Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Roger]

Glenn:

I wrote:

I don't think you can demonstrate conclusively what they believed. For example, I don't think you have demonstrated that when Martin Harris refers to the lost sheep of Isreal it is not a reference to the lost tribes, or at least a portion of them, or that he did not believe the Indians around him were a part of those lost-sheep-tribes.

You still haven't demonstrated this. Of course you can proclaim whatever you want from your perch in the 21st century, but so far I haven't seen you quote anything from the 1830's that supports your case and the few things you have cited actually support my case.

They believed, erroneously, that Lehi and company had become the progenitors of most if not all of the American Indians, but they believed that the lost tribes were still lost to the world somewhere in an Old World far north country.

Can you back this up? Show me some quotes that indicate they believed "that the lost tribes were still lost to the world somewhere in an Old World far north country" and that a far north country could not have been Canada, or that they believed that the Indians in the U.S. could not have been at least a part of (or descendants of) some of the lost tribes. Of course we know that Assyria took Isrealites captive, Glenn, but those captives would not be lost if we knew that they were still in Assyria! So being lost in a "north country" can't mean Assyria. It might mean Siberia or something, but it can't mean Assyria. And it could easily mean Canada.

Roger. did you even read the headings for context? If I recall, you were asserting that the early LDS believed that the Indians were part of of the lost tribes.

Glenn, if they believed that the Indians were descended from Israel and, given that up until Columbus arrived, no European knew about them, how then are they NOT from the lost tribes? Just because they still believed there were more descendants of lost tribes out there, does not mean they did not think the Indians were a part of them. If I am wrong, prove it.

Now consider this:

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun.

So here were have the Book of Mormon itself telling us that the Indians (Lamanites) "are a remnant of the house of Israel" which, in the very same citation is distinguished from "Jew and Gentile" and also indicates that they have been "cast off" but not forever.

So please tell me what distinguishes these "cast offs" who are "a remnant of the house of Israel" --not discovered until after 1492--from their "lost tribes" brothers? How was this cast off remnant, for whose benefit the Book of Mormon was allegedly written(!) not lost until at least 1492?

Dan seems to be making the case that when Harris says "lost sheep of Isreal" he's only speaking of spiritual lostness, rather than spiritual and physical lostness. If I am understanding his point correctly, it seems to be a pretty weak one! American Indians were physically unknown to Europeans until at least 1492. And Nephi tells us he means both:

3 Wherefore, the things of which I have read are things pertaining to things both temporal and spiritual; for it appears that the house of Israel, sooner or later, will be scattered upon all the face of the earth, and also among all nations.

Again, you could solve this by providing a Martin Harris quote that backs up what you're saying, but I am not convinced you can because I think you're imposing your 21st century dogma onto his.

You quote again from D & C 133:

1–6, The Saints are commanded to prepare for the Second Coming; 7–16, All men are commanded to flee from Babylon, come to Zion, and prepare for the great day of the Lord; 17–35, He will stand on Mount Zion, the continents will become one land, and the lost tribes of Israel will return; 36–40, The gospel was restored through Joseph Smith to be preached in all the world; 41–51, The Lord will come down in vengeance upon the wicked; 52–56, It will be the year of his redeemed; 57–74, The gospel is to be sent forth to save the Saints and for the destruction of the wicked.

But this does not support your argument! The only thing you have here is that "the lost tribes of Israel will return;" but that does not mean they held that to be a century in the future! You can only say that because 1948 is in your past. They believed it was starting to happen right then and there... that is why they are commanded to "flee from Babylon, come to Zion, and prepare for the great day of the Lord;" right now! Verse seven even tells us "the time has come!" And that's not taken out of context.

7Yea, verily I say unto you again, the time has come when the voice of the Lord is unto you: Go ye out of Babylon; gather ye out from among the nations, from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

That's not future, that's now! And it's not out of context, it's the context for the whole first section of D & C 133.

Look at verse 10:

10 Yea, let the cry go forth among all people: Awake and arise and go forth to meet the Bridegroom; behold and lo, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Prepare yourselves for the great day of the Lord.

That's present tense, Glenn. Yes, the idea that Jesus would return was still future, but they believed it was not very far into the future and that these gatherings had to take place before he came again--and they were beginning to happen now... not in 1948.

17 For behold, the Lord God hath sent forth the angel crying through the midst of heaven, saying: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight, for the hour of his coming is nigh—

More present tense. Why? Because the second coming is just around the corner.

Roger, you do not know anything about the history of the early church. And now you are trying to interpret LDS scriptures for us. You have quoted one verse and a few parts of the header. Look at what it says about verses 17-35. Those verses are about the second coming of Christ and the restoration of the lost tribes form the north country.

As I said, sure the second coming of Christ was obviously still future, but the preparation for it was now. And the restoration had to happen before his second coming. And north country could easily mean Canada.

The first part which speaks in the present tense was a call for the church to do missionary work in all parts of the world, and for those who were converted to gather to the U.S. Many people heeded the call to gather to the U.S. which helped the church grow more rapidly in the U.S. This gathering went on for several decades. But it was never taught that this gathering was the gathering of the lost tribes. That event, a literal restoration, is an event which section 133 places into the future.

But not a century into the future, Glenn! The fact is they believed the second coming was just around the corner, within the next 50 years. If I am wrong about that, prove it. Pull some official quote saying that the lost tribes would not be gathered until the mid 1900s. Because what we see in the D & C is a call to action now. And please provide evidence that "north country" does not mean Canada.

Now go back and read the whole chapter including the headings and the preface to it.

The Book of Mormon is not a lost tribes story. As I have pointed out, several scriptures from the Book of Mormon itself make that very plain.

I find that there's not much that is actually very plain about the Book of Mormon. All you can say is that whoever wrote the Book of Mormon still acknowledged that there were more lost tribes out there. But that is not to say that he didn't think the Lamanites were still a part of those "lost tribes."

4 And behold, there are many who are already lost from the knowledge of those who are at Jerusalem. Yea, the more part of all the tribes have been led away; and they are scattered to and fro upon the isles of the sea; and whither they are none of us knoweth, save that we know that they have been led away.

Note the phrase: "the more part of all the tribes." It is clear from the preface that the Lamanites were considered to be a "remnant of the House of Isreal" who had been "cast off" but not forever. But Nephi makes it even clearer:

6 Nevertheless, after they shall be nursed by the Gentiles, and the Lord has lifted up his hand upon the Gentiles and set them up for a standard, and their children have been carried in their arms, and their daughters have been carried upon their shoulders, behold these things of which are spoken are temporal; for thus are the covenants of the Lord with our fathers; and it meaneth us in the days to come, and also all our brethren who are of the house of Israel.

So, Nephites are "us in the days to come," and the lost tribes are "our brethren who are of the house of Israel."

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

So, there is it again! Yes, there are other lost tribes of Isreal, but Nephites are among them and they were lost physically until 1492 and spiritually until that moment. But the Book of Mormon was written to them, so they could know that they were not to be "cast off" forever.

You may convolute the fact that Lehi found out that he was of the lineage of Joseph through Manasseh that such makes it a lost tribes story. But you would be wrong. The lost tribes were the ones exiled to the north country by the Assyrians. The remnants that were left behind were not lost.
A group of five males does does not make one tribe, much less up to ten tribes.

If Assyria is the "north country" then how are they lost? We know where Assyria was. When the Book of Mormon talks about "lost tribes" it is talking about Isrealites scattered over the Islands of the sea, not just Assyria. I see no evidence that they believed "north country" exclusively meant Assyria.

1 And now I, Moroni, proceed to give an account of those ancient inhabitants who were destroyed by the hand of the Lord upon the face of this north country.

So at least at this point in the Book of Mormon narrative, "north country" is referring to somewhere on the American Continent.

And, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, your idea does not comport with what the prevailing idea of the time was concerning the lost tribes as noted by Abner Jackson. You have shown no evidence to show that the witnesses that spoke of the lost tribes would have believed that a group of five males would make up a lost tribes story.

Nor do I need to. B. H. Roberts certainly understood the Book of Mormon and he still entertained the notion that it might have been based on View of the Hebrews, a book postulating a lost tribes theory! It's irrelevant how much the S/R witnesses understood about the nuances of the Book of Mormon. They weren't claiming it was a word for word copy of Spalding's ms. They flat out tell you that the religious material was added in. They are not Book of Mormon experts, nor would I expect them to be. They simply note that a lot of the content is similar to what they remember, some of it even verbatim. But that doesn't mean they have to understand the kind of nuances you're nit-picking about--or that if they had they would have changed their story. B. H. Roberts certainly did and he still worried there might be a connection. You simply have no argument here.

And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been lost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem.

That's why missionaries were sent to the Lamanites, Glenn. The work of the Father was commencing.

What you are arguing is that there is a vast difference between "lost tribes of Isreal" and a "remnant of the House of Isreal" but in reality there is not a lot of difference. Both are "cast off" descendants of the House of Isreal. The only difference is that lost tribes implies more than a few families. But again, if Lehi was a member of the House of Isreal, his tale would have been a lost tribes account. You haven't demonstrated that early Mormons would have agreed with you, nor that non-Mormons should have understood the nuanced difference and, therefore, not claimed to see a similarity between the Book of Mormon and Spalding's Manuscript Found.

[_GlennThigpen]

And, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, your idea does not comport with what the prevailing idea of the time was concerning the lost tribes as noted by Abner Jackson. You have shown no evidence to show that the witnesses that spoke of the lost tribes would have believed that a group of five males would make up a lost tribes story.

Nor do I need to. B. H. Roberts certainly understood the Book of Mormon and he still entertained the notion that it might have been based on View of the Hebrews, a book postulating a lost tribes theory! It's irrelevant how much the S/R witnesses understood about the nuances of the Book of Mormon. They weren't claiming it was a word for word copy of Spalding's ms. They flat out tell you that the religious material was added in. They are not Book of Mormon experts, nor would I expect them to be. They simply note that a lot of the content is similar to what they remember, some of it even verbatim. But that doesn't mean they have to understand the kind of nuances you're nit-picking about--or that if they had they would have changed their story. B. H. Roberts certainly did and he still worried there might be a connection. You simply have no argument here.

Yes, you do need to. What is relevant is what the witnesses said and believed about a lost tribes story. Not what you are trying to dilute into anyone or any group. The Book of Mormon tells us that the Lord has led away groups of people from time to time and they are scattered here and there in the world, "on the isles of the sea." The LDS church has never identified those people as "lost tribes." The general understanding of the lost tribes has always been that as described in the Bible, i.e. the exile of most of the northern Kingdom of Israel to somewhere in Medea. You must provide some type of evidence that Solomon Spalding, Martha Spalding, Aaron Wright, Henry Lake, Abner Jackson, Daniel Spencer, Hiram Lake, Lorin Gould, and Daniel Tyler would have understood a lost tribes story to be any different from what the prevailing ideas were. Especially in the light of Abner Jackson's explicit statement.
What Martin Harris might have believed about the lost sheep or B.H. Roberts is irrelevant to what those witnesses believed at the time of their statements.

And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been lost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem.

So, while you are quoting Nephi, why didn't you include this verse?

13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews. (2 Nephi 29:13)

Again, the Book of Mormon clearly tells us that the Nephites are not the lost tribes.

4 But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them. (3 Nephi 17:4)

And yet again, the Book of Mormon clearly tells us that the Nephites are not the lost tribes. But you have already seen those before, haven't you?

That's why missionaries were sent to the Lamanites, Glenn. The work of the Father was commencing.

Yes, the work of the Father was commencing. Preparation for the second coming was to commence. The gathering of Israel was to commence, but that was clearly differentiated from the lost tribes in the north country. That is not in dispute. But the Second coming was and still is an event in the future. And section 133 puts the restoration of the tribes from the north country in conjunction with the second coming.

Look at D&C Section 110

11 After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.

You will find no LDS nor will you be able to find anyone else of that era that believed that the north country was or is Canada. That is completely ad hoc and fallacious.

What you are arguing is that there is a vast difference between "lost tribes of Isreal" and a "remnant of the House of Isreal" but in reality there is not a lot of difference. Both are "cast off" descendants of the House of Isreal. The only difference is that lost tribes implies more than a few families. But again, if Lehi was a member of the House of Isreal, his tale would have been a lost tribes account. You haven't demonstrated that early Mormons would have agreed with you, nor that non-Mormons should have understood the nuanced difference and, therefore, not claimed to see a similarity between the Book of Mormon and Spalding's Manuscript Found.

Yes, there is a clear difference between the ten lost tribes of Israel and the people "which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem."

The lost tribes were not led away by the Lord but captured and exiled by the Assyrians. They were lost to the knowledge of the world of Jerusalem. You must demonstrate that when Martha Spalding said "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question", that she and Solomon et al would have understood a lost tribes story to be anything different from the prevailing ideas of the day. I have provided references several times from several sources that detailed those beliefs and views. None of them accord with the theory you are trying to impose upon them.

Nor does LDS theology and beliefs accord with the interpretation you are trying to impose upon them. As I said in another post, you do not know and understand LDS theology or history.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

It might be helpful if someone were to work with the Book of Mormon authors themselves using the NSC method, sort of revisiting the work done by Larsen, Rencher, and Layton. Their pioneering work in the seventies, built upon other works such as by Mosteller and Wallace, detected 21 different authorship styles, not Including Isaiah and Jesus. It would be interesting to see if the NSC methodology would generally follow those results. Twenty-one authors would be too much except for even die-hard S/R theorists to provide even an ad hoc explanation for. (Maybe).

I see your point, but remain skeptical of trying to identify different styles based on word frequencies. Are we to believe Alma’s literary style survives Mormon’s copying (possibly into a more corrupted Reformed Egyptian) and Joseph Smith’s translating into archaic English?

Differentiating different styles based upon word frequencies has been shown to work using Federalist papers as a test bed.
Your second point is something that I am suggesting is something that could possibly be tested or attempted. Larsen Rencher, and Layton's work showed a clear differentiation between the different authors. Their work was pioneering and some problems have been noted, but nothing fatal that I am aware of. But more refined tests probably could be devised to see if their initial findings hold up.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn writes:

If we find a noticeable variance in archaic English patterns among the Book of Mormon authors, it would support multiple authorship, whether it be Nephites or nineteenth century authors. If the variances produce more than four authorship styles, especially several more than four authorship styles, that does not support the S/R theory.

I think Glenn is confusing variance in authorship styles (which is to be expected with multiple authors) with variance of KJV emulation.

Perhaps Glenn can explain how variance due to emulation of King James English could possibly occur in the 1830 Book of Mormon translation and if it does occur, who would be responsible for it.

Roger, it would seem to me that a variance in archaic English styles would be due to different people producing different parts of the text. If the text was a translation from another language, say Hebrew, the variance could very well be attributed to the styles of the original author(s).
I don't think I am confusing anything. I am sure that no two people would produce the same type of archaic prose either.

What exactly do you believe takes the Book of Mormon text into the realm of archaic English?

I can agree that a person could pretty easily substitute thee, thou, thine, ye, etc. for similar words in the early 1800's vernacular. But I would think that it would be much more difficult to actually write lengthy documents in archaic English without being very familiar with the style, almost to the point of a second language.
This is where input from someone with training as a linguist help.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...

I can agree that a person could pretty easily substitute thee, thou, thine, ye, etc. for similar words in the early 1800's vernacular.
...

Proper emulation of Early Modern English ("EME" from the era of the Tudors)
entails far more than the substitution of "thee" for "you," etc.

The Manchester Quakers of Joseph Smith's youth may have attempted
to thus emulate archaic English, but I doubt that they would have been
very successful -- and their language results would have been even
worse, were they illiterate and largely unaware of linguistic history.

If Joseph Smith, Jr. applied the EME "archaic" overlay to a translation
of "Nephite" into English, he did so inconsistently and with resulting
text sections which demonstrate proper EME grammar, interspersed
among lengthier sections exhibiting improper EME grammar.

Perhaps some Mormon will one day take it upon himself to map out
the variations in archaic English emulation exhibited in the 1830
Book of Mormon text. At least I hope that will occur, as it would
provide us with a linguistic tool useful in better determining how
that 1830 text originated.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

....

So please tell me what distinguishes these "cast offs" who are "a remnant of the house of Israel"
...

By the era of the Prophet Lehi, "Israel" pertained to the northern
(Assyrian-occupied) tribal lands -- and "Judah" pertained to the
southern (Hebrew-occupied) tribal lands.

If the Lamanites can be considered as the descendants of Mulek's
New World colony, then they are proto-Jewish and not representatives
in America of the "Joseph" whose progeny will spread out like branches
growing over a wall, to occupy the land shadowed by wings.

If, however, Glenn admits that the Lamanites can be considered as the
descendants of Lehi's New World colony, then they indeed are the
fulfillers of the predictive prophecy concerning the spread of Joseph
across the sea to the Land of Promise.

You might wish to also research the "White Huns" a.k.a. "Nephtilites,"
who reportedly wandered to the extreme northeastern corner of
Siberia, and were there in immediate proximity to the Apostle Thomas,
before finally crossing over into northern Canada. Some early writers
equated the Nephtilites with a remnant of the ten northern tribes.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

By the era of the Prophet Lehi, "Israel" pertained to the northern
(Assyrian-occupied) tribal lands -- and "Judah" pertained to the
southern (Hebrew-occupied) tribal lands.

If the Lamanites can be considered as the descendants of Mulek's
New World colony, then they are proto-Jewish and not representatives
in America of the "Joseph" whose progeny will spread out like branches
growing over a wall, to occupy the land shadowed by wings.

If, however, Glenn admits that the Lamanites can be considered as the
descendants of Lehi's New World colony, then they indeed are the
fulfillers of the predictive prophecy concerning the spread of Joseph
across the sea to the Land of Promise.

You might wish to also research the "White Huns" a.k.a. "Nephtilites,"
who reportedly wandered to the extreme northeastern corner of
Siberia, and were there in immediate proximity to the Apostle Thomas,
before finally crossing over into northern Canada. Some early writers
equated the Nephtilites with a remnant of the ten northern tribes.

UD

Right now, I do not properly know what Lamanite refers to, or rather who today is the descendants of the Lamanites. The Book of Mormon tells us that the after the appearance of Christ to the Nephites, that basically all those who were called Lamanites were converted and there no longer were Lamanites and Nephites.
After abut 200 years or so, there began a falling away from the doctrines of Christ and those who fell away, regardless of ancestry, took upon themselves the name of Lamanites. We really have no idea what ancestral lines made up those "new" Lamanites. We do not really know what the Lord considers Lamanites to be today. It seems to have become a generic term for any of the indigenous inhabitants of the U.S. after the annihilation of the Nephite nation.
I cannot admit or deny anything, because I don't know.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

For several posts now I was operating under the assumption that simply pointing out the obvious problem would be enough to make the point. Obviously it hasn't, or else I am missing something. So let's hash this out sentence by sentence.....

Roger, it would seem to me that a variance in archaic English styles would be due to different people producing different parts of the text.

My assumption: coming from you "different people" can only mean ancient Nephites. I assume that's what you mean.

If the text was a translation from another language, say Hebrew, the variance could very well be attributed to the styles of the original author(s).

Variance between author-style, yes. That's what word studies are supposed to show.

I don't think I am confusing anything. I am sure that no two people would produce the same type of archaic prose either.

But this is where either you go way off into la-la land or I am totally misunderstanding you. Unfortunately, I am suspecting the former.

Let's pretend Nephi, Mormon, Moroni and all the rest were real people. They would have existed centuries BEFORE King James was even a twinkle in his father's eye. They would NOT have been writing in archaic English, Glenn. They were allegedly writing in some mysteriously unknown language called "reformed Egyptian." So all of them would be writing in this mysterious language. True, if they were real people, then they should each have their own unique style of writing within that common language, but that would have virtually NOTHING to do with King James' English. At the time they were (allegedly) writing, King James did not even exist.

It would be something like someone 1000 years in the future who translates this thread into some language that doesn't even exist yet, let's call it modern French, but then instead of actually translating into modern French, they actually translate into archaic French (which, despite the name, also doesn't exist yet) because their holy book is written in archaic French. My unique writing style, that separates my writing from yours is going to have virtually nothing to do with the nuanced differences between modern French and archaic French. And what complicates things is that to make the analogy work, you would have to notice that whoever did the translation into archaic French apparently didn't really know the grammar rules for archaic French but was just haphazardly attempting to emulate the language of the holy book! The resulting patterns (and errors) made by the future archaic French translator have nothing to do with the differences between your writing style and mine.

What exactly do you believe takes the Book of Mormon text into the realm of archaic English?

So... fast forward to 1829.... WHERE is Joseph Smith getting the words for the Book of Mormon text? Those words are supposed to be a translation of what was actually written centuries before King James in a totally different and unrelated language.

You ask what I believe "takes the Book of Mormon text into the realm of archaic English?" The answer is obvious: Emulation of the King James Bible which was widely viewed as authoritative. When good Christians prayed, they often emulated language they were familiar with in the King James Bible. Why? It was, for some reason, viewed as "holy" or showing respect for God. That is why the Book of Mormon also emulates King James English--because it's 19th century creators believed it would seem more authentic to the general (but mostly Christian) public.

Of course, S/R witnesses claimed that Spalding used the King James dialect in order to make his manuscript sound more ancient. They claim he overused the phrase "And it came to pass" in just such an effort. So if there is some basis for any of the S/R claims (and I know you think there isn't but just roll with me on this for a minute), then the fact that MF would have contained archaic King James language, MAY have been one of the factors that convinced Rigdon it was authentic--because it would have sounded like something ancient to Rigdon.

But leaving that for the time being and getting back to what we know for sure... we absolutely know that the Book of Mormon is written in a style that attempts to emulate King James English. It is NOT written in the common vernacular of 1820's New York. Therefore, someone--whoever is responsible for the content--was deliberately attempting to make the text sound like the King James Bible.

So the question for all of us is: who is responsible?

Under each of our respective theories, here's how it would seem to play out:

S/A

Joseph Smith has to be the one responsible for King James emulation since, under S/A Joseph Smith is responsible for ALL the content in the Book of Mormon. There never were any Nephite authors. Everything comes from Joseph Smith.

So.... if NSC discovers a definite variance in King James emulation patterns, how would S/A explain that variance? For the life of me, I don't know how.

S/D

As I explained earlier, under S/D it would seem to depend on whether one accepts a tight version of S/D or a loose version. In the tight version God is responsible for King James emulation and in the loose version, it must be Joseph Smith. Either way, there should not be much variance in KJV emulation. Even if one assumes some sort of scenario in which God supplies some words and Joseph supplies some others, you'd still only have two individuals contributing to the Book of Mormon translation process. Only two personalities who could potentially effect the English rendition of what was allegedly written centuries before King James in a completely different language.


S/R

Under S/R, we finally have several individuals who could potentially use a King James' dialect in varying ways--starting with Spalding himself, who, witnesses claim grossly overused the phrase "And it came to pass." Rigdon, then, would have carried on with this King James emulation, but probably a bit differently than Spalding. Spalding's goal was to make the text appear ancient. Rigdon's goal would have been to sound religious. Smith and Cowdery would also have emulated King James' English but would likely have introduced their own unique emulation patterns. The difficulty, is that by the time the text got to Smith, he would have already been exposed (mainly subconsciously) to patterns already in the text that would have been put there by Spalding, Rigdon and, of course, the King James Bible. So Smith and Cowdery's KJV emulation, while possibly identifiable, would still probably amount to a hybrid of their own emulation style combined with Rigdon, Spalding and the Bible.

In any event, if noticeable, distinct patterns in KJV emulation are found, and if there are more than two, then I would think that would support the S/R thesis over S/D and would be nearly impossible to explain under S/A.

I can agree that a person could pretty easily substitute thee, thou, thine, ye, etc. for similar words in the early 1800's vernacular. But I would think that it would be much more difficult to actually write lengthy documents in archaic English without being very familiar with the style, almost to the point of a second language.
This is where input from someone with training as a linguist help.

Or God, of course. From your point of view (S/D) I can see you saying that God is responsible for making the Book of Mormon text sound like a King James Bible. Overlooking the supernatural element in that, it makes sense. But what does not make sense is saying God is responsible but then noticing several different, unique patterns of KJV emulation. Why would God do this? Why would he noticeably change his translation style several times? That is the problem you are going to run into, and while God works in mysterious ways may work for a TBM, it doesn't work for the rest of us.

[_GlennThigpen]

But this is where either you go way off into la-la land or I am totally misunderstanding you. Unfortunately, I am suspecting the former.

Let's pretend Nephi, Mormon, Moroni and all the rest were real people. They would have existed centuries BEFORE King James was even a twinkle in his father's eye. They would NOT have been writing in archaic English, Glenn. They were allegedly writing in some mysteriously unknown language called "reformed Egyptian." So all of them would be writing in this mysterious language. True, if they were real people, then they should each have their own unique style of writing within that common language, but that would have virtually NOTHING to do with King James' English. At the time they were (allegedly) writing, King James did not even exist.

It would be something like someone 1000 years in the future who translates this thread into some language that doesn't even exist yet, let's call it modern French, but then instead of actually translating into modern French, they actually translate into archaic French (which, despite the name, also doesn't exist yet) because their holy book is written in archaic French. My unique writing style, that separates my writing from yours is going to have virtually nothing to do with the nuanced differences between modern French and archaic French. And what complicates things is that to make the analogy work, you would have to notice that whoever did the translation into archaic French apparently didn't really know the grammar rules for archaic French but was just haphazardly attempting to emulate the language of the holy book! The resulting patterns (and errors) made by the future archaic French translator have nothing to do with the differences between your writing style and mine.

Roger, I am not off in la la land. Of course the archaic language that the Book of Mormon is translated into did not exist when the Book of Mormon was written. The English that the Bible is written in did not exist when the King James version was translated.
The bad grammar in the Book of Mormon comes from several venues. It would help your understanding if you would read several articles that Royal Skousen has written on the Book of Mormon translation, the underlying language, and the grammar. To try to present it here would take up too much space. Skousen has produced several volumes on the Book of Mormon text. Some of the grammatical mistakes were made by the translation team, but there are others that appear to come from a literal translation of what appears to be the original Hebraic language.

I will quote Royal Skousen from an article on the language of the Book of Mormon.

What is important here is to realize that the original text of the Book of Mormon apparently contains expressions that are not characteristic of English at any place or time, in particular neither Joseph Smith's upstate New York dialect nor the King James Bible. Subsequent editing of the text into standard English has systematically removed these non-English expressions from the text—the very expressions that provide the strongest support for the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is a literal translation of a non-English text. Further, the potential Hebraisms found in the original text are consistent with the belief, but do not prove, that the source text is related to the language of the Hebrew Bible.

Here is a link to the full article.
[url]http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=3&num=1&id=46[/quote]

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I do not properly know what Lamanite refers to
...

Well then, we might expect that God Almighty knows such things,
and would direct Oliver Cowdery, P.P. Pratt, and their fellow
1830 "missionaries to the Lamanites" to the proper region on the
landscape, in order to encounter such unique persons.

The LDS Doctrine & Covenants should then tell us where at
least a few of these "Lamanites" were located in 1830-31.

Clue #1 -- The Mormon missionaries did not venture northward,
up to the lands encompassed by mountains of perpetual ice
and snow.

Clue #2 -- The Mormon missionaries did not venture southward,
down to the lands encompassed by perpetual Meso-American jungle.

Clue #3 -- The Mormon missionaries told the Indian tribes that they
encountered outside of Buffalo, New York; Sandusky, Ohio; and what
is now Kansas City, Kansas, that they (those Indians) were the
descendants of the Patriarch Joseph, unto whom the Divine prophecies
concerning the ultimate destiny of the Land of Promise occupants
pertained (or had been directed), as their rightful inheritance.

Surely Glenn can tell us whether or not those dauntless missionaries
of 1830 made a mistake in halting their westward journey very near
the spot where Joseph Smith, Jr. would shortly after lay the corner
stones of Zion's millennial temple --- which Smith's initial revelations
specified would be built amidst the 1830s "Lamanites."

Now perhaps Oliver, Parley, and friends did make a mistake, and there
are no Lamanites located just west of the Missouri River. Perhaps the
native tribes of that region were/are descendants of somebody other
than the Patriarch Joseph.

If only we had access to a latter day "Living Prophet" who could help
us clear up these questions --- then, we might progress along our way
in determining whether ANY of the Book of Mormon peoples were
members of Hebrew-speaking tribes now "lost" to history and geography.

If the Prophet Warren Jeffs can take a few minutes off from his legal troubles,
to seek the Almighty's divine counsel, perhaps he could clear up the controversy
for us. After all, that's the job of such latter day oracles: is it not?

UD