The Book of Mormon is a conundrum.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I have not been able to find that particular discussion, so this is just hearsay at this point, but I remember Stanford saying that he has attempted to have at least one other non-LDS linguist review his work but the guy would not touch it. Maybe Stanford will drop by and comment on the situation. If he does not, please take my comments with that proverbial grain of salt.

I wouldn't be surprised. It's not exactly helpful for ones academic career to review apologetics unless one is slamming them as being incompetent. People need to keep in mind the realities of academic politics particularly for people who might not yet have tenure. Even at places like BYU publishing on apologetics can have a negative effect. Go to a place where consensus is atheism and it's a whole different world. There have been many discussions at academic forums like Nous on just how there are strong forces against hiring religious people let alone supporting religion. There's a strong anti-religious bent especially for religious thinking deemed "fundamentalist."

Again I'd just note though that critics are fine doing reviews or engagement when they think the apologetic works are flawed. Silence often speaks loudly.

 

[champatsch]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't know. It's fairly easy to verify. Presumably the issue is finding someone who cares to verify it who is experienced in that grammar. Feel free to contact people. However the patterns are all listed in Carmack's papers and you can verify them yourself. If you don't want to consult the corpuses he uses just do searches in Google Books. That's what I initially did. It's easy to verify. About the only place you'd need linguistics is in deciding how "wide" one should make the grammatical structures to test for significance.

Of the syntax and grammar, the vast majority fits a broad form of Early Modern English. That means that a very small amount is systematically late modern, although almost all the individual instances of the systematically late modern component are found in the 1600s. This is a detailed area of study. So of course many things are not in the papers. NOL 2018 has a few more aspects of my work that weren't published before, mainly patterns of verb complementation, and how they are archaic but non-biblical and non-pseudo-biblical. There are many different components to the syntax and grammar. But if you look at the core of the Book of Mormon's grammar, the verbal system, then one must conclude, after making an honest appraisal, that it fits the early modern period and not the late modern period. This takes into the account the tenses, verb agreement, verb inflections, auxiliary verb usage, verb complementation, etc.

There will be a 740-million-word, precisely searchable corpus of Early Modern English available soon in WordCruncher (Early English Books Online Phase 1 texts–publicly available but not precisely searchable). The exact time frame depends on how soon one busy person can make it publicly available. I've done my part. There is a cost associated with it, since it took many months over several years to create the WordCruncher corpus.

[champatsch]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I remember participating in a discussion with a few people including Stanford some time ago, maybe a couple of years on Jeff Lindsay's Mormanity blog where the subject of peer review came up on the subject of EmodE in the Book of Mormon. I have not been able to find that particular discussion, so this is just hearsay at this point, but I remember Stanford saying that he has attempted to have at least one other non-LDS linguist review his work but the guy would not touch it. Maybe Stanford will drop by and comment on the situation. If he does not, please take my comments with that proverbial grain of salt.

In short, I showed a lot of interesting Book of Mormon usage to a well-known linguist two and a half years ago. He knew nothing about the Book of Mormon and told me it looked like Early Modern English usage to him. I told him I wouldn't say who he was. I asked another linguist I knew if he would be interested in looking at some syntactic usage, but he never responded. I might work on something to submit to a journal toward the end of the year, but right now I'm working on other things.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Robert, why does there have to be a middle man in the picture? With the assumption (which is what I go with) that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God as Joseph stated, there is no need for any intermediary. God knows all languages perfectly and is able to translate from any language, dialect, or vernacular into any language, dialect, or vernacular.

Another translator or author is needed only if God, or a divinely appointed angel, was not the translator.

Glenn

Yes, God can theoretically do all that, or have an angel do it, but he always uses human agents instead.  Moreover, why would we seek a divine explanation for what may be an entirely human phenomenon?  Since God always uses humans to do his work, why would we turn to something else to explain the evidence?

Look at it this way:  Lehi & Company trek through the desert for 8 years, guided by a Liahona device.  Why didn't God simply whisk them away on a magic carpet to the Promised Land?  Why all the suffering and difficulty?  The Israelite Exodus took 40 years in the wilderness.  Why not simply take them to the Promised Land directly?  Jesus sweats blood in Gethsemane, gets beaten and crucified, then buried in a tomb.  Why not simply let  him die without all the nonsense -- God can make an infinite Atonement at will, right?  No need for all the drama . . .  😪

[Ryan Dahle]

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, God can theoretically do all that, or have an angel do it, but he always uses human agents instead.  Moreover, why would we seek a divine explanation for what may be an entirely human phenomenon?  Since God always uses humans to do his work, why would we turn to something else to explain the evidence?

It doesn't seem accurate to assert that "God always uses human to do his work." Certainly he allows us plenty of opportunities to grow and has created a religious organization that helps further facilitate this process. But God does at times intervene in miraculous ways, supplying manna, bread, wine, fish, and yes, sometimes even words, through marvelous means, even through the ministration of angels (see 1 Nephi 1:11-14; Mosiah 4:1). 

For me, assuming that God used some unknown human agent to translate a record that was for all intents and purposes unknown to the world (having been buried around AD 420) seems more difficult than to just assume he had some heavenly agent or agents do it. After all, the ministering of angels was a significant part of the Restoration and continues to be a significant part of Latter-day Saint theology, especially in relation to temple work, where both human and angelic agents are doing needed work on both sides of the veil. I don't think the opportunities for growth pertain only to mortality. 

Moreover, while the text's usage is predominantly EModE it still has some systematic language that is more representative of later usage, as well as it being a highly massaged EModE text. And then there is the fact that the text itself never mentions this mysterious intermediary human translator even though it does prophesy of Joseph Smith and the witnesses. And, honestly, if a human living in or near the EModE period translated the text, then why go through all the hoopla of having Joseph read it through his translation instruments? I mean, the mysterious EModE individual could have just stashed his translation manuscript with the plates or in some place where it would have reached Joseph.  

I suppose I don't really care much one way or the other how the Book of Mormon got translated, but it just seems like some unnecessary and odd assumptions would need to be at play to get the text into the hands of an individual in or near the EModE period who secretly translated it and then the prepared text was transmitted to Joseph's view via miraculous means. No matter how one looks at it, the Book of Mormon was a marvelous work and a wonder that could never have been revealed to the world without divine assistance, which included the ministration of angelic messengers. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Exiled]

25 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It doesn't seem accurate to assert that "God always uses human to do his work." Certainly he allows us plenty of opportunities to grow and has created a religious organization that helps further facilitate this process. But God does at times intervene in miraculous ways, supplying manna, bread, wine, fish, and yes, sometimes even words, through marvelous means, even through the ministration of angels (see 1 Nephi 1:11-14; Mosiah 4:1). 

For me, assuming that God used some unknown human agent to translate a record that was for all intents and purposes unknown to the world (having been buried around AD 420) seems more difficult than to just assume he had some heavenly agent or agents do it. After all, the ministering of angels was a significant part of the Restoration and continues to be a significant part of Latter-day Saint theology, especially in relation to temple work, where both human and angelic agents are doing needed work on both sides of the veil. I don't think the opportunities for growth pertain only to mortality. 

Moreover, while the text's usage is predominantly EModE it still has some systematic language that is more representative of later usage, as well as it being a highly massaged EModE text. And then there is the fact that the text itself never mentions this mysterious intermediary human translator even though it does prophesy of Joseph Smith and the witnesses. And, honestly, if a human living in or near the EModE period translated the text, then why go through all the hoopla of having Joseph read it through his translation instruments? I mean, the mysterious EModE individual could have just stashed his translation manuscript with the plates or in some place where it would have reached Joseph.  

I suppose I don't really care much one way or the other how the Book of Mormon got translated, but it just seems like some unnecessary and odd assumptions would need to be at play to get the text into the hands of an individual in or near the EModE period who secretly translated it and then the prepared text was transmitted to Joseph's view via miraculous means. No matter how one looks at it, the Book of Mormon was a marvelous work and a wonder that could never have been revealed to the world without divine assistance, which included the ministration of angelic messengers. 

Yes, I think the EmodE theory adds unnecessary complexity to the story, especially when the book of moses and the d&c were supposedly direct revelations. One would think a simpler explanation should win the day.  This is why I believe that ultimately, like is happening with the book of abraham, an inspired fiction model should win out.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Yes, I think the EmodE theory adds unnecessary complexity to the story, especially when the book of moses and the d&c were supposedly direct revelations. One would think a simpler explanation should win the day.  This is why I believe that ultimately, like is happening with the book of abraham, an inspired fiction model should win out.

Yep.

If this EModE stuff shows that Joseph couldn't have written the BoM, it hardly exonerates the story of how it came to be.  That some archaic sounding words and phrases, along with late modern stuff, are  found in it, seems to suggest that it was written by man and not by the gift and power of god.  Somehow champastch went from saying the data shows God did it, to well it shows that Joseph didn't write it.  

Well, then he's introduce more complexity, more questions, and less answers.  Fine.  I mean if that's where it all leads, but questions is all it leads to, it seems to me.  

[Ryan Dahle]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Yes, I think the EmodE theory adds unnecessary complexity to the story, especially when the book of moses and the d&c were supposedly direct revelations.

Your remark builds off my ideas in a way that implicitly misrepresents them. I didn't say that EModE theory adds unnecessary complexity to the story. I don't think it does. 

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

By definition yours is not a historical analysis because it is grounded in your theological presuppositions and presentism. Historical analyses follow historical methods of interpretation and checks for reliability.

I bet that is what you say to all the Christians - so it is impossible for a Christian to have a valid historical analysis in your view apparently. Either method is dependent upon the text. Take the text away and there is no historical analysis of what the text is about. The text is part of history. My interpretation analysis is as legitimate as theirs. 

[churchistrue]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yep.

If this EModE stuff shows that Joseph couldn't have written the BoM, it hardly exonerates the story of how it came to be.  That some archaic sounding words and phrases, along with late modern stuff, are  found in it, seems to suggest that it was written by man and not by the gift and power of god.  Somehow champastch went from saying the data shows God did it, to well it shows that Joseph didn't write it.  

Well, then he's introduce more complexity, more questions, and less answers.  Fine.  I mean if that's where it all leads, but questions is all it leads to, it seems to me.  

I'm still trying to understand what people think, because it's not clear and people don't seem to be willing to clearly state it. But anyway. I think champastch's position is that there is a miraculous, supernatural element to it. But that miraculous, supernatural element is limited to the the transfer of the text to the seerstone, which was done perfectly without error by the power of God. The translation was a more humanistic endeavor done centuries prior which included human expansion of the original text including human error and anachronisms. 

 

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I bet that is what you say to all the Christians - so it is impossible for a Christian to have a valid historical analysis in your view apparently. Either method is dependent upon the text. Take the text away and there is no historical analysis of what the text is about. The text is part of history. My interpretation analysis is as legitimate as theirs.  

No, probably a majority of critical Biblical scholars are Christian. Reading your 21st century Christianity onto a 2nd century BCE Jewish text isn't exactly a legitimate historical reading, though.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Gray

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Your remark builds off my ideas in a way that implicitly misrepresents them. I didn't say that EModE theory adds unnecessary complexity to the story. I don't think it does. 

Fair enough.  I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.  My thoughts are my own, for sure, and anyone reading this thread should know that I'm not a believer.  So, my statements don't reflect anyone else here, necessarily.  The unnecessary complexity idea is mine.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

No, probably a majority of critical Biblical scholars are Christian. Reading your 21st century Christianity onto a 2nd century BCE Jewish text isn't exactly a legitimate historical reading, though.

Presuming the text is a 2nd century text based upon merely a 2nd century viewpoint is not exactly objective either. It does not allow for any other possibilities, but forces the text into preconceived notions of what it is about. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

I'm still trying to understand what people think, because it's not clear and people don't seem to be willing to clearly state it. But anyway. I think champastch's position is that there is a miraculous, supernatural element to it. But that miraculous, supernatural element is limited to the the transfer of the text to the seerstone, which was done perfectly without error by the power of God. The translation was a more humanistic endeavor done centuries prior which included human expansion of the original text including human error and anachronisms. 

 

Sure.  I think you've got his position for the most part, at least that's how it comes off to me. 

God made archaic English words and phrases glow in the darkness of Joseph's hat.  The plates weren't used by Joseph.  yet somehow it is claimed that what words he saw glowing represented a translation from those plates.  One witness even suggested that Joseph saw the reformed Egyptian characters floating above the English words.  Did Joseph take the time to verify that the floating Egyptian characters were found on the plates?  If he took his head away from the hat to look at the plates could he remember the characters in order to see if they were found on the plates?  That's kind of a silly thought, I think.  I wonder if the observer who said Joseph saw the epyptian characters was just assuming or guessing.  Or if Joseph told him what he saw, or if Joseph looked at the plates to see if the characters were there.  Whatever the case, that seems to throw a bit of a complexity into champastch's position. If the English words that made up the BoM were translated some centuries before, then why make it appear to Joseph that the translation was happening as he was dictating the words?

the plates seem useless though.  I wonder what it might mean, though, if say, the translator was running around Mesoamerica a couple hundred years before Joseph and somehow found the plates.  He took the plates, and figured out how to translate them.  I suppose even then, the goggles attached to a breastplate might have been with them.  This unnamed guy, took the stuff and then eventually buried it all up again in NY.  His translated transcript getting lost or forgotten.  If so, it may be that this person translated the plates by the gift and power of God.  Joseph did no such thing, as he had claimed.  

or

So there was a transcript created a couple hundred years before Joseph based on another transcript that someone else already had--someone years before that had also translated another lost transcript.  And perhaps as it were, the plates represented the original of such passing down and along.  But when it came to Joseph the divine was involved, I guess.  

 

[churchistrue]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  I think you've got his position for the most part, at least that's how it comes off to me. 

God made archaic English words and phrases glow in the darkness of Joseph's hat.  The plates weren't used by Joseph.  yet somehow it is claimed that what words he saw glowing represented a translation from those plates.  One witness even suggested that Joseph saw the reformed Egyptian characters floating above the English words.  Did Joseph take the time to verify that the floating Egyptian characters were found on the plates?  If he took his head away from the hat to look at the plates could he remember the characters in order to see if they were found on the plates?  That's kind of a silly thought, I think.  I wonder if the observer who said Joseph saw the epyptian characters was just assuming or guessing.  Or if Joseph told him what he saw, or if Joseph looked at the plates to see if the characters were there.  Whatever the case, that seems to throw a bit of a complexity into champastch's position. If the English words that made up the BoM were translated some centuries before, then why make it appear to Joseph that the translation was happening as he was dictating the words?

the plates seem useless though.  I wonder what it might mean, though, if say, the translator was running around Mesoamerica a couple hundred years before Joseph and somehow found the plates.  He took the plates, and figured out how to translate them.  I suppose even then, the goggles attached to a breastplate might have been with them.  This unnamed guy, took the stuff and then eventually buried it all up again in NY.  His translated transcript getting lost or forgotten.  If so, it may be that this person translated the plates by the gift and power of God.  Joseph did no such thing, as he had claimed.  

or

So there was a transcript created a couple hundred years before Joseph based on another transcript that someone else already had--someone years before that had also translated another lost transcript.  And perhaps as it were, the plates represented the original of such passing down and along.  But when it came to Joseph the divine was involved, I guess.  

 

Thanks for answering me, so at least I don't feel crazy that I'm wondering about what this means and no one will answer. Nothing personal against you, but I'd rather not have this sarcastic/critical bent associated with me. I truly am trying to understand the position. For the purpose of understanding not for the purpose of slicing up the theory. And I know, for many it naturally leads to the ludicrous, but I'd like to halt that and hopefully people can feel safe enough to throw out their honest theories here. Because it's super confusing to me, and I'd like to get it right.

 

 

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I think champastch's position is that there is a miraculous, supernatural element to it. But that miraculous, supernatural element is limited to the the transfer of the text to the seerstone, which was done perfectly without error by the power of God. The translation was a more humanistic endeavor done centuries prior which included human expansion of the original text including human error and anachronisms.

I suppose champatsch can speak for himself, but I don't think his position really tries to explain who or what was ultimately responsible for the English translation that appeared in Joseph Smith's translation instruments. In other words, I don't think he would be comfortable asserting it was a "humanistic endeavor done centuries prior" just like he doesn't argue that it was a divinely appointed translation committee. No one knows, and I think champatsch prefers not to speculate too much about it, seeing that it would likely only lead to misrepresentations and distortions of his data-driven thesis. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that fairly sums up his position.

[Calm]

Quote

somehow it is claimed that what words he saw glowing represented a translation from those plates

I can see a translation of the clay tablets of the Kesh Temple Hymn that I have never laid eyes on and don't have a clue where they are now here:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section4/tr4802.htm

Is it really that far fetched to claim that the glowing words could be a translation of the plates?  I think the glowing words part is the big obstacle to get past and once that is done (and that is possible by assuming pure miracle in the sense God can create anything he wants or God's knowledge was able to provide advanced tech to Joseph similar to what we have today), why not a translation of the plates there sitting on the table?

Quote

then why make it appear to Joseph that the translation was happening as he was dictating the words?

When I read side by side translation of Sumerian to English online, should I assume the translation is happening right then? ( image quarter page down) and if I am uneducated enough to assume it is, does it change the value of the work?

http://www.cumorah.com/index.php?target=view_other_articles&story_id=35&cat_id=8

Quote

the plates seem useless though

Or given Joseph was at the beginning of his scripture revelation career, having a concrete source that he was informed the text was from was likely reassuring as well as providing witnesses to their existence later on.

Just because they weren't used in one part of the process doesn't imply they were completely unnecessary.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, churchistrue said:

But anyway. I think champastch's position is that there is a miraculous, supernatural element to it. But that miraculous, supernatural element is limited to the the transfer of the text to the seerstone, which was done perfectly without error by the power of God.

As other noted I don't think he has a position on translation that I can see. I suspect like most of us he's open to a wide number of possibilities. He just notes this grammatical structure in the text which seems objectively present (in the sense of anyone can investigate it and see it).

I'd add that personally I'd be very skeptical that the text appeared to Joseph in an inerrant fashion if only because of D&C 9. Not saying it might not have, but I'm rather suspicious that the seer stone worked in a mechanical or electronic type fashion akin to an iPhone. D&C 9 seems to suggest Joseph's thoughts were involved in some unknown way. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

God made archaic English words and phrases glow in the darkness of Joseph's hat.  

It may well be that he saw the letters but they weren't technically on the spectacles or seer stone but were in his eyes but he couldn't discern them when there was light. i.e. other objects distracting his vision. That'd line up somewhat with scrying traditions as well. Again not saying it happened that way, just that we should be careful about options rather than making assumptions. That would also explain why when he became used to the translation he didn't need the spectacles and could use his seer stone or potentially even not use any stone at all.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

BoM were translated some centuries before, then why make it appear to Joseph that the translation was happening as he was dictating the words?

the plates seem useless though.  

I'm usually sympathetic to "as if" critiques, but here I'm not sure I buy it. After all we know Joseph meant by "translation" something broader than our use. (Witness the JST) All Joseph knew is how to obtain the English words and that was a translation so he was a translator. Now I personally think the burden of proof is on those who argue the translation was done earlier. I'm very skeptical of that. However even if it was, I don't think that entails Joseph thought the translation was happening as he dictated it. We honestly don't really know what Joseph thought about it all. (Which is the problem with some of your other questions as well - we don't know if Joseph compared translations the way he may have with Abraham if the apologetic arguments are to be believed)

[churchistrue]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can see a translation of the clay tablets of the Kesh Temple Hymn that I have never laid eyes on and don't have a clue where they are now here:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section4/tr4802.htm

Is it really that far fetched to claim that the glowing words could be a translation of the plates?  I think the glowing words part is the big obstacle to get past and once that is done (and that is possible by assuming pure miracle in the sense God can create anything he wants or God's knowledge was able to provide advanced tech to Joseph similar to what we have today), why not a translation of the plates there sitting on the table?

When I read side by side translation of Sumerian to English online, should I assume the translation is happening right then? ( image quarter page down) and if I am uneducated enough to assume it is, does it change the value of the work?

http://www.cumorah.com/index.php?target=view_other_articles&story_id=35&cat_id=8

Or given Joseph was at the beginning of his scripture revelation career, having a concrete source that he was informed the text was from was likely reassuring as well as providing witnesses to their existence later on.

Just because they weren't used in one part of the process doesn't imply they were completely unnecessary.

ftr, those quoted words aren't mine.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Presuming the text is a 2nd century text based upon merely a 2nd century viewpoint is not exactly objective either. It does not allow for any other possibilities, but forces the text into preconceived notions of what it is about.  

It's not a presumption. It's really the only reading that makes sense of all available evidence.

 

ETA: Here's someone else's summary of the mainstream scholarship on Daniel's dating:

 

 

Scholars (aside from some very conservative ones) almost universally agree that Daniel was written 167-164 BCE, and not during the exile. There are many reasons for this, including but not limited to:

• Errors in the depiction of the Persian court
• Errors in the sequence of Babylonian and Persian rulers, including a significant role by the fictitious "Darius the Mede"
• Chronological errors and contradictions throughout, suggesting a complicated literary history rather than a historical basis
• Accurate descriptions of regional second-century political events leading up to 167 BCE
• Lack of knowledge regarding events from 164 onward, notably including the death of Antiochus IV
• Presence of late Persian and Greek loanwords
• Lack of attestation for Daniel (both the character and the book) prior to the late second or first century BCE
• Genre considerations: Much of Daniel is written as an apocalypse, a genre that didn't exist before the 2nd century BCE.
• Theology considerations: Theological developments like named archangels and an eschatological resurrection emerged very late in Judaism, and cannot be found in earlier biblical writings (even post-exilic ones).

There is little, if anything, that commends the traditional sixth-century dating.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Gray

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

ftr, those quoted words aren't mine.

Ah, it appears I need to be careful to quote from the original post and not a quote, my apologies.  Made it generic

Edited March 20, 2019 by Calm

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I suppose champatsch can speak for himself, but I don't think his position really tries to explain who or what was ultimately responsible for the English translation that appeared in Joseph Smith's translation instruments. In other words, I don't think he would be comfortable asserting it was a "humanistic endeavor done centuries prior" just like he doesn't argue that it was a divinely appointed translation committee. No one knows, and I think champatsch prefers not to speculate too much about it, seeing that it would likely only lead to misrepresentations and distortions of his data-driven thesis. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that fairly sums up his position.

Are you sure? This is my best attempt at understanding Skousen and Carmack's position. "Humanistic" is unclear, I guess. What I mean by that is that the 16c translation included expansion, modern/mature theological exposition, anachronisms, etc that you wouldn't see on the gold plates. A very "loose" translation.

Edited March 20, 2019 by churchistrue

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Are you sure? This is my best attempt at understanding Skousen and Carmack's position. "Humanistic" is unclear, I guess. What I mean by that is that the 16c translation included expansion, modern/mature theological exposition, anachronisms, etc that you wouldn't see on the gold plates. A very "loose" translation.

It would probably be best to refer to the translation as something like a "revealed" text. The "EModE theory," if you will, doesn't strictly date the text's composition to the sixteenth century. It isn't strictly a sixteenth century text as far as its usage patterns go, nor are Carmack or Skousen proposing that it was specifically composed by any human or divine agent in the sixteenth century. The Book of Mormon is often broadly categorized as an EModE text by proponents of the theory, simply because most of its usage (and comparable rates of usage) can be found in that period, and in a number of cases exclusively (or nearly exclusively) in that period. 

As for looseness, Carmack has described it as likely being dynamic--meaning that it may fluctuate between loose and tight as far as its literalness goes (not to be confused with the loose/tight dichotomy relating to the amount of divine control over the translation process, as put forth years ago by Skousen). As far as specifying which portions are loose or tight, however, is difficult to say. This supposition is mostly outside of Carmack's area of research and has more to do with other aspects of the text: Hebraisms, Egyptianisms, stylometry, NT and OT intertextuality, use of KJV, loanshifting, perceived anachronisms, etc. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Exiled]

Have the original D&C revelations (prior to Joseph Smith's subsequent edits) around the time of the book of mormon project (1829) been studied to see if they contain EmodE?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It doesn't seem accurate to assert that "God always uses human to do his work." Certainly he allows us plenty of opportunities to grow and has created a religious organization that helps further facilitate this process. But God does at times intervene in miraculous ways, supplying manna, bread, wine, fish, and yes, sometimes even words, through marvelous means, even through the ministration of angels (see 1 Nephi 1:11-14; Mosiah 4:1).   

God always uses human agents to effect those miracles, including Moses and Jesus as Prophet for the instances you just cited for "manna, bread, wine, fish."  The angels are merely "messengers," the meaning of their name.  Ministering angels are not substitute humans.

7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

For me, assuming that God used some unknown human agent to translate a record that was for all intents and purposes unknown to the world (having been buried around AD 420) seems more difficult than to just assume he had some heavenly agent or agents do it.

God consistently works through his prophets.  However, in a secular scholarly endeavor (which the study of the BofM in light of EModE surely is), it would be irresponsible to immediately claim that God did it, or one of his angels.  We have no evidence at all for that.  Indeed, we have no evidence for any rational explanation.  The matter remains a mystery.  If religion must be brought into the discussion, at least base it upon known precedent.

7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

After all, the ministering of angels was a significant part of the Restoration and continues to be a significant part of Latter-day Saint theology, especially in relation to temple work, where both human and angelic agents are doing needed work on both sides of the veil. I don't think the opportunities for growth pertain only to mortality. 

The temple ordinances must be performed by living humans to have efficacy on the other side.  There is no other way.  Angels can certainly advise us, but they leave it up to us to do the work.

7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Moreover, while the text's usage is predominantly EModE it still has some systematic language that is more representative of later usage, as well as it being a highly massaged EModE text. And then there is the fact that the text itself never mentions this mysterious intermediary human translator even though it does prophesy of Joseph Smith and the witnesses. And, honestly, if a human living in or near the EModE period translated the text, then why go through all the hoopla of having Joseph read it through his translation instruments? I mean, the mysterious EModE individual could have just stashed his translation manuscript with the plates or in some place where it would have reached Joseph. 

The EModE puzzlement will not go away, regardless of all our equivocation, and it remains an obstacle to any facile explanation by either believers or secular scholars.  That said, I see no problem with having Joseph as the efficient cause of its publication -- and all the "hoopla" that you cite.  After all, he was the Prophet of the Restoration, a job that could not be done in 1540, simply because someone had to cross the Atlantic, establish colonies, dig the Erie Canal, move to Palmyra, and be close to that hill near Manchester, and retrieve the plates.  We already know that Joseph did no more than read the words to his scribes from the surface of his seerstone in the hat.  He did not "translate."  He "transmitted," which is merely another meaning of "translate."  Someone else had to have done the job, even though we don't yet know his or her name.  I see no reason to posit that an angel did it, though some have suggested the Three Nephites.  😎

7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I suppose I don't really care much one way or the other how the Book of Mormon got translated, but it just seems like some unnecessary and odd assumptions would need to be at play to get the text into the hands of an individual in or near the EModE period who secretly translated it and then the prepared text was transmitted to Joseph's view via miraculous means. No matter how one looks at it, the Book of Mormon was a marvelous work and a wonder that could never have been revealed to the world without divine assistance, which included the ministration of angelic messengers. 

The angelic messengers (angels "messengers") do indeed act as go-betweens, and there are plenty of examples (the annunciation to Mary), esp. in apocalyptic literature.  But they do not do the heavy lifting, instead merely assisting humans in doing their assigned tasks.