LDS It seems to me if the gold plates ever existed...

It accomplishes nothing always to cite the supportive claims made by Joseph Smith's closest associates and friends while summarily dismissing anything said to the contrary by other people. Nothing.

He is the way said:

You said: "I don't even use the KJV myself, but I know from previous exposure to it that it does not use pronouns incorrectly (relative to the usage of the time/that stage of English) like the BOM does."

Chapter and verse please.

Click to expand...

Ughhhhh...

Examples of the BOM not knowing the what the hell it is doing with its wannabe King James English.

(For the third damn time; the second time in this thread alone.)

Click the link. Click it and read the entire thing. Then don't pretend like you've never heard of any of this before when I know you have.

You said: "Pretty strange, right? Are we to believe that the ancient writers of the BOM had access to a specific printing of the Bible from 1769, despite the fact that the BOM narrative itself ends c. 400 AD?"

They had the plates of Laban and they taught from them (the Old Testament).

Click to expand...

We can only go by things that actually exist. There's no way to tell if these 'plates of Laban' said any particular thing, or even for that matter that they ever existed. So unless you can produce them and show that they contained these passages with these unique variations, this is no kind of answer at all. You could just as easily say that the Lamanites were taught the Bible with these specific variations in it from a magical giant rabbit. That claim has just as much evidence backing it as your 'plates of Laban' non-answer.

Albion said:

It accomplishes nothing always to cite the supportive claims made by Joseph Smith's closest associates and friends while summarily dismissing anything said to the contrary by other people. Nothing.

Click to expand...

It is better to go to the horse's mouth than trust a stranger. My great great grandfather knew Joseph Smith well, and I trust him.

He is the way said:

Does that mean Abraham and Jacob are socially unacceptable?

Click to expand...

Yes.

(Based on the original statement. Not my personal opinion.)

Albion said:

It accomplishes nothing always to cite the supportive claims made by Joseph Smith's closest associates and friends while summarily dismissing anything said to the contrary by other people. Nothing.

Click to expand...

Just as it accomplishes nothing to always cite the supportive claims made by critics of our faith while dismissing anything said to the contrary by the members of our church. But that doesn't seem to stop a ponderous amount of that being done on the forum.

dzheremi said:

Ughhhhh...

Examples of the BOM not knowing the what the hell it is doing with its wannabe King James English.

(For the third damn time; the second time in this thread alone.)

Click the link. Click it and read the entire thing. Then don't pretend like you've never heard of any of this before when I know you have.



We can only go by things that actually exist. There's no way to tell if these 'plates of Laban' said any particular thing, or even for that matter that they ever existed. So unless you can produce them and show that they contained these passages with these unique variations, this is no kind of answer at all. You could just as easily say that the Lamanites were taught the Bible with these specific variations in it from a magical giant rabbit. That claim has just as much evidence backing it as your 'plates of Laban' non-answer.

Click to expand...

From your link:


The English of 1611 had its grammatical rules, many of which were quite different from the grammatical rules of modern English. Although they were not always as strictly observed by the English of that time, there was not a lot of latitude. Many usages we now consider "correct English" were barely coming into use then, and were thus "incorrect." For example, "thou" "thee," "thy," and "thine" were used to refer only to the single (singular) person being addressed; "ye," "you," "your" and "yours" were used only when addressing more than one person, or a person to whom great respect was due. ("Ye" was the subject form, "you" the object form.) They were not interchangeable, any more than "I" and "we" are interchangeable in modern English. Nor were "ye" and "you" interchangeable, any more than "they" and "them........."

• 2 Nephi 3:1, Lehi says: "And now I speak unto you, Joseph, my last-born. Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions; yea, in the days of my greatest sorrow did thy mother bear thee. (incorrect switching between singular and plural)

Then we see this:

• (Old Testament | Genesis 32:4)
  
  4 And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:
• (Old Testament | Genesis 46:34)
  
  34 That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
  
  
• (Old Testament | Genesis 50:17)
  
  17 So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil: and now, we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy
• (Old Testament | Genesis 45:19)
  
  19 Now thou art commanded, this do ye; take you wagons out of the land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring your father, and come.
  

• So the Bible is incorrect switching between singular and plural???? I believe Richard Packham is up in the night with his incorrect switching between singular and plural. I only posted a few of the many places in the Bible where there is switching between singular and plural.

Ran77 said:

Just as it accomplishes nothing to always cite the supportive claims made by critics of our faith while dismissing anything said to the contrary by the members of our church.

Click to expand...

That, however, is not the case.

In short, defenders of the authenticity of the BOM will have to do more than that in order to continue to alibi for the fact that the only people supporting JS's story are people who have a vested interest in having the world believe it.

He is the way said:

Does that mean Abraham and Jacob are socially unacceptable?

Click to expand...

God sent his son Jesus to correct the errors of the wicked. Abraham and Jacob were not blessed like Jesus.

Paul wrote that in his case it was better not to be married and that those who are married should remain married.

1 Corinthians 7:1 (WEB) Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Jesus said, “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” Mark 10:9.

In 1 Timothy 3:12 Paul wrote, “Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.“

Joseph Smith was a criminal who was convicted in court of deceiving people. He tried to take a wife belonging to another man. In Old Testament times a man might be stoned to death for adultery. With a Jesus we must not murder, nor commit adultery.

He is the way said:

From your link:


The English of 1611 had its grammatical rules, many of which were quite different from the grammatical rules of modern English. Although they were not always as strictly observed by the English of that time, there was not a lot of latitude. Many usages we now consider "correct English" were barely coming into use then, and were thus "incorrect." For example, "thou" "thee," "thy," and "thine" were used to refer only to the single (singular) person being addressed; "ye," "you," "your" and "yours" were used only when addressing more than one person, or a person to whom great respect was due. ("Ye" was the subject form, "you" the object form.) They were not interchangeable, any more than "I" and "we" are interchangeable in modern English. Nor were "ye" and "you" interchangeable, any more than "they" and "them........."

• 2 Nephi 3:1, Lehi says: "And now I speak unto you, Joseph, my last-born. Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions; yea, in the days of my greatest sorrow did thy mother bear thee. (incorrect switching between singular and plural)

Then we see this:

• (Old Testament | Genesis 32:4)
  
  4 And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:
• (Old Testament | Genesis 46:34)
  
  34 That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
  
  
• (Old Testament | Genesis 50:17)
  
  17 So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil: and now, we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy
• (Old Testament | Genesis 45:19)
  
  19 Now thou art commanded, this do ye; take you wagons out of the land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring your father, and come

So the Bible is incorrect switching between singular and plural???? I believe Richard Packham is up in the night with his incorrect switching between singular and plural. I only posted a few of the many places in the Bible where there is switching between singular and plural.

Click to expand...

This is a joke, right? Please, please, for the love of God, tell me you're joking.

Ugh...since I know you aren't, OK...I can't believe I really have to do this, but let's go through your examples of the KJV supposedly committing the same grammatical error as the BOM does.

4 And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:

Click to expand...

Think really hard. How many people are being addressed with this command? More than one. You can tell this from the use of "them" (and since Modern English pronoun forms result in a lot of duplicated forms for singular and plural referents, if there is confusion all you need to do is look back a few verses to 32:2 to see that Jacob is addressing messengers -- plural). Thus "ye", which is plural, is correct. The clause beginning with "thy" (singular) refers back to "my Lord Esau", who is only one person (singular), thus "thy" is the correct form.

Plural goes with plural (messengers), and singular goes with singular (Esau). There is no incorrect switching between plural and singular pronoun forms here. It is Jacob talking to the messengers he is sending before him to his brother Esau and telling them what to say to Esau, who again is only one person.

34 That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.

Click to expand...

This is the exact same situation as above, with a command to say a particular thing to one man (singular), Pharaoh, thus "thy" (singular) is correct. If you again look a few verses earlier than the one you are presenting in isolation here, to 46:31, you see that in this passage is Joseph addressing his brethren (plural), so "ye" (plural) is likewise correct.

From what I can see looking over the next few examples you've given, these are all the same thing that I've already just dealt with twice: conveyed speech from either one person to multiple people or multiple people to one (the case of Genesis 50:17 is Joseph's brethren conveying the command of their father -- who is/was one man -- to them -- plural -- regarding what they should say to Joseph -- singular; so it is a bit more complicated than your other examples, but still all the pronoun forms are what you would expect in order to track is who is saying what when; you just have to pay more attention to who is speaking of what).

With respect, this is the danger in doing what you do: by plucking individual verses out of their wider contexts, you miss who is actually doing the speaking and who they are speaking to (and in some cases, as in Genesis 50:17, even what they are speaking about), so you form incorrect interpretations of them. This is as true grammatically as it is theologically, and I've already spent many pages in both this thread and other threads addressing your incorrect interpretations. I don't think I need to spend any more on this particular topic, as grammar is usually more cut and dry than theology. It's not like we can find Early Church Fathers who argue that pronoun usage is something other than what it is in a manner akin to how we can find them arguing against what would become the Mormon theological interpretation of verses.

dqhall said:

God sent his son Jesus to correct the errors of the wicked. Abraham and Jacob were not blessed like Jesus.

Paul wrote that in his case it was better not to be married and that those who are married should remain married.

1 Corinthians 7:1 (WEB) Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Jesus said, “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” Mark 10:9.

In 1 Timothy 3:12 Paul wrote, “Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.“

Joseph Smith was a criminal who was convicted in court of deceiving people. He tried to take a wife belonging to another man. In Old Testament times a man might be stoned to death for adultery. With a Jesus we must not murder, nor commit adultery.

Click to expand...

You should NOT accuse Abraham of wrongdoing when God said this:

(Old Testament | Genesis 26:4 - 5)

4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

God also set forth laws concerning plural marriage:

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 21:15 - 21)

15 ¶ If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
18 ¶ If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Many men have had more than one wife and many women have had more than one husband. But that is NOT socially unacceptable. Polygamy may return:

(Old Testament | Isaiah 4:1)

1 AND in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

dzheremi said:

This is a joke, right? Please, please, for the love of God, tell me you're joking.

Ugh...since I know you aren't, OK...I can't believe I really have to do this, but let's go through your examples of the KJV supposedly committing the same grammatical error as the BOM does.



Think really hard. How many people are being addressed with this command? More than one. You can tell this from the use of "them" (and since Modern English pronoun forms result in a lot of duplicated forms for singular and plural referents, if there is confusion all you need to do is look back a few verses to 32:2 to see that Jacob is addressing messengers -- plural). Thus "ye", which is plural, is correct. The clause beginning with "thy" (singular) refers back to "my Lord Esau", who is only one person (singular), thus "thy" is the correct form.

Plural goes with plural (messengers), and singular goes with singular (Esau). There is no incorrect switching between plural and singular pronoun forms here. It is Jacob talking to the messengers he is sending before him to his brother Esau and telling them what to say to Esau, who again is only one person.



This is the exact same situation as above, with a command to say a particular thing to one man (singular), Pharaoh, thus "thy" (singular) is correct. If you again look a few verses earlier than the one you are presenting in isolation here, to 46:31, you see that in this passage is Joseph addressing his brethren (plural), so "ye" (plural) is likewise correct.

From what I can see looking over the next few examples you've given, these are all the same thing that I've already just dealt with twice: conveyed speech from either one person to multiple people or multiple people to one (the case of Genesis 50:17 is Joseph's brethren conveying the command of their father -- who is/was one man -- to them -- plural -- regarding what they should say to Joseph -- singular; so it is a bit more complicated than your other examples, but still all the pronoun forms are what you would expect in order to track is who is saying what when; you just have to pay more attention to who is speaking of what).

With respect, this is the danger in doing what you do: by plucking individual verses out of their wider contexts, you miss who is actually doing the speaking and who they are speaking to (and in some cases, as in Genesis 50:17, even what they are speaking about), so you form incorrect interpretations of them. This is as true grammatically as it is theologically, and I've already spent many pages in both this thread and other threads addressing your incorrect interpretations. I don't think I need to spend any more on this particular topic, as grammar is usually more cut and dry than theology. It's not like we can find Early Church Fathers who argue that pronoun usage is something other than what it is in a manner akin to how we can find them arguing against what would become the Mormon theological interpretation of verses.

​

Click to expand...

Okay you want me to find some more, fine:

(Old Testament | Genesis 45:19)19 Now thou art commanded, this do ye; take you wagons out of the land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring your father, and come.

This is definitely one of them Here are more:

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 19:29)

29 And this shall be a sign unto thee, Ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves, and in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof.

(New Testament | John 3:7)

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

(Old Testament | Isaiah 37:30)

30 And this shall be a sign unto thee, Ye shall eat this year such as groweth of itself; and the second year that which springeth of the same: and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof.

(New Testament | John 8:33)

33 ¶ They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

Then you should look at the examples he gave from the Book of Mormon. Are they really incorrect?

He is the way said:

Okay you want me to find some more, fine:

Click to expand...

When did I say that? That's exactly what I don't want. I want you to stop posting nonsense and go away after you've proven wrong over and over again.

(Old Testament | Genesis 45:19)19 Now thou art commanded, this do ye; take you wagons out of the land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring your father, and come.

Click to expand...

Here Joseph (singular, hence thou is correct) is told by Pharaoh to tell his brethren (plural, hence ye is correct) to do these things. See verse 17.

This is definitely one of them

Click to expand...

It's the same thing that was present in your last post full of examples that showed that you don't understand what you're reading because you're apparently incapable of reading anything in context, even if that only means that you have to look two or three verses before the one you're presenting to see who is talking to whom about what.

I'm not doing this over and over again just because you didn't understand it the first time. It's literally the same point that I just posted about in response to your previous examples. Read it there, and stop posting the same thing as though I didn't already deal with it.

I can't teach you how to read. (Especially since you obviously refuse to learn.) Frankly, your parents and/or school system appear to have massively failed you. Take it up with them. You're getting on my last damn nerve, and I don't want to interact with you anymore if you're not going to bother to read anything I've already written. This isn't even a conversation; this is you using my posts as a springboard to fill this messageboard with dung. Stop it.

Are they really incorrect?

Click to expand...

Yes. They're incorrect, you're incorrect, Mormonism is incorrect, and frankly I think you ought to sue your religious leaders for destroying your ability to think.

dqhall said:

Joseph Smith was convicted of fraud.

Click to expand...

Let me stop you right there.

Mormon/LDS Answers: Questions about LDS Prophets and the Mormons

Critics of the church claim that Joseph was convicted of fraud in 1826, but repeated examinations of the surviving evidence have determined that the document used as evidence of his conviction was nothing more than the bill for the pre-trial hearing and that there is reason to believe elements of the historical account of the trial have been compromised.

Furthermore, anti-Mormon author Wesley Walters *stole* material from an archive building in order to publish them, something that further compromised the historical record.

The claim of Joseph's conviction is therefore a non-starter to anyone who knows what's going on.

dqhall said:

Joseph Smith led a riot and destroyed a newspaper printing press of a newspaper that was critical of him. He led a riot including larceny and arson. He was arrested and charged with rioting.

Click to expand...

Bringing this one up separately because we've had an entire thread devoted to it.

The Nauvoo City Council believed that, under Illinois Common Law, they had the right to silence "nuisance" presses. They ordered Joseph Smith, who was the mayor, to silence the Expositor. Smith passed the buck onto the city bailiff, who wound up destroying the press.

It's been the subject of some debate as to whether or not the Nauvoo City Council had the legal right to silence the press, whether or not Joseph understood what they'd called on him to do, and whether or not the bailiff understood that he was only supposed to seize the press rather than destroy it.

dzheremi said:

When did I say that? That's exactly what I don't want. I want you to stop posting nonsense and go away after you've proven wrong over and over again.



Here Joseph (singular, hence thou is correct) is told by Pharaoh to tell his brethren (plural, hence ye is correct) to do these things. See verse 17.



It's the same thing that was present in your last post full of examples that showed that you don't understand what you're reading because you're apparently incapable of reading anything in context, even if that only means that you have to look two or three verses before the one you're presenting to see who is talking to whom about what.

I'm not doing this over and over again just because you didn't understand it the first time. It's literally the same point that I just posted about in response to your previous examples. Read it there, and stop posting the same thing as though I didn't already deal with it.

I can't teach you how to read. (Especially since you obviously refuse to learn.) Frankly, your parents and/or school system appear to have massively failed you. Take it up with them. You're getting on my last damn nerve, and I don't want to interact with you anymore if you're not going to bother to read anything I've already written. This isn't even a conversation; this is you using my posts as a springboard to fill this messageboard with dung. Stop it.



Yes. They're incorrect, you're incorrect, Mormonism is incorrect, and frankly I think you ought to sue your religious leaders for destroying your ability to think.

Click to expand...

Part 1
"8.2 The King James Bible and 19th Century English There are some challenges involved in assessing these grammatical features, at least in a comprehensive way. This is largely due to their high frequency, and limitations in the tagging of the available corpus data. COHA makes no distinction between Y pronouns with singular or plural referents, between subjunctive and other base-form verbs, between which with human and non-human antecedents, etc. The 19th century texts such as the Book of Mormon or the Holy Roll and Book are not tagged at all, and there is, for example, no single string that will match all 3rd person singular verbs ending in –th but not any other words. Examining every instance of his in each of the texts to determine whether its antecedent is masculine or neuter would be a massive undertaking for such a high-frequency word. As such, I will instead be examining a smaller sample from each of the works for much of the data in this section. For the KJB, I will be using Genesis and the Gospel according to St. Matthew. These are the first books from each of the two testaments, each contain numerous well-known stories, they are widely read compared to some of the other books, and are particularly likely to have had an influence on later writers. This sample also includes both original Hebrew and Greek text, to allow consideration of relevant grammatical factors in both of the major source languages. For the other texts, I have similarly used the opening portions of each work, generally a portion of between ten and twenty thousand words each. For the Book of Mormon, for example, I will be using the book of 1st Nephi, the opening book of the Book of Mormon and almost certainly the most read. This provides a sample of each text that is short enough to permit a manual examination of each of these grammatical features. For a control text to augment COHA, I have selected the opening portion of James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans, published in 1826. This novel shares an interesting overlap in content with the Book of Mormon, as it is set in upstate New York and its story concerns Native Americans. It is one of the most popular and influential works of fiction from that decade, and is written in modern English rather than the archaic style of the BoM. 132 A comparison of the selected grammatical features in the King James Bible to The Last of the Mohicans and to COHA makes a few things apparent. As expected, many of these features are clearly archaic in 19th century English. The T paradigm of address pronouns, while still present, occurs at a much lower rate, replaced in general use by Y, and the –st verbal inflection has gone along with it. The –th inflection is also quite rare, and neuter his and human which are all but completely absent. Affirmative DO, while still present, as it is today in emphatic contexts, is much less frequent. But this does not hold for all features. Main verb raising is surprisingly robust in the 19th century text and may not be as good an indicator of archaic style as current usage would suggest. 8.2.1 Address Pronouns Altogether, there are 263 tokens of Y and 850 tokens of T in Genesis, and 492 tokens of Y and 366 of T in Matthew. This means that between the two, Y occurs at a rate of 12,233 wpm and T at a rate of 19,703 wpm, and nearly 62% of all address pronouns in the KJB, with singular and plural combined, are T. Although there is no evidence for the social distinction between the formal or polite Y and the intimate or impolite T in the KJB, there are some problematic cases which seem inconsistent with the number distinction as well, particularly when speakers alternate between the use of T and Y while addressing the same listener(s). In most of these cases, a plausible explanation relying on number alone is possible, but some resist easy explanation. Altogether, I identified 19 tokens of Y as particularly ambiguous, 6 in Genesis and 13 in Matthew (308 wpm combined). These problematic cases are listed below. In Genesis 17, God addresses Abraham, blessing him and his posterity. He addresses Abraham primarily with T, but partway through has some shifting back and forth between T and Y. The shifts are striking, but most tokens of Y can be explained as including Abraham’s posterity along with him (and some are unquestionably intended as such). One in particular, however, is difficult to attribute to such a purpose. The first you is coordinated with thy seed, so presumably doesn’t include it and refers only to Abraham. The Hebrew text similarly shifts to the plural form here. I have added superscripts to the text to show where the Hebrew and English correspond. 133  Wayyōmer ’ĕlōhîm ’el-’aḇrāhām, wə’attāh1 (sg. pro.) ’eṯ-bərîṯî ṯišmōr; ’attāh2 (sg. pro.) wəzar’ăḵā 3 (sg. suff.) ’aḥăreḵā 4 (sg. suff.) ləḏōrōṯām. Zōṯ bərîṯî ’ăšer tišmərū 5 (pl. suff.), bênî ūḇênêḵem6 (pl. suff.), ūḇên zar‘ăḵā 7 (sg. suff.) ’aḥăreḵā 8 (sg. suff.); himmōwl lāḵem9 (pl. suff.) kāl-zāḵār. (Gen 17:9–10)  And God said unto Abraham, Thou1 shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou2 and thy3 seed after thee4 in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye5 shall keep, between me and you6 and thy7 seed after thee8 ; Every man child among you9 shall be circumcised. (Gen 17:9–10) In Genesis 18, God comes to visit Abraham, and brings two companions with him. Abraham addresses them, first using T but then shifting to Y. Presumably he shifts from addressing God alone to including all 3 in his address, especially since his initial use of T is accompanied by the singular nominal address form my Lord and his later use of Y includes the explicitly plural reflexive form yourselves. This instance seems consistent with an entirely numerical distinction between the two forms.96  And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. (Gen 18:2–5) In Genesis 31, Laban is angry at his son-in-law Jacob for slipping away from him, and reprimands him, using T. In one verse, however, he shifts to Y while first threatening Jacob and then reassuring him. The first Y may be meant to include Jacob’s household (wives, children, servants) with him. The second is a little odder, since there is no mention of Jacob having brought anyone with him when he first came to Laban’s home. Jacob would presumably be the only one included in the Y of “the God of your father.” The Hebrew text similarly uses the plural form for this part.  Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me; and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth, and with songs, with tabret, and with harp? And hast not suffered me to kiss my sons and my daughters? thou hast now done foolishly in so doing. It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt: but the God of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take thou heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad. (Gen 31:27–29) 96 In this passage and those that follow, I will be placing address pronouns in general in italics, and using boldface for the most noteworthy aspects of each passage, such as a sudden transition, an exceptional use, or an important collocate. 134 In Genesis 45, Pharaoh, having heard of Joseph’s brothers’ visit, instructs Joseph to command his brothers to return to Canaan and return with their entire household. He first uses singular T to address Joseph, but then switches to Y because he is telling Joseph how to address his (plural) brothers. He then switches back to T for a single token, which could mean he has stopped giving words intended for Joseph’s brothers and is instead again addressing Joseph himself, except that he then immediately returns to Y and further instructions intended for the larger group. The shifting is similar in the Hebrew.  And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Say unto thy brethren, This do ye; lade your beasts, and go, get you unto the land of Canaan; And take your father and your households, and come unto me: and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land. Now thou art commanded, this do ye; take you wagons out of the land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring your father, and come. (Gen 45:17–19) In Genesis 48, Jacob gives a blessing to his grandchildren (Joseph’s children) Ephraim and Manasseh, adopting them as his own and placing them on an even level with his sons as the founders of distinct tribes. There are a few complications regarding pronoun choice, where the pronoun’s number is inconsistent with other textual cues. First, after the text establishes that Jacob is addressing both boys, using them, the pronoun choice is T. Then, the text establishes that he is addressing Joseph, but the pronoun choice is first Y, then T. The Hebrew is the same.  And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh. And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers. Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow. (Gen 48:20–22) In Matthew 5, 6, and 7, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus addresses a “multitude,” instructing them on how they should live. During the sermon, he repeatedly shifts between Y and T with no apparent shift from plural to singular addressee. Perhaps he is addressing the crowd sometimes collectively, and sometimes individually, but the alternation is certainly remarkable.  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend 135 thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matt 5:27–29)  But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matt 5:34–37)  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt 5:39)  Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. (Matt 6:1–2)  Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. (Matt 6:16– 18)  Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matt 7:1–3) In Matthew 11, Jesus addresses the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida individually with T, then together with plural Y. Things become more complicated when he addresses Capernaum, using both T and Y (an alternation present also in the Greek).  Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (Matt 11:21)  And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. (Matt 11:23–24) In Matthew 17, some tax collectors address Peter using Y, but presumably they intended the address to include the disciples as a whole. This instance seems consistent with an entirely numerical distinction between T and Y.  And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? (Matt 17:24) 136 In Matthew 18, Jesus delivers another sermon, and as in the earlier Sermon on the Mount, he frequently transitions between addressing the crowd with Y and with T. In Matthew 20, James’ and John’s mother approaches Jesus to ask for special treatment for her sons. Before her request, Jesus addresses her with T, but in his reply he uses Y instead. Perhaps he inferred that the sons were complicit in the request and addresses the three all together. The text is consonant with the Greek on this matter, and an entirely numerical interpretation is not difficult.  And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (Matt 20:21–22) In Matthew 23, Jesus denounces the scribes and Pharisees for hypocrisy, using Y, then turns his ire against the city of Jerusalem, which he addresses first with T, but then with Y. The alternation is similar to that involving Capernaum earlier.  Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matt 23:37–"

From: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2123&context=open_access_dissertations

Part 2

"39) In Matthew 26, During Jesus’ trial, the high priest asks him an accusing question. Jesus replies to the high priest, using T, but then switches promptly to Y. He may be shifting from responding to the high priest individually to addressing the entire assembly. The same alternation is in the Greek. Here again, it is not hard to imagine the distinction is entirely numerical.  But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (Matt 26:63–64) As indicated, in many of these cases of ambiguity, there is a plausible numberbased explanation. When Jesus addresses his audiences, he may be using the shift in pronouns to indicate shifts between addressing the crowd individually and collectively, 137 and when he addresses himself to cities, it may be a shift between conceiving of them as individual personified entities and as collections of inhabitants. Even in the oddest of cases, the decision is not an innovation of the translators, but rather a faithful representation of the choices made in the source texts. For example, here I repeat a passage from the Sermon on the Mount, comparing the Greek source text with the English translation. The address pronouns in the KJB translate either Greek pronouns, or the subjects implied by inflected Greek verbs. I have again added numeral superscripts to indicate the relevant correspondences between the two passages.  Ēkousate1 (pl. vb.) hoti errethē, Ou moicheuseis2 (sg. pro. & vb.): egō de legō hymin3 (pl. pro.), hoti pas ho blepōn gynaika pros to epithymēsai autēn, ēdē emoicheusen autēn en tē kardia autou. ei de ho ophthalmos sou4 (sg. pro.) ho dexios, skandalizei se5 (sg. pro.), exele auton kai bale apo sou6 (sg. pro.); sympherei gar soi7 (sg. pro.) hina apolētai hen tōn melōn sou8 (sg. pro.), kai mē holon to sōma sou9 (sg. pro.) blēthē eis geennan. (Matt 5:27-29)  Ye have heard1 that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not2 commit adultery: But I say unto you3 , That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy4 right eye offend thee5 , pluck it out, and cast it from thee6 : for it is profitable for thee7 that one of thy8 members should perish, and not that thy9 whole body should be cast into hell. (Matt 5:27–29) If all cases of ambiguous Y in the KJB were treated as singular, there would still be a 98% preference for T in cases of singular address. If, as seems more likely, most or all of these cases should be treated as plural, the rate is closer to 100% T."

From: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2123&context=open_access_dissertations

Part 3

"In COHA, Y paradigm pronouns occur at a rate of 7406 wpm in the first half of the 19th century, and T pronouns occur at 1595 wpm. This means the overall proportion of T in COHA is just under 18%, compared to the KJB’s 58%. Determining how many of those Y pronouns are singular is problematic, as there are over 400 thousand tokens of Y to consider, and they are formally identical, with one noteworthy exception: the Y paradigm has developed distinct singular and plural forms for the reflexive, yourself and yourselves. Approximately 87% of the reflexive forms in the early 19th century are singular. If this rate were similar across all forms of the Y system, then singular Y would occur in COHA at around 6420 wpm, and just under 20% of all singular address would use T pronouns. 138 In the sample from Last of the Mohicans, there are 156 instances of Y and only 3 of T. Of the 156 instances of Y, 122 are clearly addressed to single individuals, while the remaining 34 are either clearly plural, generic, or ambiguously addressed to either a single individual or to a larger group to which they belong. Of the three instances of T, one is addressed to a psalmist who joins the group of travelers (and is used in combination with singular Y), while the other two are later uttered by that psalmist, one addressed to a dead horse, and the other to a personified Egypt.  “I am glad to encounter thee, friend,” continued the maiden, … “You have all the manifestations of a soft and rich treble;” (2, ¶29)97  “Poor Miriam!” murmured the stranger; “thy foal was foreordained to become a prey to ravenous beasts!” (5, ¶47)  “O, Egypt! wonders sent ‘midst thee, On Pharaoh and his servants too!” (5, ¶48) The religious and poetic overtones of the continued modern use of T are clearly in evidence in this sample. Based on this data, for all cases of singular address, at most 2% would use T pronouns. This is quite a bit lower than the overall data from COHA would suggest, but whether the true usage of early 19th century America was closer to 2% or 20%, it is certainly much lower than the 98–100% rate of the King James Bible. Along with the T paradigm, KJB English retained a more complex Y paradigm, with the distinct nominative form ye. This form would be used for the subjects of finite verbs, including cases where an explicit subject pronoun was used in the imperative, as well as for the vocative function and predicate nominals.  Finite Verb Subject: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Gen 3:5)  Imperative Subject: And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. (Gen 9:7)  Vocative: Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: (Gen 4:23)  Predicate Nominal: For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. (Matt 10:20) You was used for oblique or objective functions, such as direct and indirect objects, objects of prepositions, reflexives, disjunctives, and subjects of non-finite verbs. 97 References for The Last of the Mohicans will be given in chapter and paragraph numbers from Cooper 1933. 139  Direct Object: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (Matt 5:44)  Indirect Object: even as the green herb have I given you all things. (Gen 9:3)  Prepositional Object: And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; (Gen 9:2)  Reflexive: Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. (Gen 19:14)  Disjunctive: And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. (Gen 9:7)  Non-finite Verb Subject: O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Matt 3:7) There are some indications that the pronunciation distinction between ye and you may have deteriorated by the time of the translation, resulting in inconsistencies in the use of ye and you in the text. Treated as errors, these were “cleaned up” in later editions, resulting in a pretty consistent system for both paradigms by Blayney’s 1769 edition (Norton 2005: 106, 111). I was, however, able to find one instance which apparently slipped past the later editors, where you is used in a context where nominative ye would be expected.  So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God (Gen 45:8) Unlike in modern English, the nominative was the norm after the copula, and is the form generally found elsewhere in the KJB.  But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. (Pss 55:13)  And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: (Acts 3:10) There may be a few similar instances in other books, but considering the total number of tokens of ye and you in Genesis and Matthew, I expect such exceptional cases to be quite rare. The KJB as it existed in the 19th century (and still does today) is overall quite consistent in distinguishing subject and object forms of address pronouns. In COHA, ye makes up only a tiny fraction of the total occurrences of Y, and it does not occur in the Mohicans sample at all. The norm in 19th century English is clearly for you to be used as both subject and object, in contrast to the KJB.  “If you journey to the lake, you have mistaken your route,” said Heyward, haughtily; “the highway thither is at least half a mile behind you.” (2, ¶21)"

From: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2123&context=open_access_dissertations

That seems really spammy, He is the Way. Instead of posting the whole article here, how about you post the link and then use your own words?

Hrairoo said:

That seems really spammy, He is the Way. Instead of posting the whole article here, how about you post the link and then use your own words?

Click to expand...

That was not even close to being the entire article. If they won't believe me perhaps they will believe someone else.

Ironhold said:

Bringing this one up separately because we've had an entire thread devoted to it.

The Nauvoo City Council believed that, under Illinois Common Law, they had the right to silence "nuisance" presses. They ordered Joseph Smith, who was the mayor, to silence the Expositor. Smith passed the buck onto the city bailiff, who wound up destroying the press.

It's been the subject of some debate as to whether or not the Nauvoo City Council had the legal right to silence the press, whether or not Joseph understood what they'd called on him to do, and whether or not the bailiff understood that he was only supposed to seize the press rather than destroy it.

Click to expand...

The Mormons forgot they lived in the USA with “Freedom of the press” written into the Constitution. You are not supposed to trespass, nor destroy other people’s property. Smith’s crimes became so great he was wanted for treason in two states. There is freedom of religion in the Constitution, contingent on obeying U.S. laws.