Word Usage in the Book of Mormon

[Carborendum]

Have you ever wondered why all the military leaders in the BoM were "captains" instead of "generals"?  It turns out that the word "general" (in the military sense) didn't really get used until the 16th century.  That was just in time for there to be one use of the military title of "general" to be used in the Bible as we have it today.  All other high-ranking military officers in the Bible were captains of various types.

Joseph Smith would have been familiar with the term general.  And a high-ranking military leader in Joseph's mind would certainly have been a general.  He was certainly familiar with General George Washington.  But instead, all the translations in the BoM were variations of "captain."

I'm going to continue this thread as I come across more words that I find "odd usage" even for the 1800s.

One thing that I came across was when Oliver Cowdery was told "you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right" (D&C 9:8).  I never understood this counsel.  What on earth was there to study?  There was only the most scant alphabetical codex as of yet.  There was no previous training on the language.  What could he study or guess to ask if it was right?

I had posited previously that the original manuscript differed from the first printer's manuscript because the original was a word-for-word translation.  Reading such a translation in English would be incomprehensible.  But Joseph then had to take time to re-word it to something approaching reasonable English syntax.  And it was this new word order that needed "studying out in your mind."  I'd further suppose that the printer's manuscript was a third translation where some more educated men offered proper English wording.  But Joseph would put the brakes on that from time to time because doing so removed some of the original meaning.  And it was important to keep it as it was.

So, what about Oliver Cowdery?  I haven't read word-for-word shot-for-shot events of Oliver's attempt.  So, I'm only going off of what I do know.  I believe that Oliver actually did succeed in using the Urim and Thummim to translate word-for-word.  But it didn't make any sense to him.  Some words were off - meaning that there wasn't an obvious English equivalent.  The word order was very difficult to get any information out of it at all.  But Joseph had been doing it for a while -- he had already done all the 116 pages.  Perhaps it was more fluid for him to translate into English because of this.

Thoughts?

Edited September 17 by Carborendum

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

"you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right"

I use this instruction all the time.  Think about it, know it backwards and forward.  Know why the wrong ideas are wrong.  When you know the material this well you have a feeling of rightness.  Then you ask God for confirmation.

There have been many studies of the composition of the book of mormon.  I like the word count and tone studies that prove the BoM has multiple authors.

I also like that there are 4 formal versions, and like 5 more second hand versions of the first vision.  But only one Book of Mormon.

Think about it. 

Edited September 18 by mikbone

[Just_A_Guy]

Doesn’t Royal Skousen argue that the BoM English is closest to 15th-16th century?  I seem to recall him speculating that perhaps Tyndale or some of the King James translators, in the spirit world, had a role in generating the English text; which was then passed on to Joseph Smith.

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Doesn’t Royal Skousen argue that the BoM English is closest to 15th-16th century?  I seem to recall him speculating that perhaps Tyndale or some of the King James translators, in the spirit world, had a role in generating the English text; which was then passed on to Joseph Smith.

I'm not familiar with Skousen's comment on this topic, nor if he has expertise in such a field.  I did have a run-in with another person who claimed such scholarship.  And his opinion was that it was essentially the common language of the 1800s when people were quoting the Bible.  They would mostly speak KJV text, but they'd casualize it with a mix of 1800s English because most people wouldn't quote "exactly."  And that style was essentially what we see in the BoM.  Sounds reasonable.  But the problem is that I don't really see that very often.  I've read text from both literature and personal writings during the 1800s.  Neither sounds ANYthing like the BoM.

If you've ever read Tyndale or Coverdale, you'd realize it is a VERY different language than the KJV.  So, when you give the range of 15th to 16th centuries... that's a long time.  And I don't know if there was any special help that they could give to someone speaking in 19th century English.

Did they help?  Maybe.  I'm still not quite clear what help the spirits of those who have passed on can do to help us here in mortality.  I've heard anecdotes.  But I don't know of the actual teaching/doctrine on that.

[JohnsonJones]

I know in historical research I run across texts that are not in English.  The further they are from being in the same branch (languages derive from other languages, almost like you see a tree with various branches going out, except not all the branches combine into the same trunk in our world) the harder it is to translate back with the right context as grammar and organization of the words will be different.   Add to this that sometimes there are words in one language that have no translatable relation to words in another and it can become a very large hodge podge. 

It's possible. 

[Carborendum]

I came across a particular school of thought online.  I'm still reviewing it to determine if it passes the smell test.  But it is producing some very interesting ideas.  One such idea spoke to Nephi's vision.

The theory (backed up by partially questionable documents) is that part of the apostasy that was happening at the time of Lehi/Jeremiah was that the people in power began trusting their scholars more than their prophets.  One major dispute was between "Jahweh" and "The Messiah" (specifically being the "Son of God.").  Part of the plain and precious things being removed from the Bible was the condescension and incarnation.  So the scholars said that if you believed in the idea of this non-corporeal God becoming flesh, that's like being a pagan polytheist (which was what all other nations worshiped).  Therefore you should be stoned.

Lehi was not hunted down because he had a casual disagreement.  His declaration was that God could be seen.  His Spirit could be seen.  He had a corporeal being.  He was so corporeal that he was going to have a SON in a mortal body.  The

This was complete apostasy in their minds.  That's why they sought Lehi's life.

So, this makes the following words rather interesting.

Quote

1 For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot.

2 And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou?

3 And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw.

4 And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken?

5 And I said: Yea, thou knowest that I believe all the words of my father.

6 And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

   -- 1 Ne 11:1-6

I had always read the words "cried with a loud voice."  But I'd never thought of it in my mind as a loud voice.  It was always a strong conversational voice.  But nothing really special.

No.

When Nephi responded "I believe all the words of my father," it is all the more interesting that the angel "cried with a loud voice."  This young man who was raised by a good old man had the faith to recognize the truth even when all the religious scholars were not receptive to this message.  He listened to the prophets.  He knew that this would be the path by which the plain and precious truths could be preserved.

It's almost a cry of relief.  We have found the righteous branch of Joseph that grows over the wall.  He then gives praise to the Lord.  And he calls Nephi blessed for believing in the Sonship of Christ.

*********************

Then he is shown the same vision that Lehi saw.  But he saw things in the vision that Lehi did not notice.  This gives the impression that it was a panoramic vision.  And one saw what one focused on at the moment.  And he was being guided by an angel throughout. (The Book of Revelation: angel and priest are interchangeable.)  Temple allusion.

[Carborendum]

Here are all the verses with "fountain", "river", and "water" as related to the waters flowing from the Tree of Life.  Feel free to add to the list, if I missed any.

Quote

And as I cast my eyes round about, that perhaps I might discover my family also, I beheld a river of water; and it ran along, and it was near the tree of which I was partaking the fruit.

 1. -- 1 Ne 8:13

And it came to pass that I was desirous that Laman and Lemuel should come and partake of the fruit also; wherefore, I cast mine eyes towards the head of the river, that perhaps I might see them.

 2. -- 1 Ne 8:17

And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.

 3. -- 1 Ne 8:19

And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.

 4. -- 1 Ne 8:20

And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.

 5. -- 1 Ne 8:32

And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

 6. -- 1 Ne 11:25*

And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the fountain of filthy water which thy father saw; yea, even the river of which he spake; and the depths thereof are the depths of hell

7.  -- 1 Ne 12:16

And I said unto them that the water which my father saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water.

 8. -- 1 Ne 15:27

* 1 Ne 11:26 "Behold the condescension of God."

Tell me what I'm missing.

I had originally thought there was only one river.  But upstream and downstream parts were different.  Others told me that it was two different rivers.  Here is my analysis of the verses above (in scriptural order).

1. (Lehi sees) River flows along.  Notice it doesn't say what it runs along at this point.  It is "along" in the sense of "run along now" which means essentially "in a straight line away from a given point", not necessarily parallel to another object that already delineates a path.  This is different than "along" in v. 19.

2. He looks for Laman and Lemuel near "the head of the river."  

3. That river is parallel to the rod of iron and leads to the Tree of Life.

4. The straight and narrow path is described as parallel to the rod of iron, and thus the river as well, leading to the Tree of Life and it near the great and spacious field (Nephi describes it as "a world").  It is difficult to know what he meant by that.  The Hebrew word for "world" is / tēḇēl / (תֵּבֵל).  This can mean a world as we see it.  But it can also mean a nation or territory.  I'm not expert enough to clearly distinguish it from / ereṣ / (אֶרֶץ).  But the fact is that they didn't look at our planet like we do.  Then the problem is compounded by the fact that Nephi wrote this account in Ancient Egyptian.  Sorry, I don't know Ancient Egyptian.

5. Many were drowned in the depths of the fountain.  Notice that so far, there is only mention of one fountain.  And it was the good fountain.  And this is still Lehi speaking.  So, no mention of filth.  But many were drowned by it.  This is troubling.  If the good fountain was something that may drown many when they get too close, I'm thinking of an Icarian scenario.  Maybe I'm wrong.

6. (Nephi) Use of tricky wording.  The Fountain of Living Waters = The Tree of Life.  And the waters of the Fountain or the waters of The Tree are a representation of the Love of God.  Here, we have to invoke our visualization. 

• We now have a fuller picture that has been described. 
• We see the whole river. 
• It's a "river of water."**
• The "fountain" or "head" is really just a "location" at this point.
• The whole river is the representation of the Love of God.

* This is where we invoke "Behold the condescension of God."  Why did the angel tell him to look at this directly after explaining that the river was the Love of God?  This begins the history we're all familiar with:

• Christ's birth and ministry
• The Crucifixion and resurrection
• The early Church
• The Apostasy
• The wars involved in the Colonization of the New World

7. While we know about the Restoration and End times that Chapter 12-13 go over, the next mention of the waters was when the vision displayed the Colonzation of the New World.  Why did the angel decide to stop the narrative at that point to point back to the Tree of Life vision?  And it was at that point that we finally hear that the waters were filthy.  Up until this point, there was no mention of any other river, fountain, head, or water that was filthy.  It appears to be the same water/river/source.

They were once the representation of the Love of God.  But they became filthy during the period after the apostles were all killed off and before the restoration.  The very next use of the word "filthy" 

Quote

22 And the angel said unto me: Behold these shall dwindle in unbelief.

23 And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.

 -- 1 Ne 12:22-23

It appears to be the same river.  But it was changed.  So, what was the river?  It was our manner of worship and the plain and precious truths of the gospel that became corrupted.  And that was how so many were drowned in those waters that were supposed to be the Love of God.

************************

In addition to this, there is some additional symbolism about the "Tree of Life" and the symbol of "rivers" in ancient Israel that is not very commonly discussed.  And that led to an amazing conclusion.  But I'll save that for another time.

Edited September 25 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

I forgot #8:

 Laman and Lemuel ask about the vision that Lehi had.

Quote

26 And they said unto me: What meaneth the river of water which our father saw?

27 And I said unto them that the water which my father saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water.

28 And I said unto them that it was an awful gulf, which separated the wicked from the tree of life, and also from the saints of God.

29 And I said unto them that it was a representation of that awful hell, which the angel said unto me was prepared for the wicked.

 -- 1 Ne 15: 26-27

Now Nephi clearly states that the river was filthiness.  It was an awful gulf that separated the wicked from the tree of life and from the saints of God.

How is it that the River = the Love of God & it represents filthiness?  For that we need to go into Hebrew symbolism of rivers... Later.  For now, consider that many symbols in the Middle East had dual imagery of love (drawing in) for the faithful and punishment (shunning/disowning) for the wicked.

Edited September 25 by Carborendum

[mikbone]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

How is it that the River = the Love of God & it represents filthiness? 

I like that the water is knowledge, when it exits the fountain it is pure and wholesome.  But then it gets polluted with lies and dis-information.

The glory of God is intelligence D&C 93:36

So in a sense knowledge and intelligence is a representation of Gods love.

This interpretation makes much more sense to me.

[zil2]

56 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Notice that so far, there is only mention of one fountain.  And it was the good fountain.

What makes you think it's a good fountain?  There's no indication at all of it being good or bad.  FWIW, I've always thought that in 8:20, "the head of the fountain" was saying "the head of the river".  I think there is one river.  I think the "head of the river" and "head of the fountain" are two ways of saying the same thing.

I think when Nephi, in 11:25, describes the tree of life as also being "the fountain of living waters" that there's no relation to the "head of the fountain" or the river.  Rather, I think he's just adding more ways to describe the tree of life.

#6: I don't think there were two visual representations of the love of God.  I think Nephi, upon realizing that the tree of life represents the love of God, chooses to add in his own editorial analogies, ones that he's perhaps more familiar with (Isaiah and Jeremiah use similar words).

12:16 seems to me to say that the fountain and river are one, that they are filthy and "the depths thereof are the depths of hell".

 

NOTE: None of that is to say that your interpretation isn't useful.  But I don't think it was intended.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

What makes you think it's a good fountain?  There's no indication at all of it being good or bad. 

Because of #6.  Nephi says that The Fountain of Living Waters = The Tree of Life.

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

FWIW, I've always thought that in 8:20, "the head of the fountain" was saying "the head of the river".  I think there is one river.  I think the "head of the river" and "head of the fountain" are two ways of saying the same thing.

I think when Nephi, in 11:25, describes the tree of life as also being "the fountain of living waters" that there's no relation to the "head of the fountain" or the river.  Rather, I think he's just adding more ways to describe the tree of life.

He did say "head of the river" in v. 14. But he changes it in 8:20. Why?  "Head of the fountain" doesn't really make sense if head and fountain mean the same thing.  

So, the only way I can reconcile it is that "at the head of the river, there was a fountain."  Should we be visualizing it like a decorative water fountain feature in the front of many temples?

Consider:

• Lehi was standing at the Tree.
• The "head" was not directly there.  It was "a little way off."  Sariah, Sam, and Nephi were by the head not knowing which way to go.  And Lehi called to them to come to the tree.
• Later, he looks for Laman and Lemuel were also there, but would not come to the tree.

So, here we can consider that the head was not on the SAME spot, but "a little way off" from the Tree.

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

#6: I don't think there were two visual representations of the love of God.  I think Nephi, upon realizing that the tree of life represents the love of God, chooses to add in his own editorial analogies, ones that he's perhaps more familiar with (Isaiah and Jeremiah use similar words).

Let's take a closer look at the wording:

Quote

which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God;

and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

Depending on where you were going with this (not clear) ... the phrase "or to the tree of life" was the one phrase that has had a lot of people mixed up.  This is not meant to be a simple conjunction.  "Or" is short for "or in other words..."  Nephi does see these two symbols as visually separate in his vision.  But he realized they both represent the same thing.  He confirms this by saying:

Quote

and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

So, two symbols of the love of God.

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

12:16 seems to me to say that the fountain and river are one, that they are filthy and "the depths thereof are the depths of hell".

Ok, I hadn't thought of it that way.  That actually feeds into my interpretation that I have not shared yet.

How is it that the fountain "which is the love of God" can have depths that are the "depths of hell"?

Edited September 25 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

I like that the water is knowledge, when it exits the fountain it is pure and wholesome.  But then it gets polluted with lies and dis-information.

The glory of God is intelligence D&C 93:36

So in a sense knowledge and intelligence is a representation of Gods love.

This interpretation makes much more sense to me.

So, where does the drowning in the fountain come in?  The fountain was near the tree (close to the source).  Do people drown when they are near the tree?

[zil2]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

head and fountain mean the same thing.  

I'm not saying "head" and "fountain" are the same thing, I'm saying "head of the river" and "head of the fountain" are the same thing.

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I'm not saying "head" and "fountain" are the same thing, I'm saying "head of the river" and "head of the fountain" are the same thing.

I got that.  Forget the phrase "head of the river" for just a second. 

My point was that the phrase "head of the fountain" makes no linguistic sense given the definitions of the words as we know them -- unless we're using the sense of a fountain that sprays or spouts water.

[zil2]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Should we be visualizing it like a decorative water fountain feature in the front of many temples?

I don't think there's anything we would call a "fountain" at all.  I think the water or river is the "fountain".

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life;

This could be rendered: "...which led to the fountain of living waters (a.k.a. the tree of life);..."

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

How is it that the fountain "which is the love of God" can have depths that are the "depths of hell"?

First, I don't think the two uses of "fountain" are the same (I think Nephi brings in, as part of his own imagination / experience / editorial of the vision, a second fountain).  Second, well, letting folks dive into the depths of hell is part of the love of God - he loves them enough to respect their agency, tragic though it may be.

 

[mikbone]

49 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, where does the drowning in the fountain come in?  The fountain was near the tree (close to the source).  Do people drown when they are near the tree?

Absolutely, when you tell some people the truth, they flat out reject it. 

Edited September 25 by mikbone

[Carborendum]

9 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I don't think there's anything we would call a "fountain" at all.  I think the water or river is the "fountain".

This could be rendered: "...which led to the fountain of living waters (a.k.a. the tree of life);..."

First, I don't think the two uses of "fountain" are the same (I think Nephi brings in, as part of his own imagination / experience / editorial of the vision, a second fountain).  Second, well, letting folks dive into the depths of hell is part of the love of God - he loves them enough to respect their agency, tragic though it may be.

I'm sorry, Zil.  But I don't get that out of this at all.

Nephi didn't initiate the idea of "filthy."  The angel did.  So, that was not commentary on Nephi's part.

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Absolutely, when you tell some people the truth they flat out reject it. 

I agree that this is a correct interpretation. 

But there is another interpretation.  And I have no idea how many levels it is.  It could be 2.  It could be 200.  But it knocked my socks off when I began formulating the idea.  I still have to ponder it a while before I'm willing to share... because...

See what I did there?

Edited September 25 by Carborendum

[mikbone]

It only takes a small amount of excrement to ruin a large reservoir of clean water.

Edited September 25 by mikbone

[Carborendum]

9 minutes ago, mikbone said:

It only takes a small amount of excrement to ruin a large reservoir of clean water.

One of those "blink and you'll miss it."

The movie/tv industry didn't want to give free advertisement to any company back in the day.  So, the candy bar in question was not a Baby Ruth.  I was a "Baby Rut" bar. 

If you look closely, you'll see that there were no outer nuts on the candy bar.

Edited September 25 by Carborendum

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm sorry, Zil.  But I don't get that out of this at all.

There would have been no point in me replying if I thought you did.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Nephi didn't initiate the idea of "filthy."  The angel did.  So, that was not commentary on Nephi's part.

I never said otherwise.  Nor does what I say require one to believe otherwise.  I'm saying "fountain" is used in two distinct ways with two distinct meanings, only one of which (the "filthy" one) was a part of Lehi's vision (even if Lehi didn't notice the filthiness (as later explained by Nephi)).

Edited September 25 by zil2

[mikbone]

Just for confusions sake.

Mists of darkness could be considered as an atmospheric river?

Thus two rivers…

[Carborendum]

25 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Just for confusions sake.

Mists of darkness could be considered as an atmospheric river?

Thus two rivers…

Two rivers?  Two thumbs down, Roger.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

There would have been no point in me replying if I thought you did.

I never said otherwise.  Nor does what I say require one to believe otherwise.  I'm saying "fountain" is used in two distinct ways with two distinct meanings, only one of which (the "filthy" one) was a part of Lehi's vision (even if Lehi didn't notice the filthiness (as later explained by Nephi)).

Then I'm in a completely different mind-set.  Could I ask you to start with a blank slate and explain the way you see all these descriptions?

Edited September 25 by Carborendum

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Then I'm in a completely different mind-set.  Could I ask you to start with a blank slate and explain the way you see all these descriptions?

That's not a fast thing as I'll have to read and dissect 6 chapters of the Book of Mormon...  I'm not up to it tonight, but I'll try tomorrow if nothing interferes.