Carmack's current position on Book of Mormon authorship

[Gadianton]

Yeah, the reason I asked about whether Carmack was making a distinction between "if it be so" and "if it so be" is that The Late War by Gilbert J. Hunt, from which Joseph Smith plagiarized pretty heavily in fabricating the Book of Mormon, uses the phrase "if it be so." The Late War, Chapter 22:15, page 103

I think he sees that as evidence. the KJV uses "if so be" mostly, and three times "if it be so" and zero times "if it so be", which he places earlier in the 1500s.

[Gadianton]

Here's the problem. I looked up the original page in the Joseph Smith papers, and "it hath" is actually NOT PHYSICALLY THERE because the page is torn away. "it hath" is written into the transcript by someone, and it's documented that someone, (I think Smith?) corrected the missing "it hath" to "it has."

Is this referring to the Alma verse "cleansed from all stain through the blood of him of whom it hath been spoken by our fathers"?

I was a little confused because then he goes on to link a verse with "did" to: The begynnynge of Rome was at that tyme as the Kynge Salmanasar (of whome it hath been spoken) dyd raygne ouer the Assyrians.

But this other one:

And it came to pass that he did teach and minister unto the children of the multitude of whom hath been spoken, and he did loose their tongues

^^^but it don't have an "it". So...maybe it's still a hit but he acts as if "if so be" is in a different universe from "if it so be", so not sure I want to buy that "hath been spoken" + did is the same as "it hath been spoken" + did.

And, since Joseph Smith was reading off the seer stone, why did the reformers go through all the trouble to line up spelling to Smith's time, why didn't they write like they did back in their heyday? I think I'd be more impressed that it's early 1500s if it were "Kynge Mosiah" etc.

[Gabriel]

This threw me for a loop yesterday also and I ended up spending a bit of time on it, my excuse is allergy season destroyed my plans for productivity this weekend, so might as well attack the church. I'll summarize this in my own words the best I can without references and Carmack can register and defend himself if he ain't happy with it.

After Moroni buried the plates, presumably he snuck them back to heaven because we can't have a poor farm boy translating them by the gift and power of God or anything like that. In heaven, a resurrected committee (they can't be ghosts, or how would they interact with the plates?) of 16th century reformers, temple worked completed, were chosen to translate the plates. For some reason Moroni, who was familiar with all the requisite languages wasn't available, so these reformers had to learn the Nephite language and get to work. The project was split between two reformers. The Gold plates contain in order: the 116, the rest of the large plates, the small plates, and Moroni's snippet. The committee said, "Myles Coverdale, you get the first half and John Rogers, you get the second half."

Well, that works out to be 45% for Coverdale and 55% for Rogers if you put the line right at 3 Nephi 7. If one handwritten page is 1.8 printed pages worth instead of 1.2, then it would be 50-50 (I think - Malkie can verify). These are the two separate 16th century voices. The split is ostensibly marked by the distinct voice transition Carmack found right at that spot. I'm trying to help with more intuition to draw the line there, like an equal share of translation load. Carmack says that Joseph Smith was on a "hot streak" dictating when the 3 Nephi 7/8 line is crossed, and the style abruptly changes. Because the style abruptly changes, the alt hypothesis that Joseph's style drifted during translation is falsified.

Rogers wrote "if it so be" in the New Mathew Bible. Carmack says the B translator (my Rogers) is guilty of all the archaisms and style, which was coming into vogue in that time in academic writing. The A translator is more vanilla. But Tyndale (another A suspect) wrote things like, "It is a marvel if" -- so I'd be slightly more impressed if the A author had more of a distinctive voice of their own rather than just less of the same distinctive voice. I should point out that "It is a marvel if" is doing a different kind of linguistic job than "It it so be" -- the point is there could have been something more distinctively A...

I'm afraid it gets much worse, Gad. It seems Carmack wasn't satisfied with leaving it as Translator A and Translator B. For some of his Early Modern English examples, A was more archaic than B, for others B was more archaic than A:

"The text shifts after the book of Helaman to mostly conjunction save usage relative to synonymous except usage (shifting from 35% save [conj.] to 83%; n=300). (To verify this, exclude verbal save, prepositional uses, and biblical quotations.) This is not a shift to more archaic usage, as most of the shifts are...In general, the text shifts to somewhat more archaic usage (which is why there's a shift to wherefore and whoso), with a few exceptions."

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/11 ... 1210267677

He argues that 25 of 30 shifts are to more archaic language, the other 5 to less archaic.

Additionally, not all the 'shifting' to a different voice occurred at the same place:

"The text shifts after the book of Helaman to mostly conjunction save usage relative to synonymous except usage..."

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/11 ... 1210267677

and

"So, Joseph Smith must have consciously decided to begin to use "after that S", starting at 3 Nephi 12... He consciously decided to use whoso almost all the time instead of whosoever almost all the time, starting in 3 Nephi 9; to use wherefore instead of therefore the vast majority of the time, starting in Ether; to use "before that S" some of the time, starting at 3 Nephi 28..."

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/11 ... om/page/6/

This really complicates the number of 'voices' involved in the shifting. It gives new meaning to the idea that it's difficult to get a committee to do anything that is coherent and cohesive.

There are two instances of “matters not” and thirteen of “mattereth not” in the Book of Mormon. The shift from “matters not” to “mattereth not” begins in Alma.

Mosiah

Chapter 7
But I finish my message; and then it matters not whither I go, if it so be that I am saved.


Alma

Chapter 3
I say unto you, if ye speak against it, it matters not, for the word of God must be fulfilled.

Also from Alma

Chapter 19
Now whether there shall be one time, or a second time, or a third time, that men shall come forth from the dead, it mattereth not…
Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise, it mattereth not; for all do not die at once; and this mattereth not….

Chapter 25
But behold, these things mattereth not.

Chapter 26
But behold, it mattereth not…

Chapter 28
And now, in your epistle you have censured me; but it mattereth not…

"The text shifts after the book of Helaman to mostly conjunction save usage relative to synonymous except usage..."

Thanks to Sir Walter Scott, Carmack can scrap the ‘conjunction save’ from the Ghost Committee’s List of Things to Do.

[Marcus]

Here's the problem. I looked up the original page in the Joseph Smith papers, and "it hath" is actually NOT PHYSICALLY THERE because the page is torn away. "it hath" is written into the transcript by someone, and it's documented that someone, (I think Smith?) corrected the missing "it hath" to "it has."

Is this referring to the Alma verse "cleansed from all stain through the blood of him of whom it hath been spoken by our fathers"?

Yes, here's a link to the page. It's handwritten and torn, and the 'it hath' is written in, which was subsequently changed to 'it has' .
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... n%20spoken

I was a little confused because then he goes on to link a verse with "did" to: The begynnynge of Rome was at that tyme as the Kynge Salmanasar (of whome it hath been spoken) dyd raygne ouer the Assyrians.

But this other one:

And it came to pass that he did teach and minister unto the children of the multitude of whom hath been spoken, and he did loose their tongues

^^^but it don't have an "it". So...maybe it's still a hit but he acts as if "if so be" is in a different universe from "if it so be", so not sure I want to buy that "hath been spoken" + did is the same as "it hath been spoken" + did.

Carmack assumes it's the same. He says B of M has 10 of this type, nine without the 'it', one with the 'it.' He then finds multiples of one of those variations in Early Modern English, and declares "it is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith worded this phraseology." Even though this phraseology was in the B of M preface, twice in the witness statements and also in the D&C. He simply states those weren't written by Smith so they don't count. It is utterly illogical.

And, since Joseph Smith was reading off the seer stone, why did the reformers go through all the trouble to line up spelling to Smith's time, why didn't they write like they did back in their heyday? I think I'd be more impressed that it's early 1500s if it were "Kynge Mosiah" etc.

Yes, that's always bothered me. Why assume an Early Modern English speaker/writer would only insert bits of their language into the work, while leaving the rest mid 1800s language? How does an Early Modern English speaker/writer even know what 1800s writing would look like? Carmack's theory is nonsensical on the face of it.

Virtually every conclusion of his that I have explored seems to rest on nothing more substantial than special pleading.

[Gadianton]

Even though this phraseology was in the B of M preface, twice in the witness statements and also in the D&C

right, that should officially end the idea for that phrase. My other comments were thinking best case scenario.

The other thing I'd be slightly more impressed with is archaic words rather than wording. One of the examples I came across "it is a marvel" would have been more interesting. He extracts a lot out of arrangements of familiar words. "Nobody could have put an 'it' in that place!"

[Tom]

Is this referring to the Alma verse "cleansed from all stain through the blood of him of whom it hath been spoken by our fathers"?

Yes, here's a link to the page. It's handwritten and torn, and the 'it hath' is written in, which was subsequently changed to 'it has' .
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... n%20spoken

I wasn’t able to open the link above (likely due to the auto-correct feature). An alternate link is here.

[Marcus]

Yes, here's a link to the page. It's handwritten and torn, and the 'it hath' is written in, which was subsequently changed to 'it has' .
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... n%20spoken

I wasn’t able to open the link above (likely due to the auto-correct feature). An alternate link is here.

Thanks Tom. I always check my links and it opens for me, whether I have word censoring enabled or not. Is there another auto-correct feature I am unaware of that's causing that? How do you create a link to bypass it, if you don't mind my asking? I'd of course always prefer to give useful links so any advice you have would be appreciated.

[Marcus]

Even though this phraseology was in the B of M preface, twice in the witness statements and also in the D&C

right, that should officially end the idea for that phrase. My other comments were thinking best case scenario.

The other thing I'd be slightly more impressed with is archaic words rather than wording. One of the examples I came across "it is a marvel" would have been more interesting. He extracts a lot out of arrangements of familiar words. "Nobody could have put an 'it' in that place!"

Yes, I agree. Especially since he finds Smith's various word arrangements, according to him, to alternatively 'match' middle English, early modern English, late middle English, exceedingly rare archaic English, and sometimes no other English on the planet. Add in that his 'relative' comparisons of usage are unclear and always different.

But truly archaic words? Yes, I'd like to see that too. We know Skousen and Carmack had to redact something like 87% of the archaic words they originally listed in parts 3 and 4 "Nature of the Original Language." I went looking for those words and every recent listing, review, and description of Skousen's project that I could find does NOT include those redactions, but gives the total number archaic words found, pre-redaction. The only redaction is the very quiet pre-prints on the Interpreter site, that Peterson admonished people to 'not copy,' and that Skousen never published as part of volume three, as he stated he would. (Tom can attest to that, as I believe he's stated his $100 hard copy of volume 3 has never been updated with the redactions.)

I'll start another thread explaining what I found.

[Tom]

I wasn’t able to open the link above (likely due to the auto-correct feature). An alternate link is here.

Thanks Tom. I always check my links and it opens for me, whether I have word censoring enabled or not. Is there another auto-correct feature I am unaware of that's causing that? How do you create a link to bypass it, if you don't mind my asking? I'd of course always prefer to give useful links so any advice you have would be appreciated.

Hmm. I understood that the board automatically capitalizes the word “[m]ormon” to read “Mormon” and thus breaks URLs featuring that word. If I edit your URL so that “Mormon” reads “[m]ormon,” I can access the JSP website page. (My link above is obtained from a “short URL” converter website and doesn’t contain the word “Mormon.”) But I’m now wondering if users can turn off auto-corrections in their profile. Perhaps other readers don’t have any problem with your original link. It’s very possible that my comment was unnecessary.

[Marcus]

Thanks Tom. I always check my links and it opens for me, whether I have word censoring enabled or not. Is there another auto-correct feature I am unaware of that's causing that? How do you create a link to bypass it, if you don't mind my asking? I'd of course always prefer to give useful links so any advice you have would be appreciated.

Hmm. I understood that the board automatically capitalizes the word “[m]ormon” to read “Mormon” and thus breaks URLs featuring that word. If I edit your URL so that “Mormon” reads “[m]ormon,” I can access the JSP website page. (My link above is obtained from a “short URL” converter website and doesn’t contain the word “Mormon.”) But I’m now wondering if users can turn off auto-corrections in their profile. Perhaps other readers don’t have any problem with your original link. It’s very possible that my comment was unnecessary.

Oh no, in my opinion your comment was very necessary!! multiple people have commented on broken links in various settings, so clearly there is an issue. I think malkie noted l-d-s gets capitaized to L D S, and various abbreviations get unabbreviated in unintended ways, and vice versa. (Even "t -r-ump" is no longer allowed to be a verb but gets capitalized!!)

Thank you for the converter website, it's seems to be a safer bet to just use that on links, so i appreciate the heads up.