Jump to content

State of awful woundedness -- EModE question


Recommended Posts

I was fascinated to hear from Terryl Givens recent BYU address that the original BOM text had the word woundedness instead of blindness in 1 Ne 13:32.

Great catch by Givens because it really plays into the direction he's going with his theology. ie that the atonement is for healing and the primary reason for the restoration is a better understanding of Christ. The original text for 1 Ne 13:32.

32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that state of awful woundedness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that aabominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.

Woundedness as a result of misunderstanding of the nature of God and atonement. Pretty good.

Anyway, my question is how does this word woundedness relate to EModE and the translation time period estimation. Is this an older or newer term? Has Skousen/Karmack mentioned this change before?

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post

"Salvation" means healing; and "damned" means damaged. So the misunderstanding that we have had over thousands of years is the misapplication of these to terms more like "heaven" and "hell", so yea.

I do like the term blindness though, as it relates to paradigms, which definitely may be either damaging or healing.

But I have for a long time understood our human problem to be wounds ('hurt people, hurt people') and not sin (although sin I think was originally about wounds or the separation from God and man that causes wounds), so that word/idea got changed too.  Speaking mainly in reference to NT ideas rather than BofM here, but Joseph Smith was soaked in Bible as his filter for engaging with the BofM and the revelatory experiences he was having.

Following Christ means we change the second half of that sentence: 'hurt people, bear and transform their pain so that they no longer hurt others and even return good upon evil'. It's a path and way of living, a choice we make. (No one does this by accident, only by fear and trembling on purpose. Otherwise we are subject to our trauma and paradigms that lead us to crucify as we were crucified.)

Edited by Maidservant
  • Like 3
Link to post
3 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I was fascinated to hear from Terryl Givens recent BYU address that the original BOM text had the word woundedness instead of blindness in 1 Ne 13:32.

Great catch by Givens because it really plays into the direction he's going with his theology. ie that the atonement is for healing and the primary reason for the restoration is a better understanding of Christ. The original text for 1 Ne 13:32.

32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that state of awful woundedness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that aabominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.

Woundedness as a result of misunderstanding of the nature of God and atonement. Pretty good.

Anyway, my question is how does this word woundedness relate to EModE and the translation time period estimation. Is this an older or newer term? Has Skousen/Karmack mentioned this change before?

In the JSP printer's manuscript https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/printers-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-august-1829-circa-january-1830/25, "woundedness" is crossed out and Note #76 suggests "wickedness" might be the reading.

The First Edition https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/37uses "woundedness" which Joseph evidently edited to 'blindness" for the 1837 edition.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I wonder why the Church doesn't change it back?

One could ask

Why was the change made in the first place?  Was it a transcription error or an error by the printer.  Or did Joseph Smith himself make the change.  If so why?

Is there any real meaning to be gained if a change was made?  Blindness and woundedness both seem to convey the same thing to me, although in slightly different ways.

 

I believe Joseph Smith made the change in the 1837 edition. Actually the phrase "state of awful woundedness" appears nowhere else in the Book of Mormon (or other scriptures), but the phrase "state of awful wickedness" appears four times in the Book of Mormon (Ether 4:5, Hel 4: 25, Hel 7:4,  3 Nep 6: 17)  and so it would make sense if the phrase were to read in that way instead. Could be it was meant to say wickedness but either was misread by Joseph Smith or the scribe heard it wrong. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Woundedness is a word that is still in contemporary use. It shows up in the early 1600s. It really comes at the beginning of Modern English and not as part of EModE.

EEBO: 1639, a1641, 1650; GOOG: 1751, 1829; doesn't turn up in ECCO currently.

Quote

Early Modern English . . is the stage of the English language from the beginning of the Tudor period to the English Interregnum and Restoration, or from the transition from Middle English, in the late 15th century, to the transition to Modern English, in the mid-to-late 17th century.

image.png.f02db16a6da259be7e2e662f0f336664.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 11/20/2019 at 5:35 AM, churchistrue said:

........................................ the original BOM text had the word woundedness instead of blindness in 1 Ne 13:32.............................[RLDS 1 Ne 3:179]

32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that state of awful woundedness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that aabominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.

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

The Original and Printer's Manuscripts and 1830 edition read "woundedness," and this is followed by my 1984 FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text, and the 1999 Restored Covenant Edition (Zarahemla Research Foundation/Shirley Heater).  The Printer's MS has a correction to ""blindness," which is followed by the 1837 thru 1981 editions, and the RLDS 1908 edition.  Royal Skousen's 2009 Yale edition has "wickedness."

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1
Link to post

There are some differences between the 3 words. (duh ) One usually is not considered wicked from birth. Being wounded from birth happens but rarely. Being blind from birth happens more rarely now than in the past. Wickedness normally assumes personal choice. Woundedness most often comes from external forces. Blindness is not a choice unless one talks about wilful ' blindness ' as in " none so blind as those who WILL NOT see " . Personally, one of these words is not like the others and that word is woundedness. 

Link to post

In his ATV entry, Skousen points out that

Quote

the demonstrative that (“in that state of awful . . .”) refers the reader back to an already mentioned state of the Gentiles, namely:

1 Nephi 13:29
    and because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb
    an exceeding great many do stumble
    yea insomuch that Satan hath great power over them

The last clause in verse 29 describes a state of wickedness, although it doesn’t explicitly say so. The
passage refers to people stumbling, as if in darkness, which might have been the reason Joseph
Smith later edited the word woundedness to blindness in verse 32. The word woundedness did not
seem right.
    Textually there is clear evidence linking spiritual blindness with wickedness. In fact, one of
the passages that refer to a “state of wickedness” makes this connection:

Ether 4:15
    behold when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief
    which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness
    and hardness of heart and blindness of mind . . .

Thus the earlier reference in 1 Nephi 13:29 can be considered a state of wickedness.

The linkages are certainly reasonable, making wickedness as likely a reading as woundedness, which is visually similar. It might have been a misreading by JS during the dictation — that is, he saw wickedness but said woundedness. If woundedness is the correct reading, there are three instances supporting an early modern view of it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
17 hours ago, ksfisher said:

One could ask

Why was the change made in the first place?  Was it a transcription error or an error by the printer.  Or did Joseph Smith himself make the change.  If so why?

Is there any real meaning to be gained if a change was made?  Blindness and woundedness both seem to convey the same thing to me, although in slightly different ways.

 

Blindness actually makes a bit more sense to me in the context of the discussion about the deceitful and nefarious actions by the great and abominable church. Without a greater understanding of what happened with the text, I’d favor leaving it as it is. 

Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is the meaning or idiomatic context of EModE "woundedness"?

This author died in 1640:

(1647, A41120 | pages 193–194)
THE Soveraigne Vertue OF THE GOSPEL.
PSAL. 147. 3. “He healeth them that are broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.”
HEre are two things con⸗tained in this Text: the Patients, and the Phyſiti⸗an.
Firſt, the Patients; the broken in heart.
Secondly, the Phyſitian, Chriſt, it is he that healeth and bindeth up their wounds.
The Patients here are felt and diſcerned to have two wounds or maladies; Firſt, brokenneſſe in heart; Secondly, wound⸗edneſſe: He binds up ſuch.

  • Like 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Blindness actually makes a bit more sense to me in the context of the discussion about the deceitful and nefarious actions by the great and abominable church. Without a greater understanding of what happened with the text, I’d favor leaving it as it is. 

This raises an interesting question. Do we privilege Joseph Smith's 1837 edits above the other possibilities?

Textually blindness is the least likely of the three. Awful state variants collocate with wickedness. And woundedness is in O.

We know that JS made mistakes in his 1837 editing. He didn't have formal training for such a difficult endeavor (although he was much more prepared for it in the late 1830s than he was in 1829). And of course he didn't have the text on a computer to analyze internal tendencies thoroughly and systematically.

But, if you think it was his text, that he worded it, then it makes sense to maintain his edits, even though he occasionally made errors in his editing, worsening his original dictation.

If it wasn't his text, then it doesn't make sense to maintain this edit. One of the other two possibilities is the better choice.

There is a large amount of syntactic and lexical evidence supporting the position that it wasn't Joseph's text.

Nevertheless, there are many Latter-day Saint scholars who want the text to be his, for various reasons, and no amount of hard linguistic evidence will change their minds.

Edited by champatsch
  • Like 4
Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is the meaning or idiomatic context of EModE "woundedness"?

1639:

Quote

Satan falling in with the bruisings and sores of mens soules, and bringing in the fret∣ting gall of hell, and powring forth the sharpest vinegar of most violent objections, the soule tortured and the wound enlarged, and conscience over∣charged; Satan now tells the sinner of the impossibility of mercy, and uncapablenesse of the bloud of Christ, hee now followeth him with strange endictments, represen∣tations, and conclusions, yea and arguments of insincerity and hypocrisie, and this adds to the weight and maketh the burden intollerable; there is no such trouble as to be daily troubled with the divell.

Having thus opened the wound unto you, and its burden, I shall fall upon the Applicati∣on of both, in this manner:

First, bee wise to know the woundednesse of your spirits, and to consider what is your condition thereby. I presse you to this the rather upon these grounds,

[Vse 1] 1. Because a multitude of men are under searednesse and senslesnesse of conscience, 2 Tim. 4. 2. they are dead and* sleepie, their spirits never moove or work within them, and let mee tell you, that a wounded spirit is infinitely be∣yond a dead spirit; a troubled conscience is a mercy in respect of a seared conscience;

1650:

Quote

5. And a fift ill tenderness there is of the Conscience all awakened, but such as cannot take any rest more, Psal. 77. 2, 3, 4. My sore ran all night, and ceased not; my soul refused comfort, I complained and my spirit was over∣whelmed: Thou holdest mine eyes waking: I am so troubled that I cannot speak. So the like Psal. 51. 3. My sin is ever before me. Psal. 38. 17. I am ready to halt, and my sorrow is continually before me. This is a sad and painful, if not sometimes also a sinful tenderness, when the soul sees nothing but sin, guilt, and miserie in it self; nothing but anger, wrath, and frownes in God, and no hopes of Re∣demption by Christ, or of recoverie by the Spirit of Grace. This is a sad Tenderness, or Soreness, or Bruisedness, or woundedness of Spirit, through too much sensibleness of sin tending apace towards fearfull distrust of God, and despair of mercy. This poor soul is as a man who hath all his bones bro∣ken, and all his members dislocated, and out of Order, his heart melting like wax in his belly,* his spirit even failing, nor can he turn him∣self in his bed without pain. A tendernesse this is, but from disease, not soundnesse.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
On 11/20/2019 at 7:35 AM, churchistrue said:

I was fascinated to hear from Terryl Givens recent BYU address that the original BOM text had the word woundedness instead of blindness in 1 Ne 13:32.

Great catch by Givens because it really plays into the direction he's going with his theology. ie that the atonement is for healing and the primary reason for the restoration is a better understanding of Christ. The original text for 1 Ne 13:32.

32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that state of awful woundedness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that aabominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.

Woundedness as a result of misunderstanding of the nature of God and atonement. Pretty good.

Anyway, my question is how does this word woundedness relate to EModE and the translation time period estimation. Is this an older or newer term? Has Skousen/Karmack mentioned this change before?

 

 

 

A "state of awful blindness" makes no sense.  You're blind or you're not.

A "state of awful wickedness" is also nonsensical; how would a state of wickedness be anything but awful?

A "state of awful woundedness" is the most logical.  You can have mild wounds, ugly wounds, awful wounds, etc.

However, as a gentile, I'm actually flattered that there's so much interest in correctly describing our state under the teachings of that abominable church. 

Personally, I vote for "wickedness" :)

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/24/2019 at 2:39 PM, Gervin said:

A "state of awful blindness" makes no sense.  You're blind or you're not.

 

This is not correct. There can be degrees of blindness or partial blindness, as implied in the definition from this website.

Quote

The word blindness is used for complete or nearly complete vision loss, which is not correctable by standard glasses, contact lenses, or medicine. Common causes of blindness are macular degeneration, infections of the cornea or retina, glaucoma, traumatic injuries, diabetes, etc. The treatment and prognosis for blindness is dependent on its cause.

Back to you:

Quote

A "state of awful wickedness" is also nonsensical; how would a state of wickedness be anything but awful?

 

An online dictionary definition of "awful" says the word is "used to emphasize the extent of something, especially something unpleasant or negative."

While wickedness is never a positive thing, this definition implies that there can be degrees of wickedness or that some states of wickedness could reasonably  be viewed as more extensive than others. 

Quote

A "state of awful woundedness" is the most logical.  You can have mild wounds, ugly wounds, awful wounds, etc.

 

Likewise, you can have mild wickedness, ugly wickednes, awful wickedness, etc. Or a person could be partially blind, legally blind totally blind, etc. Your dichotomy does not work.

Quote

However, as a gentile, I'm actually flattered that there's so much interest in correctly describing our state under the teachings of that abominable church. 

I believe you are  misconstruing scripture and concepts such as "great and abominable Church.” To be charitable, I will assume you are doing it ignorantly rather than deliberately.

The term "gentile," as used in scripture, means "nations," or those who are not of the covenant people of God. It is not a pejorative, as any gentile can, by coming unto Christ and accepting His restored gospel, become one of the covenant people of God.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
On 11/20/2019 at 7:35 AM, churchistrue said:

I was fascinated to hear from Terryl Givens recent BYU address that the original BOM text had the word woundedness instead of blindness in 1 Ne 13:32.

Great catch by Givens because it really plays into the direction he's going with his theology. ie that the atonement is for healing and the primary reason for the restoration is a better understanding of Christ. The original text for 1 Ne 13:32.

32 Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that state of awful woundedness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that aabominable church, whose formation thou hast seen.

Woundedness as a result of misunderstanding of the nature of God and atonement. Pretty good.

Anyway, my question is how does this word woundedness relate to EModE and the translation time period estimation. Is this an older or newer term? Has Skousen/Karmack mentioned this change before?

 

 

 

when you click "abominable" above, it takes you to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  pointing this out as a courtesy :) 

Link to post

FWIW, “woundedness” does not appear in the Webster’s 1828 dictionary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, Gervin said:

when you click "abominable" above, it takes you to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  pointing this out as a courtesy :)

It actually takes you to the home page of the Church's website, which is where the digital version of the scriptures, from which this passage was cut-and-pasted, is located. Any hypertext link from that location, cut and pasted here, would probably likewise take you to the website home page.  If you go there and find the link in its original location, it takes you to a Topical Guide entry, "Devil, Church of", undoubtedly the actual intent of the link. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
  • 9 months later...
On 11/24/2019 at 3:39 PM, Gervin said:

A "state of awful blindness" makes no sense.  You're blind or you're not.

A "state of awful wickedness" is also nonsensical; how would a state of wickedness be anything but awful?

A "state of awful woundedness" is the most logical.  You can have mild wounds, ugly wounds, awful wounds, etc.

However, as a gentile, I'm actually flattered that there's so much interest in correctly describing our state under the teachings of that abominable church. 

Personally, I vote for "wickedness" :)

I think "state of awful blindness" is not intended to convey a degree of blindness, but rather to describe the effect of blindness. The blindness is considered "awful" because they are unable to see the truth.

That being said, "woundedness" makes good textual sense to me. I'm curious as to why Skousen thinks "wickedness" is meant here. He is usually working towards the earliest text, which seems to be "woundedness" here. (The footnote in Grant Hardy's Maxwell Institute Study Edition indicates that the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts have "woundedness.")

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 11/24/2019 at 2:39 PM, Gervin said:

A "state of awful blindness" makes no sense.  You're blind or you're not.

A "state of awful wickedness" is also nonsensical; how would a state of wickedness be anything but awful?

A "state of awful woundedness" is the most logical.  You can have mild wounds, ugly wounds, awful wounds, etc.

However, as a gentile, I'm actually flattered that there's so much interest in correctly describing our state under the teachings of that abominable church. 

Personally, I vote for "wickedness" :)

I think that awful blindness makes sense, if you consider that the author could be saying that it is awful to be blind in such a way.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...