The Book of Mormon is a 1500/1600 AD transcript - Peterson

[_Craig Paxton]

The premise of Skouson’s theory, as I understand it, is that much of the language and syntax found in the original transcripts of the Book of Mormon, derived from the 1500-1600’s. His theory then, to explain this, is to come up with an additional layer of magical translation by mystery persons . He posits that there was an additional pre-translation from reformed Egyptian into 15th Century old English before Joseph rendered his (cough, cough) translation. That Joseph didn’t do a translation from reformed Egyptian to English but merely read the 15th century English words, via Magical means, to Oliver.
Makes perfect sense to me…

If the source manuscript was already in English why did Oliver have trouble when he tried to translate?

I find it interesting that they are always finding new and facinating ways of piling BS on top of BS. With Magic all things are possible...

[_Craig Paxton]

The other problem I see with Skouson's theory is that it would fix the translation as a "Tight" translation and thus undermine Peterson's own apologetic efforts at spinning the translation to a more "Loose" process. Think Horses vs Tapers. Anyhow it would be nice if Peterson's would pick ONE and stick with it but then that goes against Mormon apologetics which allows them to use which ever method is most useful depending on the argument being presented at the time...Pinning Jell-o on a close line

[_BartBurk]

The only dead person involved in the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith "translated" was probably Solomon Spalding who died in 1816.

[_mackay11]

I've not posted on any forum for ages, but this is truly barmy. It also doesn't hold water.

Skousen's theory is based on a small selection of phrases. None of the words are dead. Only the phrases are (claimed) to be dead.

Over a year ago I worked through his list on Mormon Dialogue. Between Nevo and my google searches we found plenty of evidence that the phrases were not dead in 1830.

For example:

'Robert F. Smith', on 14 Aug 2013 - 2:06 PM, said:
CFR that any of his "dead phrases" are not dead. What evidence do you have that people used such spoken language (dialect, vernacular, or palaver) anywhere in the region where Joseph Smith lived?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60169-royal-skousen’s-lecture/page-2

An example I gave was "Extinct." Skousen says that Alma 44:7's use of "ye may become extinct" is a 16thC phrase dead by 1830.

Extinct, referring to an individual's death

Alma 44:7 reads "and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies that ye may become extinct." Such usage seems very odd today since, as the OED explains under definition 4 for this past participial adjective, we now use extinct to refer to a family, race, or species as having died out or come to an end. But in Early Modern English, extinct could refer to a person's death. The OED, under definition 3, lists citations from 1483 through 1675, the last one from an English translation of Machiavelli's The Prince: "The Pope being dead and Valentine extinct."

But Skousen is wrong.

The sentence does make sense in the 1828 definition of the word:

"and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies that ye may become extinct."

"Ye" is talking about a group (it's plural), not an individual as Skousen presumes ("thee" would be singular). So he warns a group of people that they will become extinct.

A quick look at an 1828 dictionary confirms this is a fair choice of phrase:

"and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies that ye may..."

(be out of force)
(be abolished)
(be at a stop)

Dictionary of the English language by Samuel Johnson & John Walker (1828 edition)
http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=z3k ... ct&f=false

Or:

(be at an end)
(have no survivor)

Webster (1828 edition)
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/extinct

So "extinct" is off Skousen's list after an afternoon of amateur googling. I'm sure we can debunk the rest.

[Guest]

Mr. Peterson through Skousen seems to imply that Joseph Smith’s translation into English used vocabulary and grammar given by revelation (through the stone in a hat, presumably) which he didn't know himself. That is, he translated into English styles that co-date and pre-date King James English and that he hadn't learned from an education of his period and location.

In other words, Smith got what he got directly from God. The strange era word choice was because that is how God gave it directly to Smith who couldn't have come up with all of this all on his uneducated lonesome.

That being the case, how did God confuse tapir with horse, sheep with llama and wheat with corn? If the words weren’t Joseph’s, then they place the responsibility on God for explaining the poor word choice.

They can't remain credible and say both God gave Joseph Smith the words directly (spelling too) AND that any errors in the translation were Smith's uneducated fault or his attempt to find the word he knew that best fit the "feeling" or "impression" he got from God.


As another note worthy of discussion related to this craziness of Peterson/Skousen (or the "Skousterson hypothesis" as I call it) is a quote from Emma Smith, repeated by M Russell B.

"When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time.

“When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘Oh! [I didn’t know.] I was afraid I had been deceived.’ He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History, Jan. 1916, p. 454.)

Ok, Emma, how did he know you were making spelling mistakes if his head were in a hat? And yet he was so stupid that he had to ask her about the walls of Jerusalem? If she was that much smarter than Smith, then how did he know better spelling that her?

[_Stumpy Pepys]

Mr. Peterson through Skousen seems to imply that Joseph Smith’s translation into English used vocabulary and grammar given by revelation (through the stone in a hat, presumably) which he didn't know himself. That is, he translated into English styles that co-date and pre-date King James English and that he hadn't learned from an education of his period and location.

In other words, Smith got what he got directly from God. The strange era word choice was because that is how God gave it directly to Smith who couldn't have come up with all of this all on his uneducated lonesome.

That being the case, how did God confuse tapir with horse, sheep with llama and wheat with corn? If the words weren’t Joseph’s, then they place the responsibility on God for explaining the poor word choice.

They can't remain credible and say both God gave Joseph Smith the words directly (spelling too) AND that any errors in the translation were Smith's uneducated fault or his attempt to find the word he knew that best fit the "feeling" or "impression" he got from God.

Did Skousen apply his methodology to "The Late War"? Or the other book about Napoleon? Or the D&C? You know, just to run a negative control on the experiment?

[_mackay11]

Another of his dead phrases is still around today is "pleading bar."

This is impressive because his dead phrase, "pleading bar," doesn't even occur in the Book of Mormon. Instead Skousen decides that "pleasing bar" (Moroni 10:32) is not a logical phrase and must be a dictation or transcription error.

Instead he says Joseph must have actually intended to say "pleading bar." He claims that "pleading bar" is another dead phrase. He says: "there is clear evidence that the legal term pleading bar was used in the 1600s. And as might be expected, no instances of pleading bar have thus far been found during the 1800s, in either England or the United States."

But there are examples of it still being in use even as late as a few years ago:

Third, the court addressed the plaintiffs’ claims of respondeat superior liability against Crosspoint, which the court dismissed because they fell short of the pleading bar. Likewise, the court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ disclosure claims under the doctrine of laches and the remaining disclosure claims, dismissing them for failure to state a claim.

2007, http://texbuslit.org/35179-TxBusLitSpring07.pdf

So not only does Skousen invent a dictation error with no evidence of there being one, he does so in order to replace it with a dead phrase that's not actually dead. Perhaps it's only "mostly dead."

Given Skousen is open to idea of dictation error then lots of his other phrases could easily be the same.

[_Buckeye]

The other problem I see with Skouson's theory is that it would fix the translation as a "Tight" translation and thus undermine Peterson's own apologetic efforts at spinning the translation to a more "Loose" process. Think Horses vs Tapers. Anyhow it would be nice if Peterson's would pick ONE and stick with it but then that goes against Mormon apologetics which allows them to use which ever method is most useful depending on the argument being presented at the time...Pinning Jell-o on a close line

Craig, I wish I had more time to discuss this theme, but for now I can say that one of the benefits of Skousen's theory - if not the primary benefit - is that it removes the need to choose between a tight vs. loose translation. By having two translation events, the being first a loose translation from the plates to English sometime in the 16th or 17th century, and the second being Joseph's tight translation (better understood as a dictation), one can begin to account for the fact that the source material suggests both loose and tight translations.

Granted, that's not going to convince anyone to believe the Book of Mormon is inspired who is not already predisposed to believe. And there is absolutely zero historical support for the theory other than interpreting the text of the Book of Mormon itself. And the theory potentially conflicts with Joseph's explanation (he certainly thought he was "translating"). But Skousen wouldn't be opening up this avenue unless he thought there was some benefit to it. I believe the benefit he sees is that it resolves the tight vs. loose issue.

[_Dr. Shades]

How is this surprising? Smith (or Rigdon) was purposefully trying to imitate the 1611 King James style of English--which fits quite nicely into the 1500s/1600s time frame.

[_NorthboundZax]

How is this surprising? Smith (or Rigdon) was purposefully trying to imitate the 1611 King James style of English--which fits quite nicely into the 1500s/1600s time frame.

Maybe another fun detour for analysis of The Late War. I suspect Dr. Peterson would not see 16th & 17th century English to be sprinkled throughout it as evidence for divine intervention.