within my own observation, to show whether I had any grounds for jealousy or not. Mr. Harris was very intimate with this family, for some time previous to their going to Ohio. They lived a while in a house which he had built for their accommodation, and here he spent the most of his leisure hours; and made her presents of articles from the store and house. He carried these presents in a private manner, and frequently when he went there, he would pretend to be going to some of the neighbors, on an errand, or to be going into the fields. After getting out of sight of the house, he would steer a straight course for Haggard's house, especially if Haggard was from home. At times when Haggard was from home, he would go there in the manner above described, and stay till twelve or one o'clock at night, and sometimes until day light." (Mormonism Unvailed, pgs 256-257)

Was one of the three special witnesses to the golden plates really banging his neighbor's wife prior to his heavenly manifestation? A revelation given to Martin Harris in the Summer of 1829 certainly indicates this was possible. "And again: I command you," thus saith the Lord, "that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife." (D&C 19:25)

As you look at the census record I discovered, you'll notice that the name of Martin Harris appears only two lines below Daniel J. Haggart. This indicates that they were indeed "neighbors," apparently living close enough that Lucy Harris would be able to know when her husband was "steering a straight course" towards their house.

According to E. D. Howe, "Levi Lewis states, that he has 'been acquainted with Joseph Smith Jr. and Martin Harris, and that he has heard them both say, adultery was no crime. Harris said he did not blame Smith for his (Smith’s) attempt to seduce Eliza Winters &c.;'" (Mormonism Unvailed, pg 268) Why would he?

What did Martin Harris think of his ill-fated marriage? Speaking of Harris around 1831 Ezra Booth wrote, "It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the State of New York, that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at pleasure to take him a wife from among the Lamanites. It was easily perceived that this permission was perfectly suited to his desires. I have frequently heard him state that the Lord had made it known to him, that he is as free from his wife as from any other woman; and the only crime I have ever heard alleged against her is, she is violently opposed to Mormonism. But before this contemplated marriage can be carried into effect, he must return to the State of New York and settle his business, for fear, should he return after that affair had taken place, the civil authority would apprehend him as a criminal." (Mormonism Unvailed, pg 220)

We learn from the placement of the 1 in the eighteenth column of the census record that Daniel J. Haggart's wife was in her 20's. Is it any wonder that, in 1836, at the ripe age of 53, Martin Harris took another young bride as his next wife in Caroline Young, a girl of only 20?

The census record also shows Daniel J. Haggart to be in his 30's in 1830. They had three children, all under the age of ten.

So what happened to the Haggarts after Martin's apparent lurid affair? Lucy claimed they moved to Ohio, which brought me to this second census record, showing a Daniel Haggart family in Willoughby, Ohio in 1850:

https://archive.org/stream/populationsc ... 5/mode/2up

In 1850 the United States census began recording much more information than it had before. For starters, it lists the names of all the members of each household. We learn that Daniel's wife was named Magdaline. We also learn that she was 46, which would have made her 26 in 1830, and Daniel was nine years her elder. In addition to this a 21-year-old daughter is listed as having been born in New York. If you cross-reference with reports on the death of a Daniel J. Haggart in 1853 in the Painesville Telegraph, the local newspaper, all these facts combine to confirm that this indeed must have been the exact same Haggart family that lived near Martin Harris twenty years prior. An 18-year-old daughter born in Ohio demonstrates that the move to this location must have occurred sometime prior to or during 1832.

Why is this significant? The first glaring reason is that Willoughby, OH is only three miles away from Kirtland. Why would this family move to the same place as the rest of the LDS church, at the same time as the rest of the LDS church? Lucy did say that Martin "was very intimate with this family" after all. They moved with the church? Again Lucy's story checks out, aligning perfectly with contemporary records.

The last piece of the puzzle in attempting to pin down the identity of Martin's mysterious mistress is found in this death certificate of her son, James Daniel Haggart:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X69J-BZC

Her name was Magdeline Service, and she was born in Dundas, Canada.

Apologists have long been silent on the topic of Martin's lurid affair. From a historical standpoint it has always been a matter of "may have," "perhaps," and "alleged to." I think these records give a lot more credence to the story. We have a woman in her mid-20's, living far from home, very close to and in a positive religious relationship with a man who is married to a bitter woman - his cousin no less - whose life is consumed by her hatred of his new belief system for which he has discovered intense enthusiasm. What was he doing at this woman's house, sometimes until sunrise, while her husband was away from home? Why the instruction to not covet his neighbor's wife?

Lucy Harris, as if aware of the apologetic overemphasis of uncertainty that would inevitably occur 180 years in the future, preemptively wrote these insightful words:

"If his intentions were evil, the Lord will judge him accordingly, but if good, he did not mean to let his left hand know what his right hand did. The above statement or facts, I affirm to be true.
-LUCY HARRIS." (Mormonism Unvailed, pg 257)

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, champatsch said:

I have read here and there in this thread that the archaic linguistic issues of the Book of Mormon are sufficiently known and understood.  I doubt that's the case for almost everyone. I find myself forgetting things I've studied carefully, since it's a vast field of inquiry.  This is what I think is required to sufficiently understand the issues: 

Careful study of the following:

• the 2009 Yale edition of the Book of Mormon — the language of the 1829 dictation
• the 1611 King James Bible and earlier 16th-century Bibles
• the 16th- and 17th-century textual record using the EEBO database
• the 18th-century textual record using the ECCO and Evans databases
• one dozen pseudo-biblical texts
• the Google Books database and the Ngram Viewer (with awareness of limitations)
• Joseph Smith’s 1832 personal history and personal letters
• linguistic analyses of relevant (morpho)syntax

Plus your background. I am a new fan. I would say that narrows down the field of qualified commentators just a tad.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Her name was Magdeline Service,

Sounds like a pseudonym for a lady with " loose morals" in  19th century Protestant context.

No one would name their daughter that in those days when it was believed that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

Edited August 11, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Sounds like a pseudonym for a lady with " loose morals" in  19th century Protestant context.

No one would name their daughter that in those days when it was believed that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

Haha.

[Exiled]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Plus your background. I am a new fan. I would say that narrows down the field of qualified commentators just a tad.

But don't you think that then Mr. Carmack should answer our questions as he is the expert on his theory? He may get something from the intellectual exercise of explaining his theories to students and skeptics alike. At least I think that is the theory of having professors actually teach students.

[Glenn101]

48 minutes ago, Exiled said:

"If his intentions were evil, the Lord will judge him accordingly, but if good, he did not mean to let his left hand know what his right hand did. The above statement or facts, I affirm to be true.
-LUCY HARRIS." (Mormonism Unvailed, pg 257)

Exiled, I am sorry that you are late to the party. I saw that stuff a couple of years ago at a site called Fuller Consideration. Lucy statment on the matter says that she really does not know. She left it up to the Lord to judge. Your other source from Mormonism Unvailed is a bit suspect, but the Lord will judge him too.

Glenn

[Exiled]

36 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Exiled, I am sorry that you are late to the party. I saw that stuff a couple of years ago at a site called Fuller Consideration. Lucy statment on the matter says that she really does not know. She left it up to the Lord to judge. Your other source from Mormonism Unvailed is a bit suspect, but the Lord will judge him too.

Glenn

Well I don't expect you to believe mormonism unveiled. That would be sacrelidge of course. The group frowns on it so it must be suspect by definition.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Exiled