Greetings and Felicitations,

The recent (now-closed) thread on the BoM language got me to thinking.

Last year I invited missionaries into my home when they knocked on my door. [I know, you're wondering why. Don't ask; it's complicated.] They challenged me to read the Book of Mormon. I started.

When discussing it with them later, one of my many objections was the language. But different from anything I've read here on this board.

You see, I have a library with well over a thousand volumes, much of it classic English literature. And I'm well read in most of it. So I explained this to the missionaries, and how I am easily able to identify which century a passage is from.

But 1 Nephi 3:29 threw me. It says, in part, "Why do ye smite your younger brother with a rod?"

If this were 16th or 17th century English, it would say "Why smite ye your younger brother...", and if it were 19th century, it would say "Why do you strike your younger brother..."

But as written, it is a mish-mash of centuries. And this sort of language hash occurs throughout the book. It was driving me crazy, but I suppose those who are used to it don't notice. The simplest conclusion is that it was written by a 19th century author trying to sound like a 16th or 17th century writer. Like maybe the translators of the King James Bible?

Reminded me of an episode of Bewitched, when Samantha and Darren are transported back in time to the era of the witch hunts in Salem, Massachusetts. Samantha is able to speak with the locals in perfect Middle English, while Darren doth wingeth iteth verith badlieth. Side splitting hilarious episode!

The missionaries referred me to the BoM Introduction which says, in part, "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."

I think the author meant to say "...if there BE faults..." and "...that ye MIGHT be found spotless..."

Wherefore thinketh thouest mine RFMest friendies?

JAR

Methinketh thee entertain notions unknown to the society of thy recent acquaintance. (BTW, have absolutely no idea if that is correct verbage from ANY era.)

OR...Are you sure you didn't waste precious oxygen on these guys? They probably couldn't wrap their heads around the question, must less your very well thought out answer.

Prithee, thou discernist not between the nominative "thou" and thine objective "thee."

Thy sins be forgiven thee.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2015 04:21PM by caffiend.

Just more proof that the BoM was written by JS and company. They had no clue what they were doing. They plagiarized as best they could from various sources.

The irony is how the Vulgate or common thee and thou became the "high" language for addressing God.

When the thee and thou Bible came out the gentry addressed each other in the familiar you and me. They used the thee and thou for addressing animals and peasants. The peasants were not their equals and they would never consider talking to a peasant with the familiarity they would a peer. So the Bible was translated into the 'common' tongue it with thee and thou, not you and I.


So here are the dumb people who wrote the BOM thinking they are clever in using "old English" and do not even know they are using the common language.



It stands to reason though. I had a BIC TBM member tell me if you want the social respect of a Medical Doctor, and can't go to school to become one, become an Optometrist and people will give you the same high treatment as a Medical Doctor because they think it is the same. I didn't have the heart to tell her that would only work among people who had never been past high school or learned anything beyond the nose on their face.

Rigdon and Smith were among the poor and uneducated of the frontier who could not make it among the schooled. They did not even notice or raise a question about the grammatical errors that were in the first printing of the BOM because it was written with the same grammatical mistakes they used every day.
That is partially why the BOM could be used without challenge from the audience because they themselves were somewhat illiterate.

Fascinating post.

Which raises a question about the BoA.

Would you say it was written in similair gerrymandered grammar style as 1 Nephi?

The OP is as bad as Joseph Smith: he wrote:

>Wherefore thinketh thouest mine RFMest friendies?

- wherefore is the wrong word
- thinketh requires a 3rd person subject
- thou never has an ending; -est belongs on the verb
- thou is only singular; the plural is ''ye'
- mine is correct only before a noun beginning with a vowel
- friendies should be simply friends

Methinks OP should have written:

What think ye my RFM friends?

I hope you enjoyed writing that analysis as much as I enjoyed reading it.

Regards,

JAR

The OP was jesting.

Or as Yoda would say, "The OP, jesting he was."

Show-off, Richard.

;o)

It seemed to me that the sentence was intended to be facetious. However, I did enjoy the discussion.

"The missionaries referred me to the BoM Introduction which says, in part, "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."

But--but---but---according to eyewitnesses:

"Martin Harris was one of the scribes Joseph Smith used to record the writing on the plates. This enabled him to give a first-hand account of how Smith performed this translation. Harris noted,

"By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say 'written;' and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used" (CHC 1:29).

"Harris' description concurs with that of David Whitmer, another one of the three witnesses whose testimony appears at the front of the Book of Mormon. Whitmer details exactly how the stone produced the English interpretation. On page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrote,

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

http://www.mrm.org/translation

So there shouldn't have been any "mistakes of men" which needed correcting in later editions.

I thinketh the BoM stinketh.

Methinks he stinks.

Yea, even unto high heaven.

Of course the D&C, which is the very words of God, Himself, (and
not Joseph's translation) was done in perfect English from the
very start, right?

when the SS officer asks about their accents --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DloZq3Vfphc



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2015 02:20AM by anybody.

justarelative Wrote:
The
> simplest conclusion is that it was written by a
> 19th century author trying to sound like a 16th or
> 17th century writer.

Of course you are right.

Here's one of my favorites from 2 Nephi--the apologists can point to a lot of these items and say: "See, Mesoamerican attire!"

In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round tires like the moon; The chains and the bracelets, and the mufflers; The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings; The rings, and nose jewels; The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping-pins; The glasses, and the fine linen, and hoods, and the veils.'

But then they get the to crisping pins and wimples.....not exactly what you'd find in ancient Guatemala, or upstate New York...

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/religiousimages/D010_Wimple_RogiervanderWeyden.jpg

Thank you for mentioning crisping pins. :)

...and all of that lifted directly from Isaiah 3:22

I think I remember reading that Smith's contemporaries had the same argument, that he was clumsily trying to speak like King James Bible but didn't do a good job. That's why for decades after there were changes to the Book of Mormon, or Nephi would've sounded even more like an idiot.

http://richkelsey.org/book_of_mormon_changes__the_fal.htm
Even More Changes:[xviii]

● "…these interpreters was doubtless prepared for the purpose of unfolding all such mysteries" (Mosiah 8:19, 1830 and 1837 editions; changed to were in 1840).

● "...and the seats which was set apart for the high priests, which was above all the other seats..." (Mosiah 11:11, 1830 edition; changed to were in 1840)

● "...the arms of mercy was extended towards them; for the arms of mercy was extended..." (Mosiah 16:12, 1830 edition; changed to were in 1837)

● "…whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God, they was added to his church (Mosiah 18:17, 1830 edition; changed in 1837 by removing the word they).

● "…telling them that these things ought not to be; that they was expressly repugnant to the commandments of God (Mosiah 29:36, 1830 edition; changed to they were in 1837).

And don't forget "...wellll doggies..." (Jed 19:65)

God's first language is not English. It's Kolobian ... right? That would explain all the mistakes.

Well now that does make sense.

God hadn't spoken to an earthling for 2 thousand years, we must remember.

He had the NY hillbilly grammar thing to contend with.

Why do all alien villains in movies speak with British accents? They must study a lot of Shakespeare on other planets.

The reason, Randy, is that Americans make all the films... ;-)

Tom in Paris

I wish they would have left the BoM in it's perfect unaltered state. The first edition that hasn't been touched speaks louder than all the exmo's combined.

I tried to read it, but didn't get far. It's the biggest grammatical mess i've ever seen.

This song says it all, especially when Emma starts to sing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTZYSzxZcvA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2015 01:15AM by madalice.