For this coming Sunday evening

For this coming Sunday evening May 25, 2020


Not King Kong
An Interpreter Foundation volunteer works to set up the Foundation’s new radio tower, in a bid to boost our signal strength. (Our audience on Proxima Centauri b has complained for months now about poor reception.)  Below him are the twin cities of Orem and Provo, separated by the mighty Rio Provo.  (Wikimedia Commons public domain image)


Dr. Stanford Carmack will be the guest, by telephone from his home on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, during the first hour of this coming Sunday’s Interpreter Radio Show, which begins after the 7:00 PM news.  Martin Tanner and I will be the hosts.


Here are several more of the articles that Dr. Carmack has published in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship:


“On Doctrine and Covenants Language and the 1833 Plot of Zion”

Abstract: Contrary to the generally accepted view, it seems likely that much of the wording of the Doctrine and Covenants was transmitted to Joseph Smith as part of the revelatory process. Apparent bad grammar and a limited reading of “after the manner of their language” (D&C 1:24) have led to the received view that “the language of the revelations was Joseph Smith’s.”1 This judgment, however, is probably inaccurate. Abundant cases of archaic forms and structures, sometimes overlapping with Book of Mormon usage, argue for a different interpretation of “after the manner of their language.” Scholars have chosen, for the most part, to disregard the implications of a large amount of complex, archaic, well-formed language found in both scriptural texts. As for the 1833 Plot of Zion, transmitted words in Doctrine and Covenants revelations, a key statement by Frederick G. Williams, and a small but significant amount of internal archaic usage mean that the layout, dimensions, and even some language of the city plat were specifically revealed as well.


“How Joseph Smith’s Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History”

Abstract: Some of the grammar of Joseph Smith’s 1832 History is examined. Three archaic, extra-biblical features that occur quite frequently in the Book of Mormon are not present in the history, even though there was ample opportunity for use. Relevant usage in the 1832 History is typical of modern English, in line with independent linguistic studies. This leads to the conclusion that Joseph’s grammar was not archaizing in these three types of morphosyntax which are prominent in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon. This corroborating evidence also indicates that English words were transmitted to Joseph throughout the dictation of the Book of Mormon.


“The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text”

Abstract: Because it is primarily an Early Modern English text (in terms of its English language), the earliest text of the Book of Mormon understandably employs plural was — for example, “the words which was delivered” (Alma 5:11). It does so in a way that is substantially similar to what is found in many writings of the Early Modern period ­— that is, it manifests the syntactic usage, variation, and differential rates typical of that era.


“The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text”

Abstract: The earliest text of the Book of Mormon employs the {-th} plural — for example, “Nephi’s brethren rebelleth” — in a way that is substantially similar to what is found in many writings of the Early Modern period. The earliest text neither underuses nor overuses the construction, and it manifests inflectional variation and differential usage rates typical of Early Modern English. The totality of the evidence tells us that the Book of Mormon is most reasonably classified as a 16th- or 17th-century text, not as a 19th-century text full of biblical hypercorrections.


“Joseph Smith Read the Words”


“The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English”


“Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828)”



"The revolution is eating its own. I am not at all surprised."

Some thoughts on inferring a designer
"Speaking of evolution & intelligent design; thought you would have a good laugh over this-"

Some thoughts on inferring a designer
"It is very complicated. You have so many different pathogens to think about. On top ..."

Growing Up as Hugh Nibley
"Well, I've served on a jury several times. On one occasion, I read about the ..."

Growing Up as Hugh Nibley

Browse Our Archives

error: Content is protected !!