More Comments from Readers Part III

Here are more comments that we have received from readers of this website blog:
    Comment #1: “There is no reason why timber palisades cannot "tremble" or have some depth with a platform at the top for standing. The Book of Mormon indicates both stone and timber fortifications. Consider Alma 48:1, Alma 50:2 and 53:1.”
    Response: The reason for a palisade or wall for protection is to not only keep people out, but to protect those inside. Put a platform on top of a timber palisade and what is its purpose? The body would be exposed to enemy fire of slings, spears and bows—the purpose of a standing area near the top of a bulwark was to hide behind the protection of the wall and intermittently return enemy fire, such as with bows. If that was what Samuel was supposed to be standing on, he would not be seen by the people below to whom he would have been speaking.

A typical wood palisade or stockade built in the U.S. showing the inside. There is no way to get on top of this or stand anywhere 
    As can be seen from any wood palisades of antiquity, they were never meant to stand upon and to climb up a timber palisade would be most difficulty since they are built to defeat against such an action. In addition, when wood timbers, such as tall, stake fencing (palisade), trembles (which means to shake involuntarily from frailty, the wood breaks, generally shattering into many pieces; whereas stone can be shaken apart and collapse.
    Comment #2: “Yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies,” (Alma 48:8), showing specificallsy the use of dirt walls, which evidence is found in the Heartladn model” Paul D.
    Response: The mounds of earth were to enclose his armies as Mormon so states: “to enclose his armies.” No one is denying that dirt bulwarks were used in the Land of Pormise—one such is described in Alma 53:3-5). The problem lies in not completing a statement made by Mormon that further explains the event of using dirt and wood, such as the one you began quoting: “Yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies, and also building walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land” (Alma 48:8).
    This shows that stone walls were built around cities as well as round about the borders of their lands—yea, all round about the land”—a part conveniently left out by theorists when wanting to talk about the dirt bulwarks thrown up.
    While mounds of dirt can be found in the Heartland—stone walls all aroun the land cannot!
    Comment #3: “And upon the top of these ridges of earth he caused that there should be timbers, yea, works of timbers built up to the height of a man, round about the cities. And he caused that upon those works of timbers there should be a frame of pickets built upon the timbers round about; and they were strong and high.”

Response: Where Moroni was “erecting small forts, or places of resort; throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies” he placed timbers on top to increase the height of the fortification so his army could not be randomly attacked from arrows or slings. This is not the same as building stone walls around the land.
    Comment #4: “Suggest you look to the OED archaic English rather than to an 1828 Dictionary for Book of Mormon word definitions. Royal Skousen (author of The Book of Mormon, The Earliest Text) has pretty clearly established that the Book of Mormon is written in Early Modern English, similar to the KJV Bible, and definitely not Joseph Smith 1820's English” Jay Mackley.
    Response: The OED, or Oxford English Dictionary archaic English was not spoken in New England in 1830 and would not have been the language Joseph Smith used in his translation, or even knew.
    To understand this, we need to keep in mind that New England was a unique area, very definitely American, not English, in all its manners, beliefs, and understanding. In May 1643, the colonies of Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, New Haven, and Connecticut joined together in a loose compact called the New England Confederation (officially "The United Colonies of New England"). Speaking historically, the New England colonies were settled primarily by farmers who quickly became relatively self-sufficient. Five of the six New England states or colonies had a coastline and their early interest in England was mostly a business one, where their products were for the English markets of Britain and Europe.
    New York was and is not part of New England, even though upstate and western New York were settled by New Englanders, which provided a shared cultural heritage throughout the region. However, by the 1770s, those who had been forced to leave England and settle in the northeast had grown rebellious toward British rule and non-governmental representation that had placed heavy taxes on the colonies to help pay for Britain’s French-Indian war, and seeds of rebellion were sewn throughout the area.
    Not only did the Revolutionary War separate New England completely from Britain, but the War of 1812 with England, which centered in the northeastern colonies, and gave rise to their manufacturing capabilities, served to further separate the people from whatever vestiges of English origin that had still existed in the northeastern colonies. The northeastern colonies were still impressed by Puritanism, and the unity of her moral life was exceptional. Moreover, the area had developed a strong independence and was extremely interested in its own development and way of doing things, which included its own way of speaking.
    By the mid-1820s, the attitude in New England had waned toward any interest in England whatsoever, and was more commonly associated with that of the rest of the northeast, including New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio—this separation was further enhanced by the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825.

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon (purple dots) in western Pennsylvania, and western New York (Harmony and Fayette). His was not the language of New England in 1828, it was the language of a much larger area that had separated itself from the northern New England states, such as New Hampshire and Maine, and Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language was developed in Massachusett

The language of the emerging strength in the New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio areas had changed considerably over the four- or five-generation separation, with numerous colonial colloquialisms being adopted throughout the northeast that had no connection to English as spoken in Britain and Europe.
    Thus, the language of Joseph Smith was akin to this separation from England and unique, American way of speaking and thinking. The 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language was the language being spoken in the area Joseph Smith grew up and lived and closer to the translations Joseph gave. Daniel Webster claims he was inspired to create this American dictionary, and though he worked on it for some time, it is interesting that it was published the year before Joseph Smith began translating. In fact, Joseph chose that dictionary for his School of the Prophets training and teaching sessions.
    It should also be kept in mind that when one thinks a certain way, no matter what era words one chooses to use, they are still couched in the user’s mind as those that he knows, grew up with, and understands. Joseph Smith loved the sense of the Biblical language because of its spirituality and sacred referencing to God and his Son, but his understanding of those words would have been based on his knowledge of words of his own day. Thus, Joseph might have chosen to say “God liveth,” but his meaning would have been “God lives,” or “the commandments of the Lord,” would have been understood by Joseph as “the Lord’s commandments,” or “the year of the reign of the kind,” would have been understood to mean “when the king reigned.”
    This is especially found in “it came to pass,” used 2,711 times in the book of Mormon, would have been understood by Joseph Smith as it is by us today, to mean “it happened,” “then this happened,” “eventually this took place,” etc. It is not that Joseph loved the Old English language—he loved the Biblical language. In fact, in 1829 when translating, he would not have known the language of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton, though the latter was born three years before the 1611 King James Version was published.
    In addition, if you had been reading this blog for any length of time, you would know we do not adhere to Royal Skousen’s views on the Book of Mormon language and do not agree with him that the words should be changed and modernized. We have time and again shown correlation that Joseph Smith’s words used are very close to the 1828 dictionary, and certainly not to the OED. Skousen’s claims, as we have pointed out in a word for word comparison are not correct.
    Finally, it should also be note that Noah Webster, in his dictionary, related almost all of his words to their use in the Bible or among the famed English writers Shakespear, Milton, Spenser, Bacon, Dryden, Newton, Locke, Brown, Blackstone, etc. The OED (Oxford English Dictionary), by the way, was not published until 1884, and not in a single volume until 1928—the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.