There are 3 thoughts on “A Comparison of the Book of Mormon’s Subordinate That Usage”.

  1. Wow! Stan Carmack, you make a case that is difficult to dispute. I love how like a lawyer, you lay out your evidence, propound the evidence, introduce the possibility of ulterior reasons for that evidence and then explicitly demonstrate the lack of logic in following those ulterior reasons.

    It may well be that there are those who disagree (and sometimes vehemently) with Stanford Carmack, but they do so at the peril of placing themselves in the ludicrous position of having to explain the preponderance of the statistical evidences standing against them. Or as Stan Carmack might say, “show me the proof, because here’s the analysis as I’ve rendered it, and it definitely (statistically) shows Early Modern English proclivities regardless of your denials.”

    I love Stanford Carmack’s forays into Book of Mormon English. He not only shows intelligence and design, but fortifies his analysis with hard, cold research, facts and statistics. It’s really a hard dead-horse to beat when his final analysis is displayed in such black-and-white terms.

  2. I just loved reading this article and your related analysis. And because that I read your article my appreciation for JS huge prophetic gift has increased!

    I have loved reading all your articles over the past many years. Your analysis and explanations just keep getting clearer. JS is a wonderful Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator with a huge prophetic gift. He somehow can “see” ancient texts and read what is written. Who prepared these texts (or what committee prepared the texts) remains unknown. The only remaining question about JS continues to be, “how does he do the things he does?”

    Thank you for your testimony, “that comparatively studying the BoM English is like taking a master class in lesser-known early modern usage.” (pg 24). As Oliver C. testified, “to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … The Book of Mormon.” Thank goodness that OC didn’t question the archaic subordinate that usage!

    I’ve loved reading our simple BoM for 40+ years. I thought the discovery of inverted parallelisms in the BoM was amazing. But seeing the complex EME has added a beautiful level of complex appreciation to my study and because that I read this new article I’ve had many delightful surprises!

    Your scholarship continues to be important to me. I’m just a grass-roots average member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (I used to be a grass-roots Mormon 🙂 ) wherefore after that, I still love reading your articles!

    On another related topic, gaining/ maintaining an appreciation for JS’s huge prophetic gift is an important component of my personal testimony. Knowing of JS’s huge prophetic gift allowed me to immediately recognize Thomas Wayment / Hailey Wilson Lemmon’s (what I now consider to be) ridiculous assertions that JS used the Adam Clark Commentary when creating the JST. Now I learn that Grant Hardy still believes (as of 2018, your footnote 21) wherefore that JS was responsible for wording D&C revelations and wherefore “that the issue is settled.” (pg26). I hope more of the BYU academics will write more articles about JS huge prophetic gift! In them days I will rejoice. Apparently, because that JS was a visionary man, wherefore that many academic articles continue to under-appreciate his huge prophetic gift.

    In closing, thank you for your inspiring articles. I was wondering when your next articles would be written. I was just thinking after that you had written so many EME article, you were running out of BoM EME material. Apparently not!

  3. Thank you. Fascinating. I have wondered if many of the 1837 edits by the Prophet are not evidence themselves (or at least indicative), that the translation was not the pondering and impression of the Prophet over what word to use, but instead a reporting of the words seen to be transcribed. I wonder, because if the former, it is harder for me to understand the reason for making those edits. He was inspired to choose the words and did so. Why would he change that inspiration later? If it is the latter, though, then I can understand a person wanting to correct what to him seems to be grammatical errors or poor usage for the current audience. This is surely speculation on my part, and in the end neither option, or a combination of them, takes away from the inspiration, power, and wonder of the Book of Mormon.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged. Individual authors are given the option to disallow commenting or end commenting after a certain period at their discretion.

Close this window

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This