The Pure Language Project, Journal of Mormon History

[Calm]

Anyone else have access to the latest journal and this article?

MacKay, Michael, and Daniel Belnap. “The Pure Language Project.” Journal of Mormon History 49, no. 4 (2023): 1-44.

It sounds quite interesting, but I don’t know much about the KEP, etc. and would prefer to eavesdrop on others more informed discussing it. The basic premise is that they were trying to create a new pure language for the purpose of explaining concepts they didn’t have words for. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

It is going to take me some time to really digest this article. From the outset, I need to make it clear that I accept the premise that there is a connection between the ELD and the idea of a pure language. However, that is about as close as I get to these authors in their understanding of what was going on. Here are some basic thoughts I have on the subject (and if I get more time, I may do something a bit more detailed).

First - from the article:

Quote

The first column includes certain characters identifying a given ontological state, the second column is made up of “sounds” or phonetic designation for the character, while the third column appears to be the name of the ontological state associated with the character, and the final fourth column being the description or definition of the given ontological state. As to those states, they
are the same ontological categories presented in the 1832 document.

These are, of course, terms that Joseph wouldn't have (and didn't) used. When I look at this, it appears to me to be a series of conjugations. That is, in most languages (English included), you have words that are modified (most often with prefixes and suffixes) and the meaning changes. The authors of this paper suggest that this is an ontological meaning - but that seems to me to be more specific to the examples that get used and less descriptive of the process. They note among other things that:

Thus, for example, line one, column two contains the sound “ah,” with column three indicating that the ontological state is “ahman,” column four simply stating that this is “God,” just like “Awmen” in the 1832 letter. In like manner, the second line has “anz” as the phonetic designation, “son ahman” as the name of the ontological state, and “son of God” as the definition for this state. The third line is “aintz” (column 2), “sauns ahman” (column 3), and “sons of God or saints in [Zion?]”24 (column 4). The fourth line contains “aine” (column 2), “anglo” (column 3), and “angels” (column 4). The fifth line is “ainzes,” “sons ahman,” and “children of men,” respectively.

And also this:

Quote

As for the differences in vocalization, namely the use of two different medial vowel sounds, this appears to be an arbitrary assignation rather than a reflection of deeper import. Vowel manipulation will play a role in the ontology present with the Egyptian Alphabet.

There is something here that fascinates me a little bit - we could use the same description of vowel manipulation when we discuss Hebrew conjugations. Even more to the point, the sort of similar play on letters appears frequently in Lexicons. Here is a bit from the Gibbs Lexicon (1832, 2nd ed). I am not choosing this page randomly. When we get to ELD, there is one that I have found very interesting. Here is page 3 - and this text covers material from Chapter 5 of the Book of Abraham (the retelling of a Genesis account). Here is Abr. 5:9 -

And out of the ground made the Gods to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life, also, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

And Gen. 3:6 - And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

These are not exactly the same, but we can see the relationship. The Hebrew word that is translated "good" here in the Genesis text is found on that page of the Gibbs Lexicon. And you can see where the initial word provides some of this - "to be good, used impersonally, ... it goeth well with a person, or it benefits him, ... it pleaseth me; also to be fair, lovely; to be serene, joyful, ..." Then later, if we add a suffix, suddenly we have something that isn't in the biblical text - "pleasant, lovely; of a pleasant smell, fragrant."

Which brings me back to the ELD text:

Beth: Man’s first residence in a fruitful garden, a great valley or plain filled with fruit, trees and flowers, <good to the taste, pleasing to the eye and sweet & precious to the smell> place of happiness

What I see here is an entry from a lexicon - being incorporated into the text. But then, if I look at the text of the ELD document, I see it laid out as a lexicon entry - just look at the words on the left side -

Beth
Beth-Ka
Beth-Kee
Beth-Ko
Beth-Ku
Beth-ku-ain-trieth
E-Beth-ku-ain-trieth
E-Beth-Ka

This is a series of modifications to a word - very similar to what I see in the Hebrew in the Gibbs Lexicon. Now does it work? It never gets far enough to do much. Even so, I am unconvinced about the distinction being about an ontological basis - that works to a degree only in the examples provided, it doesn't work well to explain other material in the collection. It is much easier to see that they were trying to formulate an approach to language styled on a limited understanding of ancient languages - or a restoration (if we want to call it that) of a pure language. Which brings me to my next point -

The pure language and the need to develop it was an issue for a large number of people. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries in the US, one set of instances of attempts to produce a pure language (and there are several of them) is based on the need to fulfill that prophecy about a "pure language" in Zephaniah. This is particularly prevalent in the restorationist movement. So, here is an example of one such attempt.

This book - Something New: Comprising a New and Perfect Alphabet is of interest for a couple of reasons. It's publication date (1832) is contemporary. It's purpose was to provide a new system of language that would create a perfect representation of the spoken language. This is of some interest for a couple of reasons. The first is that the end product of Mormonism's foray into the pure language was the Deseret Script. But this idea of a new system of describing language through a script as the pure language is presented here in this text (113):

Quote

For as it is evident from the testimony of the gospel, that all the corruptions and abuses of the fall must undergo an entire reformation, (at least so far as respects the people of God,) before the final restoration can be complete; so it appears perfectly reasonable and consistent with Divine Revelation, that the corrupt abuses of human language, which have been increasing in the earth for thousands of years, should be reformed before the true followers of Christ can enjoy a pure language. "Then will I turn to the people a pure language that they may call upon the name of the Lord to serve him with one consent." Zeph. 3:9.

This reformation of language will doubtless be a gradual and progressive work; and it seems right and proper that it should commence with a reformation of the Alphabet, as that is the foundation of written language.

The author of this book, Michael Hull Barton, was a believer in restorationist doctrine - he was a Millerite before becoming a Mormon in 1835. And this view of the necessity of fulfilling the prophecy in Zephaniah exists in early Mormonism - and serves as the impetus for creating this pure language that Joseph Smith and William Phelps began to work on prior to the purchase of the Egyptian material.

So I can possibly accept the idea that "they were trying to create a new pure language for the purpose of explaining concepts they didn’t have words for." But this only comes in the context of the restorationist ideas in connection with Zeph. 3:9 - and for this particular essay to completely ignore that aspect of the issue is a real problem. If you isolate the search for a pure language from its context, you are going to misunderstand it.

As a final thought, the essay discusses some material on page 16 that deals with "principles of kingship." While this may play some role relative to the Book of Abraham, it is hard to reconcile the idea that this is aimed at presenting cosmological truths when this section is applied to the story of Katumin (an Egyptian princess). This figure is loosely connected to the Book of Abraham (1:11), but the expansion of the BoA narrative in the ELD provides a story that has little or no cosmic relevance. This isn't to say that the pure language was intended to only provide cosmological information, but it does seem to challenge the idea that this was the primary reason for creating it.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Calm]

I was hoping you would comment, @Benjamin McGuire.  Thank you.

[JustAnAustralian]

I thought I did, but apparently last time I renewed I accidentally did "print only". I guess that's why I randomly got a printed copy for the first time ever turn up a while ago.

I need to make sure I do online only next time I renew.