Jump to content

Emode as Proof Js Did Not Write Bom


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think you misunderstand. Acceptance of the EModE data doesn't necessarily mean that Joseph was using a physical EModE manuscript for his dictation. I personally think Joseph translated the text in the manner reported by the witnesses. I just accept the fact that the text that was revealed to him had pockets of systematic EModE features in it. 

Also, Carmack does indeed have the expertise to make his argument. He is probably the most qualified person in the world to comment on such matters because he has both the formal linguistic background and training, and also because and has spent years of applying that expertise to this specific situation. 

Don't confuse the Brethren Skousen and Carmack, respectively.  ;)  (I'm not denigrating the latter's credentials, expertise, or ability; I'm simply pointing out that while the former, by training, is a linguist, the latter is not.)

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Do you understand that IF Dr. Carmack had the expertise to make his argument, there'd be peer support for it?  Peer support and expertise go hand-in-hand, at least from that required in a court of law.  I suppose one could accept voodoo expertise, and that is what Dr. Carmack's work appears to be, but I don't.

You haven't given evidence that you understand the linguistic issues very well. I don't expect expertise, but a little more than "Spake appears about 40 times in Shakespeare". That suggests that you might not have a good grasp of the subject matter.

The comparative data will probably appear in journals at some point. I guess you can wait till then to make up your mind.

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

I agree that we should have fair and representative statistics.  You are alleging that Carmack has not done due diligence.  You (or someone you cite) should be prepared to make that actual case.

Carmack has basically confirmed what I thought. These are his main sources:

  • EEBO-TCP (15th-16th c.) Phase 1 has 25,368 texts transcribed
  • EEBO-TCP (15th-16th c.) Phase 2 has 34,963 texts transcribed
  • ECCO-TCP (18th c.) has around 3,000 texts transcribed (Carmack says he has recently added the full 180,000 title collection to his set of personal databases) 
  • Carmack's WordCruncher database of Evans (mostly 18th c.) "contains about 5,000 of the 40,000 titles available in the online Evans Early American Imprints collection." Only 2 titles date after 1800. 

Carmack says he has also checked Google Books and Shaw-Shoemaker. As Carmack himself has pointed out, Google Books does not offer a representative sample of early 19th-century writing. It doesn't include any journals or periodicals, for example, and omits books with poor OCR quality. Shaw-Shoemaker "contains virtually every book, pamphlet and broadside published in America during the first decades of the 19th century" but Carmack say he has only "limited access" to that database, which I guess explains why he hasn't used it much (at all?). He appears not have checked any databases of early American newspapers — by far the largest repository of early 19th-century writing. As far as I can see from his articles, the main Joseph Smith-era sources he works with are "25 pseudobiblical texts and counting."

Edited by Nevo
  • Like 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Your observations here, though interesting, aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't/won't care one bit about these things, if they don't interest them and fit into their current worldview. I showed many things to a globally well-known linguist that I had briefly worked with 20 years earlier. He knew nothing about the Book of Mormon. He told me he thought it had a lot of Early Modern English in it. It didn't affect him beyond that mere observation in any way. He wasn't an anti-Mormon, so he didn't deny the presence of extrabiblical archaism, but he wasn't interested in exploring it further.

I've performed stylometric analyses as part of my work, syntactostylistics, with more than 200,000 texts.

OK.  Peer support please.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

Don't confuse the Brethren Skousen and Carmack, respectively.  ;)  (I'm not denigrating the latter's credentials, expertise, or ability; I'm simply pointing out that while the former, by training, is a linguist, the latter is not.)

"Linguist": a person who studies linguistics

"Linguistics": the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, historical-comparative linguistics, and applied linguistics.

Stanford Carmack's bio from Interpreter: "Stanford Carmack has a linguistics and a law degree from Stanford University as well as a doctorate in Hispanic Languages and Literature from the University of California, Santa Barbara, specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis. He currently researches Book of Mormon syntax and lexis as they relate to English usage and contributes to aspects of the Book of Mormon critical text project carried out by Royal Skousen."

Edited by Ryan Dahle
  • Like 2
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Carmack has basically confirmed what I thought. These are his main sources:

  • EEBO-TCP (15th-16th c.) Phase 1 has 25,368 texts transcribed
  • EEBO-TCP (15th-16th c.) Phase 2 has 34,963 texts transcribed
  • ECCO-TCP (18th c.) has around 3,000 texts transcribed (Carmack says he has recently added the full 180,000 title collection to his set of personal databases) 
  • Carmack's WordCruncher database of Evans (mostly 18th c.) "contains about 5,000 of the 40,000 titles available in the online Evans Early American Imprints collection." Only 2 titles date after 1800. 

Carmack says he has also checked Google Books and Shaw-Shoemaker. As Carmack himself has pointed out, Google Books does not offer a representative sample of early 19th-century writing. It doesn't include any journals or periodicals, for example. Shaw-Shoemaker "contains virtually every book, pamphlet and broadside published in America during the first decades of the 19th century" but Carmack say he has only "limited access" to that database, which I guess explains why he hasn't used it much. He appears not have checked any databases of early American newspapers — by far the largest repository of 19th-century writing. As far as I can see from his articles, the main 19th-century sources he works with are "25 pseudobiblical texts and counting."

I don't get Carmack's use of sources.   "Hath smote," for example, is contained in lots of 19th Century poetry.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Don't confuse the Brethren Skousen and Carmack, respectively.  ;)  (I'm not denigrating the latter's credentials, expertise, or ability; I'm simply pointing out that while the former, by training, is a linguist, the latter is not.)

I sometimes work in collaboration with Skousen and I have various degrees, one in linguistics from Stanford (also a law degree), another in Spanish, and another in Hispanic Languages and Literature (doctorate), specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis (Old Catalan, Old Spanish). I began intensive computational studies of language in 1991, pausing between 1999 and 2012, and then resuming in 2013.

  • Like 3
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

"Linguist": a person who studies linguistics

"Linguistics": the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, historical-comparative linguistics, and applied linguistics.

Stanford Carmack's bio from Interpreter: "Stanford Carmack has a linguistics and a law degree from Stanford University as well as a doctorate in Hispanic Languages and Literature from the University of California, Santa Barbara, specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis. He currently researches Book of Mormon syntax and lexis as they relate to English usage and contributes to aspects of the Book of Mormon critical text project carried out by Royal Skousen."

I just don't see his expertise.  I would expect a doctorate in middle English literature, like a woman I used to employ as a lawyer who was an expert in Beowulf. 

Link to post
18 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Carmack says he has recently added the full 180,000 title collection to his set of personal databases

Please don't misrepresent. As I just said, I've been looking at this entire database (ECCO, which is riddled with OCR errors) for several years. Now I have at my command 195,000 precisely searchable ECCO texts (large amount of duplication) as two extremely large WordCruncher ebooks.

Also, I've been looking at Google Books for years, into the 1800s.

Edited by champatsch
  • Like 1
Link to post
Just now, Bob Crockett said:

I just don't see his expertise.  I would expect a doctorate in middle English literature, like a woman I used to employ as a lawyer who was an expert in Beowulf. 

First of all, the Book of Mormon features we are talking about are primarily from the Early Modern period, not "Middle English" or "Olde English" as you keep bringing up. 

Second of all, his formal training in historical syntax is exactly the type of background that lends itself well to a study of the Book of Mormon's syntax. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
3 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Please don't misrepresent. As I just said, I've been looking at this entire database (ECCO, which is riddled with OCR errors) for several years. Now I have at my command 195,000 precisely searchable ECCO texts (large amount of duplication) as two extremely large WordCruncher ebooks.

Didn't mean to misrepresent. I'm not disputing that you've looked at a lot of 18th century English literature.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I just don't see his expertise.  I would expect a doctorate in middle English literature, like a woman I used to employ as a lawyer who was an expert in Beowulf. 

The best doctorate would be in early modern English linguistics, but there are many people who work and publish in the field without such a doctorate. Of course I worked for years with texts of the same vintage as late ME and EModE in languages that I didn't understand as well as I do English.

Let's see, by this logic my wife, who studied to be a vet in the German language in Bern CH, speaking Swiss German in her day-to-day life at the time, isn't trustworthy as a vet working in the United States in the English language. Oh wait, she's done just that in several different states and localities and has even taught anatomy in English.

Edited by champatsch
Link to post

Stylometric scans of 195,000 ECCO texts showed that the Book of Mormon's PRP and clausal complementation patterns died out. I found no matching texts in ECCO, except for reprinted early modern texts.

Furthermore, JS's early writings show starkly different linguistic preferences in a number of domains.

  • Like 2
Link to post
13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Grant Hardy, who does not agree with Carmack & Skousen on this, would have been a far better choice.

 

I thought Grant Hardy was mostly aligned with Carmack/Skousen. No?

Link to post
35 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I just don't see his expertise.  I would expect a doctorate in middle English literature, like a woman I used to employ as a lawyer who was an expert in Beowulf. 

The correspondence with (or presence of) Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon was an unexpected discovery.  Why would you expect someone who makes an unexpected discovery necessarily to have a degree in a discipline that's related to the discovery?  It seems to me that that would rather be like dismissing the preliminary finding of an emergency physician that one has a cardiac problem simply because said physician isn't a cardiologist (yes, it's true that potentially, my analogy is a life-and-death matter, while the matters under discussion here are not, but still ...).  It's too bad that Brigham Young University doesn't have anyone on the faculty with an advanced degree in Early Modern English Lit (or that there's no one elsewhere with a degree in that discipline) who can take a look at the findings of the Messrs. Carmack and Skousen.

Oh. :huh:

Wait ... :unknw:

P.S. Should we dismiss your research into Mountain Meadows simply because you're not an historian?

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 1
Link to post
24 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The best doctorate would be in early modern English linguistics, but there are many people who work and publish in the field without such a doctorate. Of course I worked for years with texts of the same vintage as late ME and EModE in languages that I didn't understand as well as I do English.

Meh!  They're all hacks, I'm sure! :rolleyes:

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

I thought the point was that Joseph need  not be consciously using any types of phrases he had learnt through dictating and reading the BofM.  If familiarity with some phrase here or there led to its reuse by Joseph, why would that tell us anything about intentionality?  Particularly if it was hit and miss and not systematic.

It's hit or miss in the BoM and not systemic. EmodE is not the dominant voice here. If it were you wouldn't have to tease it out of the text or find comparative occurrances.

Link to post
40 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I sometimes work in collaboration with Skousen and I have various degrees, one in linguistics from Stanford (also a law degree), another in Spanish, and another in Hispanic Languages and Literature (doctorate), specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis (Old Catalan, Old Spanish). I began intensive computational studies of language in 1991, pausing between 1999 and 2012, and then resuming in 2013.

¡Podemos platicar, entonces, en el idioma celestial!

;):D

Link to post
34 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The best doctorate would be in early modern English linguistics, but there are many people who work and publish in the field without such a doctorate. Of course I worked for years with texts of the same vintage as late ME and EModE in languages that I didn't understand as well as I do English.

Let's see, by this logic my wife, who studied to be a vet in the German language in Bern CH, speaking Swiss German in her day-to-day life at the time, isn't trustworthy as a vet working in the United States in the English language. Oh wait, she's done just that in several different states and localities and has even taught anatomy in English.

Once again we are entertained with an argument for the exception.  

Link to post
49 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I sometimes work in collaboration with Skousen and I have various degrees, one in linguistics from Stanford (also a law degree), another in Spanish, and another in Hispanic Languages and Literature (doctorate), specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis (Old Catalan, Old Spanish). I began intensive computational studies of language in 1991, pausing between 1999 and 2012, and then resuming in 2013.

¡Me equivoque!  ¡Mil perdones!

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The correspondence with (or presence of) Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon was an unexpected discovery.  Why would you expect someone who makes an unexpected discovery necessarily to have a degree in a discipline that's related to the discovery?  It seems to me that that would rather be like dismissing the preliminary finding of an emergency physician that one has a cardiac problem simply because said physician isn't a cardiologist (yes, it's true that potentially, my analogy is a life-and-death matter, while the matters under discussion here are not, but still ...).  It's too bad that Brigham Young University doesn't have anyone on the faculty with an advanced degree in Early Modern English Lit (or that there's no one elsewhere with a degree in that discipline) who can take a look at the findings of the Messrs. Carmack and Skousen.

Oh. :huh:

Wait ... :unknw:

P.S. Should we dismiss your research into Mountain Meadows simply because you're not an historian?

My review of Bagley's work was a review, not a paper or a thesis. I stated on the first page of my article that I lacked credentials.

Any peer support for Carmack?  Once again, we are entertained with an argument for the exception.

Link to post
51 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I sometimes work in collaboration with Skousen and I have various degrees, one in linguistics from Stanford (also a law degree), another in Spanish, and another in Hispanic Languages and Literature (doctorate), specializing in historical syntax and textual analysis (Old Catalan, Old Spanish). I began intensive computational studies of language in 1991, pausing between 1999 and 2012, and then resuming in 2013.

Once again, I must point out that you could easily be pulling all our legs.  You're anonymous and you are entitled to zero credibility.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post

We have evidence that Smith and Cowdery used these archaic forms outside of the BoM when attempting to sound biblical.

We have the vast, vast majority of evidence in multiple fields clearly contradicting the notion Nephites were a real people rather than a fictional group invented in the 19th c. for the BoM narrative. The overwhelming majority of people who are even vaguely aware of the existence of the BoM don't think twice about it having been authored in the 19th c. by Smith such that this idea the English version of it was actually penned before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock would be most commonly met with a polite, "Ok, sure" and an eye roll.

Attempts to ground the BoM in actual evidence require appropriating either Mesoamerican or North American native culture and reassigning it to an unattested Middle Eastern Hebrew migration.

The theological content of the BoM is saturated in 19th c. Christianity, including pre-Mormon theology such that the original BoM before the 1837 edits even contradicts distinctly Mormon theological views about the godhead, polygamy, and lacks any of the markets of modern Mormonism as well as any native American religions of the period it claims to represent.

There is practically no reason to assume the BoM is anything but a product of the 19th c.

Dropping into this thread, it's interesting that this discussion arguing for an unknown and clearly deceased participant in the BoM chain of authorship is treated like it's the only explanation available. Its a satirical comedy of errors at best.

Link to post
34 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't get Carmack's use of sources.   "Hath smote," for example, is contained in lots of 19th Century poetry.

In late 2013, I began to look at Book of Mormon grammar for the first time. One thing I noticed early on was the {-th} plural of the Book of Mormon, which I also found in the OED. (I didn't have good databases to turn to like I do now.) I also saw "bad grammar" matches in the OED involving language like "had (been) smote". "«Have» . . smote" language was more persistent in English than "«have» . . spake", although the latter did persist, becoming fairly rare, textually speaking. Because of persistence, "«have» . . smote" doesn't tell us anything definitive about the vintage of the Book of Mormon's language, but it's not out of place in an early modern text.

Yet even in the case of the persistent "had/hath/have smote", we find combinations of archaism in the Book of Mormon that are more strongly linked with much earlier usage, such as the following:

Quote

“after that the Lord had smote the river” (Exodus 7:25) [Tyndale 1530]

“after that I had smote off his head” (1 Nephi 4:19)

In these there is a combination of "after that S" and "had smote" language. Maybe you can find this in the 1800s. I haven't looked.
 

We can look at many related things, and there are nuances and complexities in each one. For example, the Book of Mormon has five instances of "«have» became", like these three:

Quote

2 Nephi 2:18         And because that he had fallen from heaven and had became miserable forever,  [with "because that S"]

Omni 1:17             And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had became exceeding numerous.

Alma 42:3             now we see that the man had became as God, knowing good and evil,

We can find this in the 17c but mainly in the 18c and beyond, often in noncolloquial 18c writings. What do we find in JS's early writings? He used past-tense become three times, as we can hear today in some American dialects (esp. past-tense come) and past-tense became four times. (Split usage, impossible to know if some instances were self-monitored.) And he used become as a past participle four times, but not became. It looks like he preferred become as a past participle, not became. At least from his early writings, we don't have evidence of the Book of Mormon's "«have» became", which fits noncolloquial earlier usage, and in this case isn't characteristically an early modern usage, though it does occur at the end of the period occasionally, and 2n0218 also has "because that S", which is characteristically early modern.

Link to post
Just now, Bob Crockett said:

Once again we are entertained with an argument for the exception.  

Actually, I'm guessing that any perusal of an academic journal will demonstrate that many of their peer-reviewed publications involve topics that are slightly outside of the author's specific academic degrees, but are still within the main field of the author's expertise.

I've never looked into it, but in many ways, I suspect this is actually more of the rule than the exception. Most scholars develop new interests and skills that goes beyond the niches of their formal academic training, especially in areas like linguistics, where a formal knowledge of linguistic principles (such as syntax) can easily directed towards a variety of areas. I don't see any reason that Carmack's formal training doesn't make him exceptionally qualified to evaluate the Book of Mormon's linguistic patterns. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Fair Dinkum
      In 3 Nephi 22:9 we read of Jesus speaking to the surviving populations in the America's upon His appearance in America.  While most of his comments are merely a duplication of his ministry in the Holy Land one bizarre remark stands out in that it confirms the reality of the Universal Flood Myth.
      Why does Jesus mislead His Nephite audience by propagating the flood myth? 
    • By Metis_LDS
      I am not a conspiracy kind of person.  I had a thought the other day that if you really believe the Book of Mormon you cannot state the following:                    All conspiracy theories are false.
    • By Fair Dinkum
      Believers often pose the question, if not from God then how?  How could an uneducated farm boy produce this book on his own without God's hand?  This new book provides an answer to that question.
      Quoted liberally from his Amazon reviews: In a fascinating new book Dr. William L. Davis draws on performance studies, religious studies, literary culture and the history of early American education, Davis analyzes Smith's process of oral composition. Davis provides a plausible alternative explanation for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon from the official narrative.  He explains how Smith was able to produce a history spanning a period of a 1,000 years, filled with hundreds of distinct characters and episodes, all cohesively tied together in an overarching narrative.
      Eyewitnesses claimed that Smith never looked at notes, manuscripts or books, that he simply spoke words of this American religious epic into existence by looking at a Seer Stone.  Davis shows how this long held assumption is not true, that Smith had abundant time between looking at his seer stone to produce his story line and to think through his plot and narrative.
      If you approach this book without a preconceived axe to grind, you will find solid research explaining how the oral sermon culture of the 19th century either crept into the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated it (from a believer's perspective) or explains how Joseph could have constructed the narrative himself (from a skeptic's). Davis does not take sides and leaves room for both believing and skeptical perspectives.
      Judging the truth of the books claims is not Davis's interest. Rather, he reveals a kaleidoscope of practices and styles that converged around Smith's creation with an emphasis on the evangelical preaching styles popularized by renowned preachers George Whitefield and John Wesley. He allows for the believer to maintain a faithful view of the book.
      In Visions in a Seer Stone, Davis adroitly restores for the modern reader aspects of the now-forgotten sermon culture of Joseph Smith’s 19th-century, burnt over district, world and the well-established rhetorical performance techniques of its preachers. Davis then demonstrates that this oratorical praxis—in which Joseph Smith himself was a participant—illuminates not only Smith’s production of the Book of Mormon as a dictated performance bearing the indicia of these sermon preparation and delivery techniques, but it also illuminates the very text of this LDS scripture itself, both its narrative events and sermon contents.

      Davis details how numerous Book of Mormon narrative features—headings, outlines or summaries, some visible in italics and many others less visible in the text—are not mere textual devices for the reader, but were effective 19th-century sermon performance tools Smith could use to keep track of and produce the narrative as he dictated it. Davis produces an exhaustive list of ministers who wrote about sermon delivery techniques using such headings or outlines—“laying down heads”— with all of them substantially in agreement, having borrowed from each other and from bible dictionaries, such as Adam Clarke's bible commentaries and other sermon manuals, as well as from “Heathen Moralists” such as Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers, rhetoricians and writers from antiquity (see in particular on pp. 42 and 71 as to Bishop John Wilkins and the sources he used as well as his primary techniques to assist the preacher to speak from memory and which enable the congregation to understand “with greater ease and profit, when they are before-hand acquainted with the general heads of matters that are discoursed of”.) Smith incorporated these same rhetorical techniques into his Book of Mormon

      Davis shows that The Book of Mormon narrative contains many examples of its characters also using these oratorical techniques, the most visible formulation of which is found in Jacob 1:4 in which Nephi gives Jacob very explicit instructions on preaching that (other than his references to “plates”) could easily have been inserted into the pages of a 19th-century sermon composition manual: “if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I [Jacob] should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible” (see p. 91). The term Heads while not a familiar to the modern reader would have been quickly recognized by an early 19th century reader as familiar terminology used by the religious orator as topical notes highlighting important points to touch upon in the sermon.

      Although not an active Latter-day Saint himself, Davis writes generously for those still in the fold, providing room for Latter-day Saints to retain their faith in this book of LDS scripture while incorporating Davis’s new findings into a still orthodox understanding of inspired translation as described in LDS scripture, in Doctrine & Covenants 9:7-10. However, as shown by Avid Reader’s Amazon review of this book, apparently not all apologists will be satisfied with this option.

      One reviewer complained that— headings, outlines and summaries have been used for centuries by historians and other ancient writers, including Josephus and Aristotle, and that they would have been available somehow to the Book of Mormon’s ancient authors—is interesting since it actually supports Davis’s thesis. Take the preachers who wrote about the oratorical techniques described by Davis. They themselves, in formulating and promoting these 19th-century techniques, had access to and were informed by these very authors noted a reviewer. (see the note about Bishop Wilkins above, not to mention the pseudo-archaic book genre in 19th-century America that borrowed them as well)! Yet these ancient authors noted by siad reader (both living in Greco-Roman times) are not ancient enough to have informed the Book of Mormon’s purported ancient authors who themselves left Israel before the Babylonian exile, a time when outlines, headings and summaries are not known among ancient scribes and authors (and even LDS apologists now recognize that ancient scribal colophons are not the same thing—see Davis, p. 126).

       
      Davis has identified tell-tale signs within the Book of Mormon that give hints of Smith processes.  He also offers historical reference to Smith's becoming a trained Methodist orator.
      This sounds like a very interesting book and I'm wondering if anyone here has read it and would share your thoughts.
      <-------- Not King Benjamin

    • 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.
       
×
×
  • Create New...