Jump to content

Emode as Proof Js Did Not Write Bom


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

But the BOM is untidy, messy, and there are loose ends everywhere. Why? Because it is not fiction"

Also proof that it was an abridgement that was taken from many other records. If we had all the records it might not seem so messy with loose ends.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

“So someone from 200 years ago, in the English speaking world, wrote the BOM, and somehow this manuscript landed in the hands of Joseph Smith, who then connected it to a made up tale about an angel, gold plates, etc."

Sounds about right to me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
52 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Sounds about right to me.

It would!

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, bdouglas said:

“Fiction is not messy, it is tidy, organized. But the BOM is untidy, messy, and there are loose ends everywhere. Why? Because it is not fiction

In an effort to see how best to organize a novel I will probably never finish, I've been studying several published works in my chosen genre, and the idea of "no loose ends" has really come to the fore. Then again, there's the final season of Game of Thrones... which appears to have written by chemistry majors.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I can't explain the phenomenon that people describe as "UFOs", but that doesn't mean I'm logically compelled to believe they exist, or accept someone else's theory about what they are and where they came from. Unless they can provide evidence that supports their specific theory, of course.

The BOM will never be "logically" proven and no one will ever be "compelled" to believe it——not in this life, at least. God gives us enough to support belief, but not more. "My grace is sufficient for the meek," the scripture says.

Richard's blithe assertion that "Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon" is insupportable——this is what I was trying to show him.

That and the fact that there are no naturalistic BOM origin theories that make any sense. They require huge leaps of faith to accept——greater leaps of faith, in fact, than is required to believe the simple explanation JS gave.

It is more honest for one to say "I don't know where the BOM came from" than it is to say "Joseph Smith wrote it."

The point of my opening post is that the "Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon" theory is dead. If it wasn't dead before, it is dead now with EModE findings.

Edited by bdouglas
  • Like 2
Link to post
3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Uh, that's what I said. It is most honest to say that we don't know where the BoM came from. Unfortunately, that doesn't help the believers' case.

I would also be wary of being overconfident in the "EModE findings" and what they mean. I don't know how long you've been in the apologetics game, but things like that have a way of circling back and biting you in the behind.

What does EModE stand for?

Link to post
3 hours ago, cinepro said:

I can't explain the phenomenon that people describe as "UFOs", but that doesn't mean I'm logically compelled to believe they exist, or accept someone else's theory about what they are and where they came from.

I went to a David Copperfield show that ended with a UFO being transported into the theater. I have no idea how he did that or any number of other things. I’ve searched online for explanations, and no one can provide the exact method of how he did the things he did. None the less I stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the straight forward “true” answer that it was magic. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
55 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Early Modern English. Shakespeare for example wrote in EModE. 

Thanks for the help! :)

Link to post
33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I went to a David Copperfield show that ended with a UFO being transported into the theater. I have no idea how he did that or any number of other things. I’ve searched online for explanations, and no one can provide the exact method of how he did the things he did. None the less I stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the straight forward “true” answer that it was magic. 

Copperfield spends a lot of money on stage magic equipment, and the business of sleight of hand and the like is a very old and honored profession.  The audiences all know that it is fake, but they love it anyhow.

Was that what Jesus and his companions did?  Was it just old fashioned legerdemain?  Or was it real  magic?

When Moses and Aaron threw down their staffs and they turned into snakes which swallowed the snakes of Pharaoh's magicians, was that just a fairy tale, or did it really happen?  When Moses raised up a bronze snake to heal the Israelites, was that true healing, or is that just another nonsense story?

Can we trust the performance of mentalists like Dan White, Darren Brown, David Blaine, Lior Suchard, and Oz Pearlman?

Daniel Engber, “Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real,” Slate, June 7, 2017, online at  https://getpocket.com/explore/item/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real?utm_source=pocket-newtab , yet the conclusion of that article is that one cannot be sure at all. 

  • Like 2
Link to post

There are hundreds of instances where Joseph Smith plagiarized portions of the Joseph Smith “Translation” of the Bible directly from Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary.

Couldn't he have done the same for the Book of Mormon by borrowing from a Bible: Early Modern English Bible translations are those translations of the Bible which were made between about 1500 and 1800, the period of Early Modern English

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Early Modern English. Shakespeare for example wrote in EModE. 

Is it our understanding that Shakespeare was on the committee that put together the KJV Bible?  This language was the high quality King's English that was not normally spoken by the public at large.  The publication of the KJV raised the level of everyday dialogue and caused greater unity in the English nation.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

There are hundreds of instances where Joseph Smith plagiarized portions of the Joseph Smith “Translation” of the Bible directly from Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary.

Couldn't he have done the same for the Book of Mormon by borrowing from a Bible: Early Modern English Bible translations are those translations of the Bible which were made between about 1500 and 1800, the period of Early Modern English

The occurrence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is not constrained to KJV-adjacent passages but undergirds the whole text. Joseph could have specifically analyzed the KJV and any other Early Modern texts which he could have been exposed to in order to alter his word choice, but I'll be honest, I think that's stretching it. These changes we're talking about are for the most part minutiae. The thesis that Joseph cribbed Early Modern English on purpose is also weakened by the fact that it was a dictation, which necessitates word choice on the fly. Even theories of dictation like Davis's, if I recall correctly, require Joseph to do extemporaneous dictation  on bullet points, since Joseph did not have eidetic memory. The case for specific premeditated EModE word choice is thus weakened. 

Furthermore, several prominent systemic features of EModE in the Book of Mormon belong to a class of linguistic tendencies which are subconscious - the writer typically does not choose them. Intentional EModE borrowing has a mighty hard time accounting for that. 

Also, FWIW, plagiarized is an inaccurate term since the JST was never finished and thus never published with the explanatory preface that accompanied every other one of Joseph Smith's scriptural productions. To say he plagiarized Clarke would be like taking uncredited prewriting notes for a master's thesis and calling them examples of plagiarism. 

Edit: Perhaps @champatsch could come lay down some law on this topic. 

Edited by OGHoosier
Added tag
  • Like 4
Link to post

The Book of Mormon, both in the text itself and in the manner of its coming forth, violates the KISS Principle repeatedly (including the pervasive presence of Early Modern English ... you're welcome, Tacenda! ;) ... therein).  While that fact, standing alone, proves nothing, certainly, it is curious.

Link to post
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

There are hundreds of instances where Joseph Smith plagiarized portions of the Joseph Smith “Translation” of the Bible directly from Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary.

Joseph and Sidney Rigdon were trying to make the KJV easier to understand, same as Alexander Campbell, Thomas Jefferson and others were doing in revising the KJV.  Using Adam Clarke was a very sensible thing to do, and I constantly use such learned volumes myself in helping clarify Scriptural texts.

Quote

Couldn't he have done the same for the Book of Mormon by borrowing from a Bible: Early Modern English Bible translations are those translations of the Bible which were made between about 1500 and 1800, the period of Early Modern English

No.  As it turns out the BofM uses types of EModE syntax which are not used in the KJV.  And even when it does use KJV syntax, it uses it at a very different rate than the KJV.  Carmack has published a long list of articles detailing how that works.  There are books from around 1540 which are closest to the BofM in style and syntax, but not Bibles.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 3
Link to post

The Book of Mormon isn't a delimited early modern text from a few identifiable authors or from one particular dialect. It's a filtered, mostly and selectively early modern text, leaving pseudobiblical writings far behind in matching early modern archaism.

Four important pervasive syntactic features are the personal relative pronoun pattern (mostly late 16c / very early 17c in character), heavy finite clausal complementation with early modern modal usage (most like 16c and earlier usage), non(pseudo)biblical subjunctive shall usage (syntactic subjunctive, not morphological) (most similar to 16c usage), and the early modern periphrastic past (mostly 16c in character, when the usage peaked). The latter, however, needs internal syntactic support (of which there is plenty), since Chronicles of Eri (1822) has similar usage, though its periphrastic past lags the Book of Mormon's in quality.

Link to post
17 hours ago, bdouglas said:

“So someone from 200 years ago, in the English speaking world, wrote the BOM, and somehow this manuscript landed in the hands of Joseph Smith, who then connected it to a made up tale about an angel, gold plates, etc."

 

That would be for you to explain not him.  Or are you saying God speaks in EModE?  DId God translate, Joseph translate, or some other random person do the actual translation?  The problem you are pushing Richard on is your problem.  If JOseph didn't do the translation as he claimed, then who did?  If God why would he use archaic language?  If you don't have an answer, then why do you think Richard should?  

Link to post
9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The occurrence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is not constrained to KJV-adjacent passages but undergirds the whole text. Joseph could have specifically analyzed the KJV and any other Early Modern texts which he could have been exposed to in order to alter his word choice, but I'll be honest, I think that's stretching it. These changes we're talking about are for the most part minutiae. The thesis that Joseph cribbed Early Modern English on purpose is also weakened by the fact that it was a dictation, which necessitates word choice on the fly. Even theories of dictation like Davis's, if I recall correctly, require Joseph to do extemporaneous dictation  on bullet points, since Joseph did not have eidetic memory. The case for specific premeditated EModE word choice is thus weakened. 

Furthermore, several prominent systemic features of EModE in the Book of Mormon belong to a class of linguistic tendencies which are subconscious - the writer typically does not choose them. Intentional EModE borrowing has a mighty hard time accounting for that. 

Also, FWIW, plagiarized is an inaccurate term since the JST was never finished and thus never published with the explanatory preface that accompanied every other one of Joseph Smith's scriptural productions. To say he plagiarized Clarke would be like taking uncredited prewriting notes for a master's thesis and calling them examples of plagiarism. 

Edit: Perhaps @champatsch could come lay down some law on this topic. 

Perhaps you're right, I "plagiarized" by c/p'd partially from an intro to a podcast about JS doing this. I don't have a decent ability for the written word some days. 

But why didn't JS admit to using Clarke's work, and making it look like it was his doing? No one knew, until it was discovered right? It would have been nice if JS admitted using the help.

Link to post

There are two major theories regarding the BoM's authorship. Either it came about through the gift and power of God, or it is a fictional story created in the 19th century. One of those is a singular event while the other is extremely commonplace.

Under these two main theories are countless subtheories intended to explain the details of the parent main theory. To my mind none of them on either side is so compelling it demands to be accepted as fact. I personally favor Smith and Cowdery having worked openly on it together with full knowledge of the Whitmers it was a project. The production work was mundane. Peep stones and top hats were props brought out when entertaining guests to sell the show. The theory has the advantage of explaining why the production rate of the BoM we have far exceeded the rate required to produce the 116 pages prior to Cowdery, and the dynamic between Joseph, David, John, and Oliver that we can see evolve through the expansion and divisions within the church up to the end of the Missouri period. Given the evidence from The Late War, it's not a major event to find people in 1829 attempting to mimic the KJV. Did their attempt end up being archaic? Seems much more probable to me than a ghost committee. But do I assume that is absolutely what happened? No. The evidence is too weak around any of these subtheories to feel that degree of probability is justified.

 

Now, as to the BoM being fiction written in the 19th century? That's vastly more likely than it being a miraculously obtained and recorded history of a lost people that happens to align with theological debate and thought about the Native Americans from the period it was published.

 

Richard doesn't need to be a "reader" to recognize when the direction of disinterested sciences and other fields are no where near supporting the BoM and moving further away all the time. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
19 hours ago, bdouglas said:

But it was all to no effect. Richard has never been a reader, and most of what I said––well, it just didn’t register with him.

19 hours ago, bdouglas said:

Long pause. I’d finally hit on something that Richard could grasp.

This whole dialogue with "Richard" is so contrived, I assume it's fiction. Or at least fictionalized. But the condescension part rings true.

 

  • Like 1
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Robert F. Smith
      A symposium on "EGYPT AND THE OLD TESTAMENT" will be held at the Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, Gabelsbergerstr. 35, Munich/München, Germany, on 6-7 Dec 2019.
      The proceedings will be published as ÄAT (AEGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT) volume 100.
      More on the symposium can be found at https://www.freunde-abrahams.de/aegypten-und-altes-testament/  .
      ÄAT's spectrum covers the philological, art historical, and archaeological branches of Egyptology, as well as Old Testament exegesis, the archaeology, glyptics and epigraphy of Israel/Palestine and neighboring regions such as Sinai and Transjordan, literature and history of religions, from the Bronze Ages up to Greco-Roman and early Christian periods, as well as relevant aspects of research history.
       
    • By Bernard Gui
      At the end of Alma 37, Alma gives his final instructions to his faithful young son Helaman. After encouraging him always to be obedient to God’s commandments and to pray to God continually, Alma uses the Liahona as an object lesson to teach Helaman how to obtain eternal life through following the words of Christ. Using analogy, Alma compares the Liahona, the temporal compass provided by God to Lehi, with the words of Christ, the spiritual guide provided to all by God. In this remarkable passage, Alma, like all good teachers, repeats this image three times, and like a good Nephite teacher, he uses a parallelism to increase the impact.
      Alma employs the alternate parallel form, one of the most common and effective forms of poetic parallelism in the Book of Mormon. It appears hundreds of times. An alternate consists of two or more lines that are repeated in parallel order. The simple alternate form is outlined ABAB. Extended alternates are outlined ABCABC, etc. 
       Alma uses three extended alternates in rapid sequence to instruct his son. 
       A   For behold, it is as easy to give heed to the word of Christ, 
          B   which will point to you 
              C   a straight course to eternal bliss, 
      A   as it was for our fathers to give heed to this compass, 
           B   which would point unto them 
               C   a straight course to the promised land.
      The A phrase compares the ease of heeding the words of Christ with the ease of looking at the Liahona. The B phrase describes the purpose of A which is to point the course. The C phrase declares the final destination of those who follow A, salvation and arrival at the promised land.
       A   For just as surely as this director did bring our fathers, 
         B   by following its course, 
             C   to the promised land, 
      A   shall the words of Christ, 
         B   if we follow their course,
             C  carry us beyond this vale of sorrow into a far better land of promise.
      The A phrase again compares the words of Christ with the Liahona, but in reversed order. The B phrase indicates what we should do with A – follow their directions, and the C phrase gives the destination of those who do B – the promised land and a far better place, eternal life. 
       A   for so was it with our fathers; 
         B    for so was it prepared for them,
            C   that if they would look they might live; 
      A   even so it is with us.
         B   The way is prepared, 
            C   and if we will look we may live forever.
      In this last alternate, Alma personalizes the analogies of the first two. The A phrase compares the Nephite fathers (Lehi and Nephi) with Alma and his son Helaman. The B phrase indicates that God prepared the ways of direction for all of them. The C phrase compares the physical salvation of the Nephite fathers by following the Liahona with the spiritual salvation promised to all of us who will look upon Christ.
      Alma concludes his instructions with another impassioned fatherly plea that his son rise to the greatness of his calling.
      This passage indicates deliberate logical planning on the part of Alma in giving crucial instructions to his son prior to his death. This is what Alma thought would be of most worth to his son - look to Christ. It gives us insight into the Nephite mind, especially that of a powerful and gifted leader. I am so grateful for the Book of Mormon and the beautiful intricacies that await in its pages for us to discover. (Thanks to Donald Parry for his marvelous edition of the Book of Mormon. Poetic Parallelism in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted. Maxwell Institute, 2007).
       Your comments are welcomed. 
       Here is the passage in context.
       
    • By Five Solas
      1. Read the Book of Mormon
      2.  Ask God
      3. With a sincere heart
      4. With real intent
      5. Having faith in Christ
      Failure is not an option, if you believe Moroni.  First, you must read.  Next, you must follow with prayer while meeting his remaining 3 prerequisites.  Then the truth of the Book of Mormon will be manifested to you.  Full stop.
      Therefore if the truth is not manifested, the reason is as plain as the nose on your face: One or more of the prerequisites were not met.  There is no alternate possibility.  "It’s very simple"—as President Trump is fond of saying in his press conferences.
      5 possible ways to fail, and only 5.  So here is a question:  With LDS Church growth stalling and 70+% of millennials going inactive/leaving the LDS Church by age 20 (courtesy of Mormonleaks), which of the 5 do you think represents the greatest challenge?  Or are they all equally challenging?  Or do you think it's some combination of them that present difficulty?
      And while we’re on the question, how exactly does one go about achieving the last three prerequisites?  Would any LDS seriously admonish an investigator to read the Bible first in order to attain “faith in Christ” prior to attempting the Book of Mormon?
      --Erik
      _____________________________________________
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
      --H.L. Mencken
    • By hope_for_things
      Where did the Book of Mormon come from.  I constantly hear this idea argued from both apologetic and critical sides.  All in an attempt to explain how Joseph could have produced the Book of Mormon.  Yet, when it comes right down to it, both sides should be able to agree on some pretty basic historical facts from the evidence.  
      Joseph Smith dictated the content of the BoM to some scribes Nearly everyone should be able to agree on that statement, and I think that really explains it in a nutshell.  I was thinking about other figures in history that are revered for things they produced.  Newton, Einstein, Beethoven, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc.  Do anyone else spend so much time asking where they came up with their masterpiece works?  Where did Einstein get that amazing theory of relativity?  Where did Michelangelo get that amazing statue of David.  How could they have possibly produced these things?  Where did they come from?  
      I think we spend so much time looking for evidence, trying to find parallels, seeking to understand where the BoM came from, that we are missing the answer right in front of our faces and we should all be able to agree on.  The BoM came from Joseph Smith.  This is the clear and straightforward answer that both believers and nonbelievers should be able to agree on, and its the simple answer to a highly debated question.  
    • By Robert F. Smith
      Annalee Newitz, “Most scientists now reject the idea that the first Americans came by land,” Ars Technica, Nov 4, 2017, online at https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/majority-of-scientists-now-agree-that-humans-came-to-the-americas-by-boat/ , with map,
      Todd J. Braje, et al., “Finding the first Americans,” Science, 358/6363 (3 Nov 2017):592-594, online at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/592 ,
      It now appears that coming to America by boat was normal even from earliest times.  There is no longer any reason to credit the Beringia Land Bridge hypothesis, except in a much later period.
×
×
  • Create New...