“Wither she did go” ??

[Shulem]

I'm pulling my content from another thread in order to make a new thread because of the specific implications and questions I have towards what appears to be a Book of Mormon anachronism. It is my hope that David Bokovoy and others will grace us with their presence and provide explanation and clarification in understanding the implications of Smith's use of the feminine pronoun in nautical Book of Mormon storytelling. Help!

What jumps out at you in the verse below? I'll clue you in to what I'm thinking and highlight the word. Ask yourself, is that word appropriate in the Book of Mormon considering Alma is a descendant of the Jews who is long removed from navies and ships of the old world? Nephi never referred to the ship that he built and sailed in that fashion. Ship gender was not expressed during Lehi's voyage. But we seem to have a slip on ole Joe's part as he incorporates modern thinking into fictitious nautical storytelling of the Book of Mormon.

And it came to pass that they were never heard of more. And we suppose that they were drowned in the depths of the sea. And it came to pass that one other ship also did sail forth; and whither SHE did go we know not.

Please allow me to impress you further and reveal more about the hidden innards of the Book of Mormon that secretly reveals Joseph Smith was the true author. Do I have your attention? The truth is that the character Mormon didn't know anymore about the sea than Joseph Smith. How so? Well, the character of Mormon in the Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith playing that part and pretending to fill that role. Mormon was Joseph Smith!



Joseph Smith strikes again!! Now that’s sailor talk, mind you:

But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer HER; and even as SHE is, so are they.

I don't know that this is appropriate language of a people descended from the Jews and being far removed from them for hundreds of years. Now, let's look at Late War and see what it says:

• "Sailed towards the island of Britain, and went nigh unto it, and captured numbers of the vessels of the people of Britain, in their own waters ; after which she returned in safety to the land of Columbia."

• "The shadow of hope passed over her as a dream; and most reluctantly was she compelled to strike the Eon's red cross to the Eagle of Columbia:"

• "After this Isaac caused a burning coal to be placed in the Guerriere, that she might be consumed, and the flames thereof mounted towards the heavens."

• "And in process of time, she fell upon one of the ships of Britain, called the Alert, and made spoil thereof to the people of Columbia."

• "Now the ship of Britain was mightier than the ship of Columbia j and she was called the Frolic, and the captain's name was Whinyeates."

• "And she was commanded by a valiant captain, whose name was Carden, and the name of the ship was the Macedonian."

• "And on the same day she met one of the strong ships of Columbia, the name of the captain whereof was Decatur, and the vessel was called the United States."

Etc, you get my point. What do you think Doc? Should Joe have been calling a ship a "she" in his Book of Mormon or was that a Freudian slip on his part?

Can anyone comment on this?

Man, Shulem. You’re like a bloodhound zeroing in on the trail. Great job. That’s another HUGE tell.

- Doc

That is remarkable! All those times through the Book of Mormon and I NEVER saw this "She" for a ship! Duuuuuude. Your eye for detail is seriously impressive! Thanks for sharing!

Sailor talk indeed!

Does anyone on this board have the connections to nominate Shulem to a Mormon History award? Should Shulem first do a Sunstone presentation?

Seriously though, I posited that the feminine gender for ships in ancient Israel is not appropriate to the text. I could be wrong and am willing to be corrected. I know that in ancient times ships sometimes had gender assigned to them via a goddess to provide protection but Israel is a different situation because of monotheism coupled with a patriarchal society.

[MG 2.0]

I don't know that this is appropriate language of a people descended from the Jews and being far removed from them for hundreds of years.

Your honesty is refreshing.

Sounds like a research project for an actual linguist?

There have been a whole bunch of word analysis projects done in Book of Mormon Studies. You may want to submit this area of research to their committee? That is, if it hasn’t already been tackled and written up on somewhere in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Department of Religious Studies at BYU, or elsewhere.

Regards,
MG

[Kukulkan]

From what I understand, ships are masculine in French and Russian. So it would seem that referring to ships as feminine is somewhat unique to the United States. I wonder if David Bokovoy could weigh in. I know his degree mostly surrounded studying scriptural texts but his vast knowledge of the ancient languages of the time might shed some very needed light on this subject. Absolutely fascinating catch Shulem!

[Shulem]

I don't know that this is appropriate language of a people descended from the Jews and being far removed from them for hundreds of years.

Your honesty is refreshing.

Sounds like a research project for an actual linguist?

There have been a whole bunch of word analysis projects done in Book of Mormon Studies. You may want to submit this area of research to their committee? That is, if it hasn’t already been tackled and written up on somewhere in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Department of Religious Studies at BYU, or elsewhere.

Regards,
MG

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I can't fathom this not having been picked up by scholars and surely something has been said on the subject. But the question is, what have they said and how effective is it in explaining what appears to be a gross anachronism? Ships in ancient times and in different cultures were given femininity by virtue of being protected by a goddess but that doesn't bode well for Israelite culture and religion. It especially doesn't bode well for Lehi and the fact that the Nephites were strict in obeying the Law of Moses. So, the idea of the Nephites incorporating pagan beliefs into their nautical expressions makes little sense. The Nephites were too far removed and were said to practice a pure religion handed down from Moses that foreshadowed the coming of Christ.

So, I would love to see what excuses Mormon scholars have come up with. Wouldn't you? Perhaps you can forward this to some of your contacts and ask around. You're in the know, so have at it and let's see what they say. Now is the chance to flaunt your Mormon apologetics.

Let's see if it can pass the muster and survive Shulem's scrutiny.

[MG 2.0]

So, I would love to see what excuses Mormon scholars have come up with. Wouldn't you? Perhaps you can forward this to some of your contacts and ask around. You're in the know, so have at it and let's see what they say. Now is the chance to flaunt your Mormon apologetics.

Yeah, I have all kinds of contacts. Not.

I’m just a regular guy.

I do know that I wouldn’t be surprised if this particular topic has been written up about somewhere. That’s why I encouraged you to look around a bit before making possibly unwarranted accusations of fraud in this instance.

Shulem, one thing that concerns me is the fact that you don’t give any credence to ANY apologetic work that is out there. Especially that which has occurred more recently when there are more resources and people doing research. I would think you would want to keep up with things. As it is, you put stuff out there without paying any attention to alternative views and research.

Is that academically sound/honest?

I’m not putting you down, per se, it’s just that your work would be suspect by standards and practices related to keeping one’s mind open to new and different ways of approaching issues and concerns. This is especially applicable to historical and/or scientific research where things are moving along and changing day by day.

It seems like you might be painting yourself into a corner of non relevance in a sense. You’re talking to yourself and a few others but very few, if any, in the wider world of Mormon studies are taking you seriously. That is, if they even know what you’re doing in your own little corner.

So, for example, your “Wither she did go” surmisings are merely that…unless you put yourself out there in the REAL world of Mormon studies rather than practicing your art in your own little room talking to a very small crowd. And that crowd is going to keep slapping you on the back and congratulating you on your awesome work.

There is a danger of becoming the type of person that is full of oneself, so to speak, with limited exposure. There is evidence of that in some of the things you say. You’re not really putting yourself out there and exposing yourself to REAL academic criticism and peer review.

Are you? And does that matter?

Your Delmarva theory is just one among many (and you won’t even look at Joseph V. Anderson’s stuff), and one (that is yours) that’s based upon a predetermined supposition that Joseph Smith was a fraud. That starting point won’t get you very far in many academic circles. Excepting those that have obvious and stated biases one way or the other.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Can anyone comment on this?

I’m derailing from where you might like to go with this. I’ll bow out and simply take an interest in what other qualified folks might have to say in regards to your ‘findings’.

That is, assuming they are qualified. Problem is, who’s to know? But that is the nature of things on a public board such as this.

I wouldn’t be surprised, at all, if “she” is a word Joseph chose to use from his lexicon of words. Joseph’s mind, along with others, is in the Book of Mormon.

I’ll leave it there.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I'm pulling my content from another thread in order to make a new thread because of the specific implications and questions I have towards what appears to be a Book of Mormon anachronism. It is my hope that David Bokovoy and others will grace us with their presence and provide explanation and clarification in understanding the implications of Smith's use of the feminine pronoun in nautical Book of Mormon storytelling. Help!

What jumps out at you in the verse below? I'll clue you in to what I'm thinking and highlight the word. Ask yourself, is that word appropriate in the Book of Mormon considering Alma is a descendant of the Jews who is long removed from navies and ships of the old world? Nephi never referred to the ship that he built and sailed in that fashion. Ship gender was not expressed during Lehi's voyage. But we seem to have a slip on ole Joe's part as he incorporates modern thinking into fictitious nautical storytelling of the Book of Mormon.

And it came to pass that they were never heard of more. And we suppose that they were drowned in the depths of the sea. And it came to pass that one other ship also did sail forth; and whither SHE did go we know not.

Please allow me to impress you further and reveal more about the hidden innards of the Book of Mormon that secretly reveals Joseph Smith was the true author. Do I have your attention? The truth is that the character Mormon didn't know anymore about the sea than Joseph Smith. How so? Well, the character of Mormon in the Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith playing that part and pretending to fill that role. Mormon was Joseph Smith!



Joseph Smith strikes again!! Now that’s sailor talk, mind you:

But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer HER; and even as SHE is, so are they.

I don't know that this is appropriate language of a people descended from the Jews and being far removed from them for hundreds of years. Now, let's look at Late War and see what it says:

• "Sailed towards the island of Britain, and went nigh unto it, and captured numbers of the vessels of the people of Britain, in their own waters ; after which she returned in safety to the land of Columbia."

• "The shadow of hope passed over her as a dream; and most reluctantly was she compelled to strike the Eon's red cross to the Eagle of Columbia:"

• "After this Isaac caused a burning coal to be placed in the Guerriere, that she might be consumed, and the flames thereof mounted towards the heavens."

• "And in process of time, she fell upon one of the ships of Britain, called the Alert, and made spoil thereof to the people of Columbia."

• "Now the ship of Britain was mightier than the ship of Columbia j and she was called the Frolic, and the captain's name was Whinyeates."

• "And she was commanded by a valiant captain, whose name was Carden, and the name of the ship was the Macedonian."

• "And on the same day she met one of the strong ships of Columbia, the name of the captain whereof was Decatur, and the vessel was called the United States."

Etc, you get my point. What do you think Doc? Should Joe have been calling a ship a "she" in his Book of Mormon or was that a Freudian slip on his part?

Can anyone comment on this?

Interesting comparisons between the books of the time. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

[Shulem]

Yeah, I have all kinds of contacts. Not.

Me too.

I’m just a regular guy.

Me too.

I do know that I wouldn’t be surprised if this particular topic has been written up about somewhere. That’s why I encouraged you to look around a bit before making possibly unwarranted accusations of fraud in this instance.

I have exercised a degree of caution in making unwarranted accusations of fraud. I've pointed out that it looks fishy to me. It's certainly not biblical and that is why I appeal to authority, such as David Bokovoy or other certified scholars who can give authoritative commentary. I also have pointed out that Late War poses numerous examples in applying a feminine quality to ships. It is a common expression of modern times. But ancient Israel and Nephites? The Book of Mormon tells us that it's Alma and Mormon doing the talking, not Joseph Smith who was supposed to be translating what THEY said, not reinterpreting what they said.

Shulem, one thing that concerns me is the fact that you don’t give any credence to ANY apologetic work that is out there. Especially that which has occurred more recently when there are more resources and people doing research. I would think you would want to keep up with things. As it is, you put stuff out there without paying any attention to alternative views and research.

Is that academically sound/honest?

You're right. I give no credence to apologetic Book of Mormon geography models because they are all wrong. So-called new scholarship is a joke. It reminds me when apologist Kerry Shirts used to constantly harp on the idea that "new scholarship" for the Book of Abraham was making the critics outdated and ignorant. But the "new scholarship" for the Book of Abraham was bunk just as the models for Book of Mormon geography are all bunk. They are nothing more than garbage and I can't stand to look at them. They hurt my eyes and insult my intelligence! I know better.

I’m not putting you down, per se, it’s just that your work would be suspect by standards and practices related to keeping one’s mind open to new and different ways of approaching issues and concerns. This is especially applicable to historical and/or scientific research where things are moving along and changing day by day.

My mind is absolutely closed when it comes to Book of Mormon geography outside the realms of Delmarva. I know I'm right, period. I have that testimony. My mind is closed when it comes to Facsimile No. 3 in knowing the Church is wrong in their presentation and claims. I have that testimony too. No new scholarship is going to change anything. Period.

It seems like you might be painting yourself into a corner of non relevance in a sense. You’re talking to yourself and a few others but very few, if any, in the wider world of Mormon studies are taking you seriously. That is, if they even know what you’re doing in your own little corner.

Whatever.

So, for example, your “Wither she did go” surmisings are merely that…unless you put yourself out there in the REAL world of Mormon studies rather than practicing your art in your own little room talking to a very small crowd. And that crowd is going to keep slapping you on the back and congratulating you on your awesome work.

We will see what comes of it. We will see.

There is a danger of becoming the type of person that is full of oneself, so to speak, with limited exposure. There is evidence of that in some of the things you say. You’re not really putting yourself out there and exposing yourself to REAL academic criticism and peer review.

Are you? And does that matter?

I'm having a fun time. I enjoy being myself and having fun on this board. I trust you do to. That's why you're here. It's a great place to hang out.

Your Delmarva theory is just one among many (and you won’t even look at Joseph V. Anderson’s stuff), and one (that is yours) that’s based upon a predetermined supposition that Joseph Smith was a fraud. That starting point won’t get you very far in many academic circles. Excepting those that have obvious and stated biases one way or the other.

Delmarva is the one and only true Book of Mormon model. I know it.

Nothing is going to change that.

[Shulem]

I wouldn’t be surprised, at all, if “she” is a word Joseph chose to use from his lexicon of words. Joseph’s mind, along with others, is in the Book of Mormon.

So much for simply reading words that appeared on a magic rock.

[Shulem]

Interesting comparisons between the books of the time. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Yes indeed. And I appeal to authority for answers to this riddle.