[Page 297]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.

The impetus for this study was a desire to determine whether one could reasonably take the mile measurement of the June 1833 Plot of Zion as conveying an archaic sense that had become obsolete long before the 1830s. Because the city plat was given around the same time as sections 93 to 98, an analysis of Doctrine and Covenants language was determined to be essential to the task.

One item of archaic vocabulary in the Doctrine and Covenants is the adjective strange in “strange act” (D&C 95:4; 101:95). This is a biblical phrase (Isaiah 28:21), and different modern versions of the Bible translate the Hebrew adjective in this Isaiah passage as ‘alien,’ ‘unusual,’ ‘extraordinary,’ ‘strange,’ ‘disturbing,’ ‘mysterious,’ or ‘unwonted.’² According to the Oxford English Dictionary, some of these are obsolete [Page 298]meanings, and ‘extraordinary’ seems to be a good fit for the Doctrine and Covenants usage, which corresponds to definition 8 in the OED (2nd edition): “†8. Of a kind that is unfamiliar or rare; unusual, uncommon, exceptional, singular, out of the way. Obs.” We note that the sections containing the archaic phrase “strange act” were revealed in June 1833 and December 1833,³ around the same time the city plat was revealed. That is one small point in favor of the possibility of archaism in plot language. (An appendix contains the plot description, laid out in sense lines.)

Frederick G. Williams, the scribe for the draft of the Plot of Zion,⁴ wrote the following on the manuscript of the closely affiliated Plan of the House of the Lord: “NB⁵ For your satisfaction we inform you that the plot for the City and the size form and dime[n]sions <of the house> were given us of the Lord.”⁶ Here Williams asserts that the details of the plot and the plan were revealed. On the basis of evidence given in this paper, we can reasonably conclude that the various measurements of the city plat and the temple plan set down in writing in 1833 were tightly controlled.⁷ One of the purposes of this paper is to show that in some detail. However, one cannot determine by scholarly means that the plot description was tightly controlled throughout. A considerable portion of its wording could have been under loose control or even no control as part of this particular extra-canonical revelatory process.

As mentioned, one possibility of tight control in the delivery of the Plot of Zion is the term mile. It is used at the very beginning of the plot description and does not correspond to the English statutory mile in effect in 1830s America.⁸ A simple calculation from specified plot dimensions leads to that conclusion. The question boils down to whether the mile of the plot was an error or whether it could be an obsolete 16th-century measurement, which fits the plot description. (This is given a fuller treatment in the last section of this paper.)

It is reasonable to consider tightly controlled elements in the Plot of Zion since there are substantive linguistic reasons for taking a goodly portion of the Doctrine and Covenants to be revealed words.⁹ Frederick G. Williams was also involved, at the time he drafted the plot, with scribing dozens of revelations that would later become part of the Doctrine and Covenants. Indeed, the Plot of Zion was set down in writing between the time that sections 93 and 94 were revealed to Joseph Smith, with Williams acting as scribe.¹⁰ Moreover, some language of the Doctrine and Covenants is found in the plot description, and D&C 94:2 states that the Lord revealed the pattern of the city.¹¹

Outline of Article

[Page 299]This paper first discusses aspects of revelatory translation. In order to do this, I focus on the form and structure of the language, an almost entirely neglected field of inquiry. My focus on these aspects of the language doesn’t mean I think they are more important than the content. It’s just that the study of the form and structure of the language is the most effective way to determine whether ideas or words were transmitted to Joseph Smith.

Next I examine various types of language found in early manuscripts and printings that would later become sections of the D&C, showing how they are likely to be instances of tightly controlled language. The primary sources used in this study are given at the end of this article. These recently created digital databases have dramatically improved the analysis of revelatory language, greatly increasing our knowledge and understanding of it.

Doctrine and Covenants language is directly relevant to the 1833 Plot of Zion, since some contemporary revelations refer to the plot, and some of the language is found in the plot. These linguistic facts, together with the above supporting statement written down by Frederick G. Williams, mean that it is not a stretch to think that parts of the plot description could have been tightly controlled in the revelatory process.

After attempting to establish that words were transmitted to Joseph Smith as part of Doctrine and Covenants revelations, I then discuss some of its questionable grammar. This has a bearing on plot language, since it also contains some suspect grammar. In addition, there is a tendency to wrongly think that “bad grammar” in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants means the language could not have been rendered into English by the Lord.¹² Rather, we find that the apparently poor grammar fits literate writings of earlier English, at times in arcane ways, actually strengthening the argument for tight control.

Finally, I discuss some of the archaic and modern language found in the Plot of Zion. Terminology, phraseology, and syntax are briefly noted, as well as some rather unique design elements of the community plat and the temple plan.

On Revelatory Translation and Tight Control

Those who are opposed to tight control in relation to the Book of Mormon tend to misunderstand or misrepresent what it might mean in terms of Book of Mormon translation. The view of tight control does not declare that there was a 16th-century translator of the text (or a 17th-century [Page 300]translator, etc.). The position of tight control is that the Lord rendered the ancient Nephite record into English or had it done, and then transmitted this translation to Joseph Smith. The process of rendering the plate text into English is unknowable without specific revelation on the matter. Furthermore, tight control can involve modern English vocabulary and syntax as well as Early Modern English (1500–1700), and even some late Middle English.¹³ Tight control, however, is typically established by a subset of Early Modern English that had become obsolete or very rare by the 1820s¹⁴ and by systematic archaic usage that fits the Early Modern English era exclusively.¹⁵ That the language of the Book of Mormon is not a monolithic variety of English does nothing to weaken the evidence that the Lord caused words to come to Joseph Smith, words that he then relayed to scribes.

To a more limited degree, this type of analysis can be carried out in relation to Doctrine and Covenants language. Especially important to consider in this regard are the early revelations, given before or concurrently with the Book of Mormon dictation. Forms and syntactic structures that were obsolete, archaic, or rare in early 19th-century English point to a tightly controlled revelatory process, especially because receipt of the early revelations matched that of the Book of Mormon. The majority of the language, however, encompasses usage that persisted for centuries.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, abundant manuscript evidence and textual evidence strongly support the view that words were transmitted to Joseph Smith. For some, the question arises whether the revelatory process could have involved a mixture of tightly controlled and loosely controlled language. This is theoretically possible, but there are substantial problems with such a view.

The main issue is that one cannot reliably distinguish between tight and loose control in the original manuscript and in the text.¹⁶ For example, suppose the “they was” of 1 Nephi 4:4 is taken to be loosely controlled language.¹⁷ Immediately after “they was,” we encounter two instances of did-periphrasis. This prevalent Book of Mormon usage is only a systematic fit with mid-16th-century patterns, patterns that Joseph was almost certainly unaware of in the 1820s.¹⁸ If we accept a mixture of tightly and loosely controlled revelatory language for “they was yet wroth and did still continue to murmur,” we must accept that the translation process switched between transmitted ideas and words in the same sentence, in this case and in many others like it — thousands of times. The same issue exists with the thousand or so instances of [Page 301]personal which (for example, “Adam and Eve, which was our first parents” [1 Nephi 5:11]). If the systematically extra-biblical and archaic relative-pronoun usage of personal which was tightly controlled,¹⁹ while the verb agreement was loosely controlled,²⁰ then again the view must be that there was a mixture of transmitted words and ideas within the same sentence, in this case and in many others like it.

Suppose, then, we stipulate that there was less frequent changing of the translation process. In other words, lengthier passages were tightly and loosely controlled. Less frequent but continual switching is unlikely, however, for at least a couple of reasons. First, the longer the passage, the more likely we are to encounter extra-biblical, archaic usage. There are probably more than 4,000 instances of such usage in the earliest text, out of approximately 250,000 words (excluding lengthier biblical passages). That means we can find stretches of 100 words or so without potential cases of extra-biblical archaism, but not many of them. Second, when we consider the original manuscript and its 75,000 extant words, there is no original manuscript evidence that the dictation changed character repeatedly — that is, there is no convincing evidence of indecision over lexical or syntactic choice, since such corrections are extremely minimal in occurrence. It is a uniformly dictated text with dictation-type errors. If Joseph had been periodically and repeatedly responsible for lexical and syntactic choice under loose control, the rate of scribal correction would have been higher. That is because a human trying to accurately convey a divine revelation would have changed his mind about how to express revealed ideas to a noticeable degree.

Another important item to consider is biblical passages. The dictation witnesses, the unchanging manuscript character at transitions between non-biblical and biblical passages (for example, 1 Nephi 19–20 and 1 Nephi 21–22) and the more than 800 word and constituent differences between King James and Book of Mormon versions indicate that a Bible was not used in the dictation (the figure of more than 800 differences derives from careful comparative work carried out by Royal Skousen). But the otherwise close match with King James passages points to words, not ideas, being sent to Joseph Smith during the dictation. Otherwise the differences in wording between the two texts would have been much greater than they are. In other words, 800+ differences are more than one reasonably expects from copying but fewer than what are reasonably expected from memory.

Consistent tight control is also likely to have been the case in contemporary Doctrine and Covenants revelations, and there is no [Page 302]compelling reason that it could not have been the case in many later revelations.

Editing and Grammar in the Doctrine and Covenants

The Book of Mormon is of primary importance in determining the nature of the revelatory process between the Lord and Joseph Smith. That is because there is no critical text of the Doctrine and Covenants at this time, and its textual history is complex and difficult. A wide variety of emendations have been made through the years, and a large number have a difficult textual history. Some edits have obscured various archaic features of original revelatory dictations, and some of these have involved questionable grammar and nearby variation, but others have not. In many cases it is hard to be certain of original readings for Doctrine and Covenants passages. Also, some early manuscripts have been lost. This state of affairs hampers us in analyzing its language. Nevertheless, the Joseph Smith Papers project and website are helpful resources, as citations throughout this paper show.

In general, the Doctrine and Covenants is not as consistently archaic as the Book of Mormon. For example, there are fewer instances of archaic vocabulary, and the relative pronoun who is generally used in the Doctrine and Covenants (after human antecedents), while the Book of Mormon favors which.²¹ Also, there is less archaic verbal {-th} morphology in the Doctrine and Covenants than in the Book of Mormon.²²

First we take a look at language that has not tended to be edited out, that has been generally regarded as acceptable. Then we consider a few items of suspect grammar. These have usually been edited to conform to generally acceptable modern standards. The language to be considered includes:

Acceptable Grammar

• save it be/was/were
• dual-object command syntax
• if there shall come
• dual-object cause syntax
• if it so be
• expedient in me
• of which hath been spoken[Page 303]

Suspect Grammar

• you ~ thou switching
• exceeding used with adjectives
• you ~ ye switching
• the {-th} plural
• subjunctive ~ indicative variation
• the {-s} plural
• plural was

Acceptable Grammar and Its Implications

We begin by considering various types of language found in the Doctrine and Covenants that are uncommon or rare in the textual record but which have probably been viewed as unobjectionable and have not been edited out.

The presence of archaic, well-formed, extra-biblical language scattered throughout Doctrine and Covenants revelations casts doubt on the following conclusion by Bushman: “The revealed preface to the Book of Commandments specified that the language of the revelations was Joseph Smith’s.”²³ Although it is hard to pinpoint what exactly Bushman means by this statement when read in isolation, we can gather from the context that he concluded that much of the wording of the revelations came from Joseph’s own language, influenced by his exposure through the years to the King James Bible.

Bushman refers to “the simple language of Joseph Smith” (173) and on the following page indicates the possibility that “Joseph’s human mind” may have “introduced errors” as well as mentioning “human language coming through the Prophet.” But he concludes this section on revelatory language with this sentence: “The words were both his and God’s.” From all this it seems most likely to me that Bushman meant that the language of these revelations was in the main loosely controlled, with God’s language (King James idiom) often coming through because of Joseph’s familiarity with the Bible.²⁴ In essence, Bushman seems to believe that in many instances the Lord gave Joseph Smith ideas that he put into his own words. But his statements don’t appear to rule out the possibility of occasional tight control. However, the relative degree of tight and loose control is not discussed.

The principal reason for judgments such as Bushman’s has been bad grammar. And more often than not verb agreement peculiarities prompt a conclusion of loose control. But this ignores a large amount [Page 304]of textual evidence that informs us that the phrase “after the manner of their language” (D&C 1:24) certainly must also encompass complex, well-formed language that was rare, archaic, even obsolete by the 1820s. Therein lies the difficulty: the revelations are full of archaic, literary language mixed with occasional doses of bad grammar. Because of these facts, any explanatory view of revelatory language must account not only for bad grammar but also for archaic, literary language.

During the revelatory process, Joseph would have recognized the archaic language, since it seems to have been filtered for recognition and even sometimes for plainness,²⁵ but in case after case the textual record tells us that it is very likely he would not have produced the wording from ideas.

The phrase “after the manner of their language” doesn’t force the conclusion that faulty verb agreement — from a modern, prescriptive perspective — was the result of Joseph putting ideas into his own words. First, some questionable subject–verb agreement could just as well have been archaic language (such as plural subjects used with singular verb inflection — treated below). Second, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Lord might have tailored some of the language to fit Joseph’s American dialectal usage.²⁶ Nor can we conclude from tight control in relation to the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that the Lord favors Early Modern English in an absolute sense.²⁷ Both scriptural texts contain modern language as well as many archaisms, and they contain plenty of “good” grammar as well as some “bad” grammar.²⁸

In summary, rare, archaic, obsolete usage in Doctrine and Covenants revelations indicates tight control. In isolation, modern usage, nonstandard grammar, or common archaisms (for example, high frequency biblical language) could be either tightly or loosely controlled language. But in the Book of Mormon, nonstandard grammar is very weak evidence for loose control: in many cases it actually turns out to be evidence for tight control (as shown by non-superficial analysis). And nonstandard grammar in the Doctrine and Covenants that precedes in time or is co-extensive with Book of Mormon language should be considered in the same light. Tight control is able to cover all instances, but loose control fails to convincingly explain the presence of rare, archaic, obsolete language, as the following discussion attempts to demonstrate.

Summary of Findings in the Domain of Acceptable Grammar

Some rare, archaic grammar first appears in the Doctrine and Covenants before or close in time to when it was first dictated in the [Page 305]Book of Mormon (not counting the lost 1828 dictation). Here is a list that shows the acceptable grammar discussed in this section, along with its earliest use in the Doctrine and Covenants and in the Book of Mormon (assuming that the dictation began with Mosiah):²⁹

 

LANGUAGE	EARLIEST D&C OCCURRENCE	D&C DATE	EARLIEST BofM OCCURRENCE
dual-object cause syntax	D&C 5:3	March 1829	Mosiah 6:7
dual-object command syntax	D&C 5:2	March 1829	Mosiah 2:30
save it be	D&C 6:12	April 1829	Mosiah 29:21
of which hath been spoken	D&C 8:1	April 1829	Helaman 16:16
save it was	D&C 9:7	April 1829	Alma 49:4
finite suffer syntax with shall	D&C 10:14	ca. April 1829	Mosiah 13:3
save it were	D&C 18:35	early June 1829	Mosiah 18:19
if it so be that . . . should	D&C 18:15	early June 1829	1 Nephi 19:19
it behooveth <dative> that . . . should	D&C 21:10	6 April 1830	3 Nephi 21:6
there shall a <np> be <past participle>	D&C 21:1	6 April 1830	—
expedient in <np> that . . . should	D&C 30:5	September 1830	—
if there shall <intransitive verb>	D&C 94:9	2 August 1833	—

“I have caused him that he should enter . . . ” (D&C 5:3) was dictated before “king Mosiah did cause his people that they should till . . . ” (Mosiah 6:7). This syntax was either obsolete or very rare by the modern period (after the year 1700).

“I have commanded him that he should stand . . . ” (D&C 5:2) was dictated before “and hath commanded me that I should declare . . . ” (Mosiah 2:30). This archaic syntax is biblical: “And commanded them that they should take nothing . . . ” (Mark 6:8). Original instances were rare by the early 19th century.

Of the three non-biblical save phrases “save it be/was/were,” indicative past-tense “save it was” (D&C 9:7) was probably dictated before the earliest Book of Mormon appearance. The first instances of subjunctive present-tense “save it be” were dictated close in time to each other. Subjunctive past-tense “save it were” (D&C 18:35) was dictated more than a month after the first Book of Mormon occurrence.

[Page 306]Rare “of which hath been spoken” (D&C 8:1) was dictated before Helaman 16:16.

“I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish . . . ” (D&C 10:14) may have been dictated months before (in 1828) or close in time (in April 1829) to “God will not suffer that I shall be destroyed at this time” (Mosiah 13:3).

Rare “if it so be that . . . should” (D&C 18:15) was dictated close in time to structurally identical 1 Nephi 19:19.

“Wherefore it behooveth me that he should be ordained” (D&C 21:10) was dictated almost 10 months after “it behooveth the Father that it should come forth from the Gentiles” (3 Nephi 21:6).

The archaic expression exemplified by “there shall a record be kept” (D&C 21:1) is not found in either the Book of Mormon or the King James Bible. This phraseology is akin to Shakespeare’s “There shall not a maid be / married” (Second Part of Henry the Sixth 4.7.121–122).

The archaic expression exemplified by “it is expedient in me that thou shalt open thy mouth” (D&C 30:5) is not found in either the Book of Mormon or the King James Bible. An example with should has been found in the 17th century. Similar expressions without an in-phrase are fairly common in the Book of Mormon; the King James Bible has one of these.

Archaic “if there shall come” (D&C 94:9) is not found in either the Book of Mormon or the King James Bible, but it is Early Modern English usage.

While there is close-in-time production of identical archaisms, there are archaic Doctrine and Covenants structures whose dictation preceded that of the same archaic Book of Mormon structures. Thus there is no compelling reason to attribute close-in-time Doctrine and Covenants archaisms to Book of Mormon usage. While there might have been influence in some cases, there is no conclusive evidence against the occurrence of separately revealed, tightly controlled wording.

“Save it be/was/were”

There are 11 instances of “save it be/was/were” in the Doctrine and Covenants (sections 6, 9, 18, 33, 58, 61, 68, and 104; 1829–1834). This compact phraseology is rare in the textual record before 1830 and particularly suited to poetic use. As of this writing, I have encountered no American instance before the time of the Book of Mormon’s publication.

Nine of the eleven instances take the present-tense subjunctive form “save it be.”³⁰ In writings published before 1830, the short phrase “save it be” has currently been verified in the works of three late 17th-century Scottish authors³¹ as well as once each in the 19th-century works of an English clergyman (who was also a translator and a botanist) and an Irish literary enthusiast.³²

[Page 307]The earliest use of “save it be” in the Doctrine and Covenants can be seen in the 1833 Book of Commandments:

Book of Commandments 5:5 (D&C 6:12) [April 1829]³³

Make not thy gift known unto any,
save it be those which³⁴ are of thy faith.

The revelation was probably set down in writing before Alma 58:31, which reads identically in part: “all save it be those which have been taken prisoners.” Even considering this evidence in isolation, we can reasonably assert that this five-word phrase was very likely tightly controlled in both instances. Had it not been tightly controlled, we would probably read the three-word phrase “except those who” in both Book of Commandments 5:5 and Alma 58:31.³⁵

Interestingly, the nine instances of “save it be” in the Doctrine and Covenants are roughly equal to the number currently verified in the earlier textual record. This means there are no writings that employ this rare phrase in any frequency close to what is found in Doctrine and Covenants revelations.³⁶

The phrase “save it was” is found in D&C 9:7.³⁷ This phrase is even rarer in the pre-1830 textual record than “save it be.” William Tyndale employed the phrase as part of his glossary to the book of Exodus in 1530.³⁸ There is also an instance in a 1607 poetic translation of Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso,³⁹ and another 17th-century example found in EEBO or in Literature Online (LION).⁴⁰ “Save that it was” is the phrase encountered in the textual record more often, but neither the Doctrine and Covenants nor the Book of Mormon ever employs this short phrase type with the complementizer that.

The phrase “save it were” is found in D&C 18:35.⁴¹ This might be even rarer in the pre-1830 textual record than “save it was.” Currently we know of an obscure poetic instance by a Scotsman in 1646⁴² and an occurrence in an old Scottish folk song, published occasionally beginning no later than 1751.⁴³

In summary, the phrase type “save it be/was/were,” as found 11 times in the Doctrine and Covenants (and 128 times in the Book of Mormon), is very likely to be tightly controlled revelatory language.

Dual-Object command Syntax⁴⁴

Because the original production of dual-object syntax⁴⁵ after the verb command was rare by the 1820s,⁴⁶ instances of this construction found in the Doctrine and Covenants are likely to be examples of tightly [Page 308]controlled language. The most complex case of this syntactic structure found in the revelations is the following:

D&C 124:38 [19 January 1841; scribed by Robert B. Thompson]⁴⁷

for, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was;

Moses is the first object after the verb commanded, and then there are two that-clauses (which are also grammatical objects), followed by an infinitival complement.⁴⁸ There is a switch from co-referential Moses ~ he (he refers to Moses), to partially distinct Moses ~ they (Moses is part of they),⁴⁹ and then to infinitival “I commanded Moses . . . to build.”⁵⁰ The complexity of the above structure and the rarity of mixed complementation in the textual record increase the likelihood that the wording here was tightly controlled.

There are other examples of dual-object command syntax in the Doctrine and Covenants, including D&C 5:2;⁵¹ 5:4;⁵² 19:25, 26, 28; and 76:115.⁵³ The last one in this list is noteworthy in that the command syntax is part of a relative clause, and it doesn’t employ a complementizer that:

D&C 76:115 [16 February 1832; copied between 16 February and 8 March 1832, handwriting of Frederick G. Williams and Joseph Smith, Jr.]⁵⁴

Which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit,

Similar syntax can be seen in Alma 63:12 and Helaman 6:25,⁵⁵ but the following is a precise match, since it also involves a dual-object structure in a relative clause:

1650, EEBO A40026, George Foster, The Pouring Forth of the Seventh
and Last Vial upon All Flesh and Fleshlines, page 57

by his longing desire after the fruit which I had commanded him he should not eat of,

The “which . . . commanded us we should not” of D&C 76:115 exactly parallels Foster’s “which . . . commanded him he should not.” Both phrases have the relative pronoun which, repeated pronominals, and negation after should.⁵⁶

Most complementation after the verb command in the Doctrine and Covenants, however, is infinitival. I haven’t carried out an extremely careful tally, but a preliminary estimate yields a rate of 76% infinitival.⁵⁷ This marks the text as distinct from the systematic usage of the Book [Page 309]of Mormon, which is only 21% infinitival. However, part of this large difference stems from the fact that there are many passive command verbs in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Interestingly, almost all cases of finite complementation in the Doctrine and Covenants are dual-object constructions, which is the more archaic variety that had become rare by the 19th century. Therefore, the Doctrine and Covenants is an interesting hybrid of syntactic structures in this regard: it is somewhat biblical in its complementation distribution (not modern), and quite archaic in its heavy use of dual-object finite command syntax.

“If there shall come”

The phrase “if there shall come” is marked as archaic in two ways: by the use of existential there with the intransitive verb come, and by the future subjunctive marker shall being used after the hypothetical if. The co-occurrence of these archaic elements in one short phrase makes it rare in the modern era. Surprisingly, there are no instances of the phrase “if there shall” in either the Book of Mormon or the King James Bible. The Doctrine and Covenants has one instance of this:

D&C 94:9 [2 August 1833; scribed by Frederick G. Williams]⁵⁸

but if ther shall come into it any unclean thing my glory shall not be there and my presence shall not come into it.

The EEBO database currently contains 21 examples of this four-word phrase.⁵⁹ Significantly, neither Google Books nor LION provides examples from the 18th or 19th centuries at this time.⁶⁰ Here are the two earliest-dated examples from EEBO:

1534, EEBO A13615, Nicolas Udall (translator), Terence’s Flowers for Latin speaking, page 14

If there shall come more hurt or displesure vnto vs bothe than profyte therby.

1583, EEBO A67922, John Foxe (editor), Book of Martyrs, page 481

First of al, if there shall come such one (saying expresly that he is Christ) what Christian would be seduced by him, though he shuld do neuer so many miracles:

Thus the phrase “if there shall come” is language characterisitic of the Early Modern English era, not yet verified in the late modern textual record before 1833, when section 94 was revealed. Consequently, by [Page 310]1833 it was very rare syntax, and even if textual attestations are found in the future, the wording in this case was likely to be tightly controlled.⁶¹ Loose control might have given us “if any unclean thing come(s),” “if there come(s) any unclean thing,” or “if any unclean thing shall come.” In fine, there were five possibilities that were more likely than the one that the Doctrine and Covenants has in section 94, revealed just after the Plot of Zion.

Dual-Object cause Syntax and Related Structures⁶²

Besides having two instances of dual-object command syntax, section 5 of the Doctrine and Covenants has one instance of dual-object cause syntax:

D&C 5:3 [March 1829; copied about April 1829; handwriting of Oliver Cowdery]⁶³

nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a covenant with me

This currently reads: “And I have caused you that you should enter . . . ”⁶⁴

I haven’t found this redundant syntactic structure in the modern period yet, and I have looked for it several times. In contrast, as of this writing I have been able to verify about 30 Early Modern English examples of this construction.⁶⁵ Here is one that is very close to the original language of D&C 5:3 (accidentals regularized):⁶⁶

1550, EEBO A22686, Nycolas Lesse (translator), Augustine’s A Work of the Predestination of Saints

Their works and deeds do not cause him that he should perform that which he hath promised.

In the 19th-century textual record, virtually all causative constructions involving the verb cause and taking verbal complements were infinitival. Finite complementation was very uncommon by this time (probably less than 0.25%, and perhaps less than 0.1%).⁶⁷ As a result, had the language of D&C 5:3 not been tightly controlled, it almost certainly would have read differently, something like “I have caused him to enter into a covenant with me” or “I have made him enter.” Even if we suppose that Joseph might have opted for finite complementation here, it is extremely unlikely that the superfluous object him would have been used, since dual-object syntax with the verb cause was obsolete or very rare by this time.⁶⁸

Next we consider finite complementation with the auxiliary shall, which is rarely found in the early 19th-century textual record.⁶⁹ This [Page 311]formal language involves future subjunctive marking in the that-clause (shall). The usage rate of this syntax diminished century by century from the 16th century on. Yet there are two of these rare constructions among the earlier revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants, both beginning with “I will cause”:

D&C 9:8 [April 1829; copied by John Whitmer about March 1831]⁷⁰

and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you;

D&C 21:8 [6 April 1830; copied by John Whitmer about March 1831]⁷¹

and I will cause that he shall mourn for her no longer;

This particular construction is absent from the King James Bible, and it was very likely to be tightly controlled language when we consider it along with the obsolete dual-object cause syntax found in D&C 5:3 and the nearby co-occurrence of rare phraseology such as “save it was” in D&C 9:7 and “there shall a record be kept” in D&C 21:1⁷² and “it behooveth me that he should be ordained by you” in D&C 21:10.⁷³ In other words, there is a slight possibility that Joseph Smith would have produced this syntax on his own, if we consider it in isolation, but that view is even less likely once we take into account other nearby or related Doctrine and Covenants language.

Very similar to D&C 9:8 and 21:8 is the following language, involving the verb suffer:

D&C 10:14, 43 [about April 1829; parts may date as early as summer 1828; copied by John Whitmer about March 1831]⁷⁴

I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing

I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work

This suffer syntax with finite complementation containing the auxiliary shall was also rare language in the spring of 1829.⁷⁵ It is properly classified as archaic, literary usage.

There is one other instance of finite cause syntax in the Doctrine and Covenants that is very similar to the above. In the following example the auxiliary of the that-clause is should, for which there is matching King James language (but only two instances):⁷⁶

D&C 29:41 [September 1830; copied by John Whitmer about March 1831]⁷⁷

Wherefore I the Lord God caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Edan from my presence

Even though the auxiliary should in this syntax was relatively more frequent in contemporary texts than the auxiliary shall, this usage of D&C 29:41 was quite uncommon by the early 19th century.⁷⁸

[Page 312]Elsewhere in the Doctrine and Covenants, infinitival cause syntax occurs slightly more than 20 times.⁷⁹ In the case of revelatory language, the finite rate of the Doctrine and Covenants is approximately 15%, which is extremely high for the modern period and very rare in the 19th century, but much lower than the extraordinary 56% finite complementation rate after the verb cause in the Book of Mormon.

“If it so be”

The 1611 King James Bible consistently employs the distinctive, emphatic hypothetical phrase “if so be” 18 times.⁸⁰ In contrast, the earliest text of the Book of Mormon consistently employs the four-word phrase “if it so be” 42 times.⁸¹ This categorical difference indicates tight control of this phraseology in the Book of Mormon, since it is reasonable to assume that biblical influence would have prompted at least a few instances of “if so be” in the Book of Mormon under loose control (or no use at all of this archaic hypothetical). The very rare usage of the subjunctive auxiliaries shall and should in complementary that-clauses after “if it so be,” found seven times in the Book of Mormon, cements this view.⁸²

Interestingly, the only 16th-century Bible that has “if it so be” is the 1568 Bishops’ Bible, which has a single example of this: “And yf it so be that he fynde it” (Matthew 18:13).⁸³ This archaic phrase can be found in Chaucer’s writings more than a dozen times, and was used at approximately 30 times the rate in the 16th century versus the 17th century.⁸⁴ “If so be” was the more frequent phrase throughout the Early Modern English period, but was heavily dominant by the 17th century. Consequently, “if it so be” is clearly a phrase that is characteristic of the late Middle English period and the first half of the Early Modern English period.⁸⁵ This phrase can be found in the 19th century in novel production, but instances are very uncommon.⁸⁶

The Doctrine and Covenants has three examples of this archaic phrase, each time followed by a that-clause. Two of these have following finite verbs whose grammatical mood cannot be determined:

D&C 27:2

it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory

D&C 61:22[Page 313]

And it mattereth not unto me, after a little, if it so be that they fill their mission, whether they go by water or by land;

In both these passages the nonbiblical, archaic phrase “it mattereth not” precedes the usage.⁸⁷ The subjunctive was often employed after “it mattereth not what” in the Early Modern English era, and D&C 27:2 has two instances of future subjunctive shall after this phrase. This is formal auxiliary usage in this context. That syntax, along with closely occurring “if it so be,” points to tight control in this verse. But the third case of “if it so be” is from an early June 1829 dictation. The surrounding language strongly suggests tight control.

The earliest extant version of this case of “if it so be” in the Doctrine and Covenants reads as follows:

Book of Commandments 15:17 (D&C 18:15)⁸⁸

And if it so be that you should labor in⁸⁹ all your days, in crying repentance unto this people, and bring save it be one soul only⁹⁰ unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father?

The Book of Mormon has one example of matching syntax: “if it so be that they should obtain these things” (1 Nephi 19:19). Both passages would have been dictated at roughly the same time, and it’s possible that D&C 18:15 was written down before 1 Nephi 19:19. As a result, one cannot make the case that this Doctrine and Covenants language depended on the matching Book of Mormon language.

The co-occurrence of the auxiliary should (functioning as an archaic subjunctive marker) in the that-clause of the non–King James phrase “if it so be” is very rare in English of any time period.⁹¹ To date I have found only one matching example:

1481, EEBO A69111, translation of Cicero’s Cato On Old Age

But if it so be that my soul should die with my body together

Spelling and morphology modernized.

Modern instances of the syntax “if it so be that <subject> should <infinitive>” may be found going forward, but probably few of them. As discussed before, “save it be” is also a rare phrase, and it is used almost immediately after “if it so be that . . . should.” The co-occurrence of these linguistic elements in D&C 18:15 makes tight control extremely likely in this revelatory instance. In other words, it is extremely unlikely [Page 314]that Joseph Smith would have produced the combined wording of this passage from his own language or experience.

“Expedient in me”

The phrase “expedient in me” is an example of language that we can find in the Book of Mormon once, without a verbal complement: “ye shall have power to do whatsoever thing is expedient in me” (Moroni 7:33). Also, the Book of Mormon has many cases of “expedient that S,” where S stands for sentence. These Book of Mormon sentences usually contain the auxiliary verb should. (Generally speaking, sentences have finite verbs, and these finite verbs can be non-main verbs such as should and shall.) The Doctrine and Covenants has more than 10 examples of “expedient in me that S” with should, as well as one with shalt. Doctrine and Covenants usage is thus derivable from the Book of Mormon, but the syntax “expedient in <noun phrase> that S” is very rare in the general textual record outside of the Doctrine and Covenants.

There are 20 instances of the phrase “expedient in me” in the current Doctrine and Covenants,⁹² and most of these are followed by dependent that-clauses.⁹³ In contrast to Doctrine and Covenants usage, the few relevant examples seen in the greater textual record are almost always infinitival — that is, of the form “expedient in <an agency> to <infinitival verb phrase>.”

In the Doctrine and Covenants, the prepositional phrase “in me” always refers to the Lord, who is distinct from the entity that is the subject of the complement clause (the that-clause). This is apparently what makes the language rare.

The Oxford English Dictionary may not have a definition for the preposition in that is directly on point, and there are several possible meanings that we could assign to in as used in this construction.⁹⁴

We can profitably contrast typical Doctrine and Covenants usage with the way Joseph Smith employed it in a 1 September 1842 letter that he wrote:

D&C 127:1⁹⁵

I have thought it expedient and wisdom in me to leave the place for a short season, for my own safety and the safety of this people.

This is probably Joseph’s own language, and it shows an awareness of language he frequently received by revelation, but he employs it somewhat differently. Elsewhere in the Doctrine and Covenants the verb think and the in-phrase are not used together.⁹⁶ And in the letter the me of the [Page 315]phrase “in me” is the same as the understood subject of the infinitival complement. In other Doctrine and Covenants instances, the Lord is the one who deems something suitable or proper to the circumstances of the case,⁹⁷ but humans are to take action or refrain from some action.

We find that the three-word phrase “expedient in me” is textually rare, currently attested in a single 17th-century translation out of Latin: “all things are lawful for me . . . but are not all expedient in me, making me better” (1646, EEBO A25854,; paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 6:12). Not too much should be made of this, however, since we can find examples of “expedient in him/them” in later language as well (see note 102).

As mentioned, most of the time a that-clause follows “expedient in me” in the Doctrine and Covenants. The one case with an accompanying infinitival verb phrase is the following:

D&C 72:2 [4 December 1831; scribed by Sidney Rigdon]⁹⁸

for verily thus saith the Lord it is expedient in me for a Bishop to be appointed unto you

Here the preposition for immediately follows the phrase “it is expedient in me,” and there is an accompanying infinitival verb phrase after the noun phrase “a bishop.” If this passage had been phrased in the usual way, it would have read: “it is expedient in me that a bishop should be appointed unto you.” The phraseology with for is less archaic than the 17 instances of “it is expedient in me” immediately followed by dependent that-clauses.⁹⁹ So in its overall usage of this construction the Doctrine and Covenants is clearly more archaic than modern. Here are two examples that employ an auxiliary — shalt and should — after the subject of the that-clause:

D&C 30:5 [September 1830; scribed by John Whitmer]¹⁰⁰

for the time has come, that it is expedient in me, that thou shalt open thy mouth to declare my Gospel

D&C 64:18 [11 September 1831; scribed by John Whitmer]¹⁰¹

& now verily I say, that it is expedient in me that my servent Sidney (Gilbert) after a few weeks, should return upon his business,

The manuscript reads should; the current LDS text has shall here.

The D&C 30:5 example is the earliest one found in this body of scripture. It was dictated more than a year after Moroni 7:33, the lone Book of Mormon example, which, however, has no dependent that-clause or infinitival complement.

The particular syntax in question — “it <be verb form/phrase> expedient in <agentive np>” — is neither common nor rare in the [Page 316]textual record, but what is rare is the co-occurrence of an in-phrase and a dependent that-clause. The closest match found to date with this fairly common Doctrine and Covenants language is the following:

1634, EEBO A23187, Meric Casaubon (translator), Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations

It was expedient in nature that it should be so, and therefore necessary.

In every other instance encountered thus far — either before or after the year 1700 — the agent of the in-phrase is the same as subject of the complement, and an infinitival verb phrase is used.

The date distribution of the above 1634 example and the seven infinitival examples isolated for this study¹⁰² suggests that this language was somewhat more characteristic of the 17th century than of the 18th century,¹⁰³ but nevertheless the usage clearly persisted into the 19th century.

When we consider cases of “it <be verb form> expedient” without an in-phrase, we encounter hundreds of examples in the textual record with complementary that-clauses. The favored auxiliary in that-clauses after this impersonal expression is should, followed distantly by shall.¹⁰⁴ That same tendency is reflected in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The latter has 12 instances of should (as in D&C 64:18, shown above) and only one of shalt (D&C 30:5, shown above).¹⁰⁵ I haven’t yet found a precise match with D&C 30:5 in the textual record,¹⁰⁶ but the 1634 Casaubon example is structurally the same, differing only in the tense of the auxiliary.

As indicated, Joseph could have derived this syntax from analogous Book of Mormon usage. The other possibility (because of how uncommon this linguistic structure is in the written record) is that “expedient in me that <subject> should/shall” was tightly controlled revelatory language. We do not expect that Smith would have formulated it this way and in such a consistent manner from his own language. It is likely he would have expressed it another way from revealed ideas, and varied the language. Even under analogy, we expect that the language would be more variable than it actually is, similar to the idiosyncratic usage found in D&C 127:1. Consequently, no matter if we choose to think of this particular language as modern or archaic, it was most likely to have been the result of wording that was tightly controlled in its delivery.

“Of which hath been spoken”

Section 8 originally had one example of this archaic, little-known phraseology:

[Page 317]D&C 8:1 [April 1829; copied by John Whitmer about March 1831]¹⁰⁷

those parts of my Scriptures of which hath been spoken

The 1833 Book of Commandments 7:1 reads “those parts of my scripture of which have been spoken”; the current reading is “those parts of my scripture of which has been spoken.”

We see that hath was first changed to have for the 1833 Book of Commandments, and then later (after 1844) to has. Thus it is possible, if not likely, that the phraseology dictated one month later (for which the manuscripts are lost) read the same, since later editing followed the same path:¹⁰⁸

Book of Commandments 10:9 (D&C 11:19)
[May 1829; cop
ied by John Whitmer about March 1831]¹⁰⁹

those things of which have been spoken

This currently reads “those things of which has been spoken.”

The Book of Mormon has two instances in the body of the work (Helaman 16:16; Ether 13:15) and one in each of the witness statements.¹¹⁰ In three of these the antecedent is in the plural, as is the case in the above Doctrine and Covenants excerpts. These may be cases of the {-th} plural.¹¹¹

Alexander Campbell criticized the Book of Mormon for employing “of which hath been spoken,” giving three examples of it.¹¹² Campbell may have thought Smith had invented the phraseology in order to sound old. This is not dialectal speech, however, but formal in nature; it is uncommonly found in the Early Modern English era, as in these five examples:

1630, EEBO A01972, William Gouge [1578–1653]
An exposition on the whole fifth chapter of S. Johns Gospell

The parts are, 1. A Preface, Verily, etc.] of which hath been spoken before, . . .

The meanes are expressed in these words, (the whole armour of God) of which hath been spoken before, vers. 11.

1657, EEBO A57385, Francis Roberts [1609–1675] The mysterie and marrow of the Bible

Divine and Humane, and amongst Divine, both of Works and Faith do concur, That they are Compacts or Agreements. Of which hath been spoken sufficiently heretofore.

[Page 318]1683, EEBO A54597, John Pettus (translator) [1613–1690] | Lazarus Ercker [d. 1594] Fleta minor the laws of art and nature, in knowing, judging, assaying, fining, refining and inlarging the bodies of confin’d metals

FLUSS (of which hath been spoken) is made thus, Take one part of Salt-peter and two parts of Argol

1685, EEBO A42965, Thomas Godwin [d. 1642]
Moses and Aaron civil and ecclesiastical rites

First, he consulted with his arrows and staves, of which hath been spoken immediately before;

The 1683 example is a bare use without any accompanying adverb, similar to what is found in the Book of Mormon.¹¹³ In addition, two or three of the above examples may have plural antecedents, as we encounter in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.

Significantly, section 8 was set down in writing before Helaman 16:16, and so archaic “of which hath been spoken” in D&C 8:1 preceded its use in the Book of Mormon.

Suspect Grammar

Now that it has been established that it is reasonable to accept tight control for a variety of Doctrine and Covenants language, we extend our view to examine some questionable grammar. This is the aspect of these revelations which has led commentators to conclude that the wording was Joseph Smith’s. They did so without researching earlier English, which was extremely difficult to do until recently. We will see that the “bad grammar” of the Doctrine and Covenants only strengthens the claim of tight control; it does not diminish it.

Close Pronominal Variation: you ~ thou

First we consider the following revelation addressed to Martin Harris:

D&C 19:26 [summer of 1829; copied by John Whitmer]¹¹⁴

And again, I command you that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon,

Here the doubtful language is the immediate pronoun switch from you to thou (and continuing with thine). There are several of these close switches in this section alone.¹¹⁵ This may have been thought to be a mistake on the part of Joseph Smith, and so you was later changed to thee a few times in this section, since the addressee (Harris) is a single person.

As discussed in the prior section, dual-object syntax after the verb command¹¹⁶ was rare by the 1820s, and so the you after the verb command [Page 319]was probably tightly controlled language. If the wording hadn’t been tightly controlled here, we would expect no you here, only “I command that thou shalt.” There would have been only one pronoun, and therefore no grammatically suspect shift in pronominal form.

Interestingly, the immediate pronoun switching of D&C 19:26 can be found in various Early Modern English texts, as in the following examples (the spelling has been regularized):

1623, EEBO A16053, James Mabbe (translator), Mateo Alemán’s The Rogue, or the Life of Guzmán de Alfarache, page 353

And in case I should go hence, I will so far befriend you, that thou shalt be ranked like a rogue, according as thy villanies deserve,

before 1647, EEBO A30582, Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel Remission (1668), page 59

and therefore I beseech you look up higher than for such signs as reason may reach unto, and beg of God to reveal this unto you, that thou mayest have the witness of the Spirit of God to testify unto thee that thy sins are pardoned.

In the 1623 example, the pronominal switch involves the same auxiliary we see in the revelation given during the summer of 1829: “thou shalt.”¹¹⁷ And in the Burroughs example, there are two instances of you followed closely by thou and a continuation of thou forms, similar to the use of thine in D&C 19:26. The close switch is even found in the current King James Bible:

Ezekiel 36:13

Because they say unto you, Thou land devourest up men, and hast bereaved thy nations;

Another biblical verse is worth pointing out as well, since it has “command you” followed closely by thou:

Deuteronomy 12:32

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

The Doctrine and Covenants usage in question can be viewed as a compact form of the language of Deuteronomy 12:32.

Therefore the questionable pronoun variation found in D&C 19:26 and elsewhere in these revelations and in the Book of Mormon¹¹⁸ is actually biblical and not rare in the Early Modern English textual record. Its usage in the Doctrine and Covenants certainly does not argue against [Page 320]tight control of the language or convincingly point to it being Joseph Smith’s language.

The Adverb exceeding Used with Adjectives

Another type of edited Doctrine and Covenants language worth considering is the two instances of “exceding angry,” originally found at D&C 87:5 and 88:87 (scribed in late December 1832 by Frederick G. Williams).¹¹⁹ This can only be a minor point, however, since by late 1832 frequent Book of Mormon usage could have influenced Joseph Smith to adopt the typical morphological form of the Book of Mormon in these Doctrine and Covenants revelations.¹²⁰

The Google Books Ngram Viewer currently indicates that in the 1830s the short adverbial form without {-ly} in the phrase “exceeding angry” occurred less than 15% of the time in the textual record. But this same abbreviated form had been dominant in the 17th century and before. Consequently, we might expect that at least one of these would have been “exceedingly angry” had the dictation not been tightly controlled here.¹²¹ A contemporary example of the modern morphological usage is the phrase “excedingly fateagued,” found in a July 1833 letter scribed by Williams, but probably representing the language of Sidney Rigdon.¹²² Because this letter contains an instance of exceedingly used with a following adjective, it strengthens the possibility of tight control over the morphology of the adverb in the Doctrine and Covenants bigram “exceeding angry.”¹²³

The 15% textual usage rate of “exceeding angry” in the 1830s agrees with the general rule of this decade that exceeding used before all adjectives was the less-common form (20%), slowly diminishing in rate decade by decade. The crossover for exceeding(ly) with adjectives, in terms of textual attestation, occurred in the 1770s.¹²⁴ In other words, during the decade of the 1770s “exceedingly <adjective>” finally surpassed “exceeding <adjective>” in frequency of use in the textual record.¹²⁵

In summary, two instances of “exceeding angry” in sections 87 and 88 are consistent with tight control but may also be ascribed to the influence of frequent Book of Mormon usage. If so, “exceeding angry” in Doctrine and Covenants revelations could be a case of indirect tight control.

Close Pronominal Variation: ye ~ you

Just as we see very often in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants switches between subject you and subject ye. This was quite [Page 321]common during the Early Modern English period and close switching of subject you and subject ye is not hard to find in the original 1611 King James Bible (discussed below).

In terms of the history of English usage, we find that subject you had overtaken subject ye by the 1570s as the clearly favored form in textual use.¹²⁶ Yet despite the pronoun ye being quite archaic, it is familiar to many because of its prevalence in older biblical versions.¹²⁷ In Early Modern English there is plenty of evidence for nearby variation of subject you and subject ye; here are examples from the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and a 17th-century sermon:

D&C 98:14 [6 August 1833; copied about 6 August 1833, handwriting of Frederick G. Williams and Joseph Smith, Jr.]¹²⁸

I will prove you in all things whether you will abide in my covenant even unto death that ye may be found worthy

The ye was changed at some point to you. There is also an instance of object you in this verse, shown in italics here.

Alma 5:20

Can ye think of being saved when you have yielded yourselves to become subjects to the devil?

The subject you in this passage has remained in the text; grammatical editing in the Book of Mormon has been uneven.

1617, EEBO A17051, Robert Bruce [1554–1631] The way to true peace and rest

and if ye find these in any measure, though never so small, you have the right faith in your hearts;

Significantly, the original 1611 King James Bible has 44 instances of subject you in the two-word phrase “that you.”¹²⁹ (This 2-gram can no longer be found in modern versions of the King James Bible; a sampling showed them to be edited out by 1769.) There are many other cases of subject you to be found in the 1611 King James Bible besides these. Because there are so many instances of subject you in this Bible, there are also cases where subject ye is employed close to subject you. As a result, a number of 1611 King James Bible examples straightforwardly dismiss the view that nearby subject ye ~ you variation is ill-formed or inappropriate for a scriptural text. Here is one such example:

Job 19:3 [original 1611 spelling retained]

These tenne times haue ye reproched me: you are not ashamed that you make your selues strange to me.

The two instances of you were changed at some point to ye.

[Page 322]In view of this textual evidence, we see that the pronominal editing in D&C 98:14 has had the effect of making this passage less like Early Modern English and the 1611 King James Bible, and more like modern English.

This same variation occurred in early Doctrine and Covenants revelations as well, as the following examples show:

D&C 6:30¹³⁰ – blessed are ye, for you shall dwell with me in glory:

D&C 17:7–8¹³¹ – wherefore you have received the same power . . .
and if ye do these last commandments of mine

Another item directly relevant to this discussion is the multiple occurrences of singular ye in manuscripts of early revelations. This questionable pronominal usage most likely represents tightly controlled Early Modern English usage,¹³² lending support for viewing ye ~ you variation in the same way. Consequently, what looks at first blush to be a minor grammatical error by Joseph Smith might actually constitute further evidence of tight control in the revelatory process.

The {-th} Plural¹³³

Elsewhere I have treated this topic in some depth, showing that the present-tense {-th} plural of the Book of Mormon is not a case of conscious overuse since there is very little of it after pronouns, and much heavier rates of use after relative pronouns and conjunctions, matching Early Modern English tendencies.¹³⁴

By the 19th century, the {-th} plural was very rare, restricted to the archaic auxiliary verbs hath and doth. An early Doctrine and Covenants revelation (given July 1828) has an example with plural hath following the relative pronoun who: “the Lamanites . . . who hath been suffered to destroy their Brethren” (D&C 3:18).¹³⁵ In contrast to its considerable presence in the Book of Mormon, there are far fewer examples of the {-th} plural in the Doctrine and Covenants. Here are two possible cases with main verbs (which makes the usage anomalous for the 1830s):

D&C 93:33, 37 [6 May 1833; scribed by Frederick G. Williams]¹³⁶

and spirit and element inseperably connected receiveth a fulness of Joylight and truth forsaketh that evil one

These are examples with grammatical subjects made up of conjoined singular nouns. Although the nouns are fairly concrete in verse 33, in verse 37 they are not. And conjoined singular abstract nouns often did not (and do not) resolve to plural in English.

[Page 323]Nevertheless, based on textual evidence, even “light and truth” may be viewed as sufficiently distinct so that we can assume plural number resolution, and later editing has treated the phrase in this way, changing forsaketh to forsake (and receiveth was changed at some point to receive as well). Indeed, here is an excerpt with plural are after the subject phrase “light and truth”:

1660, EEBO A62877, John Tombes, True old light exalted above pretended new light

Light and truth are either the same, or very like, and helpfull to each other, Psal. 43. 3.

Psalm 43:3 reads, in part: “O send out thy light and thy truth: let them lead me.”

This 1660 example clearly shows plural construal of the complex subject “light and truth,” and in Psalm 43:3 they are given their own possessive pronouns and referred to with the plural pronoun them.

More to the point, here are two Early Modern English examples with conjoined “truth and light” that could contain instances of the {-th} plural, similar to the language of D&C 93:37:

1618, EEBO A05105, Richard Dolman (translator), Pierre de la Primaudaye’s The French academie

and taught by the soueraigne doctor and supreme brightnes from which all truth and light doth issue.

1656, EEBO A44342, Thomas Hooker, The application of redemption by the effectual work of the word, and spirit of Christ

But now in a Godly man whose understanding is turned from darkness to light, when the truth and light of it hath by the spirit of bondage been set on upon the mind and Conscience, you shal see day breaking as it were,

In summary, “light and truth” may be a complex plural subject in D&C 93:37, and “spirit and element” is probably a complex plural subject in D&C 93:33. From that perspective, their predicates contain main verbs carrying {-th} plural inflection. This could be tightly controlled language, just as it almost certainly is in the Book of Mormon (because of the deep match with 16th- and 17th-century inflectional tendencies).

Subjunctive ~ Indicative Variation

According to the current Joseph Smith Papers transcription of the manuscript found in Revelation Book 2, the following passage contained nearby variation in grammatical mood after the time conjunction until:

[Page 324]D&C 98:44 [6 August 1833]¹³⁷

untill he repent and rewards¹³⁸ thee four fold in all things

Indicative rewards was edited for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants to subjunctive reward,¹³⁹ since it is under the same uncertain future time condition as subjunctive repent. Here are two 17th-century examples of this close variation after the same time conjunction:

1662, EEBO A67153, Abraham Wright, A practical commentary or exposition upon the Pentateuch

So hard a thing it is to perswade sinners to beleeve that God is so just, or his Judgements so infallible, or their sins so destructive, until the Floud come, and a second Deluge, a Deluge of Fire sweeps them away, as that first of Waters did their unbeleeving fore-fathers.

1669, EEBO A23716, Richard Allestree, Eighteen sermons

yet he reckons of all this as if he had said nothing till he speak Plagues and commands afflictions; Psal. 50. 21.

Unlike the doubtful case of subjunctive ~ indicative variation in D&C 98:44, a solid example of such contextual variation is found in the following early revelation:

D&C 3:4 [summer of 1828]¹⁴⁰

yet if he boast in his own strength & Sets at naught the councils of God & follows after the dictates of his will & carnal desires he must fall to the Earth & incur the vengence of a Just God upon him

Subjunctive boast has been changed to indicative boasts.¹⁴¹

Here are similar examples after the hypothetical if,¹⁴² as found in the Book of Mormon, the 1539 Great Bible, and the 1611 King James Bible:

Helaman 13:26

if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord

This reading persists in the current LDS text; it is natural language variation.

1539, Great Bible, James 1:23 [EEBO A10405, (1540)]

For yf any man heare ye worde, and declareth not the same by hys workes,¹⁴³

The indicative verb in the conjoined predicate is the same as the one in Helaman 13:26.

1611, King James Bible, 1 John 4:20

If a man say, I loue God, and hateth his brother, he is a lyar.

[Page 325]The language of 1 John 4:20 may be the only example of variable grammatical mood after a single instance of the hypothetical in the King James Bible,¹⁴⁴ but there are a few of these in the Book of Mormon. In the King James Bible, the phrase “I love God” interrupts the syntactic conjunction of say and hateth, just as “a deluge of fire” does in the 1662 example after the time conjunction until. The intervention of extraneous elements may explain the nearby variation in grammatical mood.

In any event, we can see that this kind of subjunctive ~ indicative variation is attested in earlier English, and this may be a source of the variation found in D&C 3:4 (and in D&C 98:44, if subjunctive ~ indicative variation was in fact original to the revelation).

The {-s} Plural

Linguists have called the use of is, has, and other present-tense verb forms ending in the verbal suffix {-s}, when used with plural grammatical subjects, the {-s} plural.¹⁴⁵ For example, in Early Modern English, when the agreement controller is plural things,¹⁴⁶ we quite often see the use of singular verb inflection. (Nevertheless, it was the less-common option overall in the textual record.) EEBO has hundreds of examples of “things that is” and “things which is.” These can be found throughout the Early Modern English period, but the usage rate may have been two to three times greater in the 16th century than in the 17th century. Here are two examples from the 16th-century Great Bible, with the original spelling retained:

1539, Great Bible, Proverbs 21:7; Jeremiah 15:19 [EEBO A10405, (1540)]

The robberyes of the vngodly shall be theyr owne destruccyon, for they wyl not do the thynges that is ryght.

and yf thou wylte take out the thynges that is precious from the vyle,

The 1611 King James Bible does not have things in either case. It has quite different language: “because they refuse to doe iudgement” (Proverbs 21:7) and “if thou take forth the precious from the vile” (Jeremiah 15:19).

There are more than a dozen occurrences of “things that/which is” in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon, all edited out. Here are two found in early Doctrine and Covenants revelations:¹⁴⁷

D&C 11:14 [May 1829; handwriting of Hyrum Smith]¹⁴⁸

By this shall you know all things whatso Ever you Desire of me which is Pertaining unto things of rightousness

Book of Commandments 15:20 (D&C 18:18) [June 1829]¹⁴⁹

and you shall have the Holy Ghost which manifesteth all things which is expedient unto the children of men.

[Page 326]Therefore, we can take “things which is” to be a feature of Doctrine and Covenants revelations as well as a feature of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon.

According to the Joseph Smith Papers historical introduction, D&C 18:18 was dictated in Fayette “within the first few days of June 1829.” Hence, it likely would have been first set down in writing very close in time to the dictation of the following Book of Mormon verse:

Moroni 10:23¹⁵⁰

If ye have faith, ye can do all things which is expedient unto me.

These passages contain the same six-word phrase “all things which is expedient unto.” There is one other case of “expedient unto” in the Book of Mormon, which was probably dictated after Moroni 10:23 and D&C 18:18:

2 Nephi 2:27¹⁵¹

Wherefore men are free according to the flesh, and all things are given them which is expedient unto man.

The syntactic variation seen above — “things are” ~ “things . . . which is” — is similar to what we read in the following excerpt:

1661, EEBO A44790, Francis Howgill, The glory of the true church

and that all that come to the beginning again, to union with God, must die to all these things which is got and entred into the hearts of men since the transgression, and while these things are loved they alienate the mind from the Living God,

We see that when the verb be occurs immediately after things, both in the 1661 example and in 2 Nephi 2:27, its form is are, but when the verb be occurs after “things which,” its form is is.¹⁵² Another similar match with Early Modern English possibilities is the following:

Alma 9:16¹⁵³

For there are many promises which is extended to the Lamanites,

1671, EEBO A59163, Henry Carey (translator),
Jean-François Senault’s The Use of Passions

there are some errors, which is easilier perswaded unto than to some truths.

[Page 327]The point of presenting these cases of plural is ~ are variation is that we encounter this sort of matching frequently in the Book of Mormon. This kind of linguistic evidence (and much more) leads to the conclusion that Early Modern English competence was involved in the elaboration of the Book of Mormon and that the delivery of the text was tightly controlled. From that it is likely that either D&C 11:14 and 18:18 were also given word for word, or that Joseph Smith followed Book of Mormon usage like Moroni 10:23 very closely, so that the Doctrine and Covenants language was effectively controlled by way of this Book of Mormon language. Either way we choose to look at it, it boils down to tight control for this questionable Doctrine and Covenants verb agreement.

This then informs our view of the following language, which in section 20 may have been a case of Oliver Cowdery borrowing directly from Book of Mormon phraseology:

D&C 20:17 [about April 1830; some parts could have been revealed as early as the summer of 1829]¹⁵⁴

Wherefore, by these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and all things that in them is;

The distinctive six-word phrase “all things that in them is” can be found four times in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon, at 2 Nephi 2:14, 3 Nephi 9:15, Mormon 9:11, and Ether 4:7. (Alma 11:39 is a fifth case, but it has which instead of that; Mosiah 13:19 is a biblical case because it has Tyndale’s phraseology—“and all that in them is”—which carried through to the 1611 King James Bible.) So the language of these Book of Mormon verses could have served as a source for D&C 20:17.

Nevertheless, when we examine these passages we find that there are some clear differences between them. In the Book of Mormon passages plural heavens is used in all but Alma 11:39 (the one with which), and Maker¹⁵⁵ is not used in any of them to describe God. Those facts, then, make a word-for-word borrowing from the Book of Mormon less likely in this case, but still possible.

The {-s} plural used in this same Decalogue language is attested in the textual record, though it is not found in 16th-century Bibles or in the 1611 King James Bible. Here is an example that is nearly identical to D&C 20:17 and the five Book of Mormon instances:

1665, EEBO A35520, Thomas Curwen et al., An Answer to John Wiggan’s Book

Thou art worthy Lord God of Heaven and Earth, who hath made the Heavens and the Earth, Sea, and all things that is in them: but this thou will sure say was confusion,

[Page 328]EEBO contains at least two similar examples from the 16th century, with therein used for the phrase “in them.”¹⁵⁶ Strong supporting evidence throughout the Book of Mormon leads one to take its five instances of “all things that/which in them is” to be tightly controlled. This combined with “things which is” — found at least in D&C 11:14 and 18:18 — points to direct or indirect tight control of plural is in D&C 20:17.

Also worth noting is the archaic time conjunction “after that,” originally found in the phrase “For after that it truly was manifested” (D&C 20:5),¹⁵⁷ as well as the {-th} plural found in “those scriptures which hath been given of him” (D&C 20:21), part of the Painesville Telegraph version, which might have preserved the original language of the revelation in these instances.¹⁵⁸

In view of all this, ascribing this verb agreement peculiarity of Doctrine and Covenants revelations to Joseph’s dialect is a doubtful enterprise.

Plural was¹⁵⁹

Joseph Smith certainly employed plural was as part of his speech and writing. It was part of his dialect. The early 1832 History written in his hand (two-thirds) and in the hand of Frederick G. Williams (one-third) gives direct evidence for this:

1832 History [written down around the summer of 1832]¹⁶⁰

and he revealed unto me that in the Town of Manchester Ontario County N.Y. there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraven by Maroni & his fathers the servants of the living God in ancient days

Before this we read “there were many things,” so there is verb agreement variation, which we can take to have been part of Joseph’s language as well. Of note is that the Book of Mormon uses only standard plural forms with engravings and the past participle engraven: “engravings <relative pronoun> are/were/have” and “which are/were engraven.” This tends to reinforce a view that the above nonstandard verb agreement was due to Joseph’s dialect.

There is also plural was in Doctrine and Covenants revelations, as this example from an early revelation shows:

D&C 3:12–13 [received during the summer of 1828, after the loss of the 116 manuscript pages]

thou deliveredest up that which was Sacred into the hands of a wicked man who has Set at naught the Councils of God & hath broken the most Sacred promises which was made before God

[Page 329]Earlier in this section, there is also an original instance of were after plural which: “the Promises which were made to you” (D&C 3:5). So just as in Joseph’s own language, this section has fairly close variation of nonstandard (from a modern perspective) plural was and standard were.

In D&C 3:13 we also note the use of archaic, biblical “set at naught” and the nearby variation of has and hath (has ~ hath variation is not found in the King James Bible, since it never employs has). But nearby has ~ hath variation was typical of earlier writings and can be seen in these 17th- and 18th-century examples with very similar phonology and structure:

1680, EEBO A65829, Anne Whitehead [1624–1686]
An epistle for true love, unity, and order in the Church of Christ, against the spirit of discord, disorder and confusion

which the Lord by his Power has set up, and hath given Wisdom according to true Knowledge, to act in the Church of Christ:

1727, ECCO–TCP, Daniel Defoe, An essay
on the history and reality of apparitions

Now I know of a surety, that the LORD has sent his Angel, and hath deliver’d me.

This is a close quotation of Acts 12:11, which has “hath sent.”

As shown, both textual examples are solid matches with the variable form of the auxiliary have found in D&C 3:13. These examples inform us that we cannot be sure that the nearby morphological variation is a case of Joseph failing to be consistent. It could have been tightly controlled language that merely reflected earlier tendencies.

As for plural was in D&C 3:13, we cannot tell in isolation whether it is revealed archaic language or Joseph’s dialectal usage. Despite the inherent difficulty in deciding between loose and tight control for plural was here and elsewhere in the Doctrine and Covenants, the earliest text of the Book of Mormon sheds light on this issue, and other linguistic evidence from section 3 does so as well.

I have shown elsewhere how nearby was ~ were variation in the Book of Mormon is very similar to earlier English usage.¹⁶¹ For example, Mosiah 24:15 contains the exact distribution of variable forms that we find in the writings of the Scottish reformer John Knox and in the writings of quite a few others from the Early Modern English period:

Mosiah 24:15¹⁶²

the burdens which was laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light;

The change from was to were was made for the 1837 edition, marked in the printer’s manuscript by Joseph Smith; see under Alma 46:33 in [Page 330]Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2017).

1560, EEBO A04920, John Knox [1505–1572] An answer to a great nomber of blasphemous cauillations written by an Anabaptist

That place of Paule proveth not that all the Israelites, which was called from Egypt, were within gods holie election to lief everlasting in Christ Jesus.

There is also the following match to consider, not involving variation:

1 Nephi 5:11¹⁶³

and also of Adam and Eve, which was our first parents

The change from “which was” to “who were” was made for the 1837 edition, marked in the printer’s manuscript by Joseph Smith.

1566, EEBO A06932, Thomas Becon [1512–1567] A new postil conteinyng most godly and learned sermons vpon all the Sonday Gospelles

not after the maner of Adam and Eue, which was made of the grounde

The 5-gram “Adam and Eve which was,” where which and was refer to both Adam and Eve, is unlikely to be found in the modern era.

The archaic, systematic implementation of plural was in the Book of Mormon, along with plenty of supporting lexical and syntactic evidence, points to Early Modern English competence and tight control over this syntax in the Book of Mormon. And it is interesting to consider that by the summer of 1828 Joseph had probably dictated several instances of tightly controlled plural was as part of the early translation that was subsequently lost.

The internal evidence for treating plural was in section 3 and elsewhere as archaic, tightly controlled language is found particularly in verse 15. The original language of this verse contains an interesting vocabulary item as well as some odd syntax:

D&C 3:15 [copied about March 1831 in Revelation Book 1 by John Whitmer]

for thou hast suffered that the council of thy directors to be trampeled upon from the beginning

Plural directors reads in the singular in the current LDS text.

Plural directors is found twice in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon at Alma 37:21, 24;¹⁶⁴ the term there refers to the Nephite interpreters.¹⁶⁵ It is likely that directors in D&C 3:15 also refers to the same sacred objects, whether they are called directors, interpreters, or Urim and Thummim. The use of the verb suffer with a following complementizer that also suggests tight control; in addition, the archaic [Page 331]lexical choice of the verb suffer, instead of allowed or permitted, may be a further indication of tightly controlled archaism.¹⁶⁶

As for the curious syntax, there’s a switch from a that-clause after the verb suffer to an infinitive, the same type of language that Joseph dictated the following year for the Book of Mormon more than once.¹⁶⁷ The following passage involves the same governing verb suffer:

Mormon 6:6

And knowing it to be the last struggle of my people and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer that the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites

Thomas More also used this variety of suspect grammar in the 16th century after the verb think,¹⁶⁸ and the following EEBO excerpt is a good match:

1598, EEBO A02364, translation of Jacques Guillemeau’s The French Chirurgery

which was alsoe an occasione of his resanation, because he suffered, that the tronchone of the Launce, which stucke clean through his heade, to be with force, and violence drawne therout.

Of course in all three cases the auxiliary should could have been used in place of infinitival to. Another point of similarity between D&C 3:15 and the 1598 EEBO excerpt is that both end with a phrasal verb in the passive: “to be trampled upon” and “to be drawn out.”

In summary, D&C 3:15 vocabulary and syntax, as well as the Book of Mormon’s varied, archaic use of plural was, argue for treating plural “which was” in D&C 3:13 as revealed archaic language, not as emanating from Joseph’s dialect.

Summary of Suspect Grammar

The exact syntax “<command verb form> you that thou” is not found in either the Book of Mormon or the King James Bible; it is only found in the Doctrine and Covenants. The questionable pronominal switch, however, is attested in earlier English with other verbs and in other contexts. This switch is found in the Book of Mormon, and even in the King James Bible (Ezekiel 36:13), which contains similar language at Deuteronomy 12:32: “I command you . . . thou shalt.” It is likely that this Doctrine and Covenants syntax is tightly controlled language — the dual-object construction is somewhat creative, well-formed, and archaic.

[Page 332]The 2-gram “exceeding angry” is not strong evidence of tight control because of extensive Book of Mormon usage, which may have influenced the morphology in later Doctrine and Covenants revelations.

Subject ye ~ you variation in early revelations such as “blessed are ye, for you shall dwell with me in glory” (D&C 6:30) may indicate tight control as it matches earlier King James usage that had been edited out by 1769. Had Joseph Smith closely followed either his own dialect or a 1769 King James Bible, there would be little nearby variation. Nevertheless, if he mixed modern you with biblical ye, we do get Doctrine and Covenants usage.

The {-th} plural with main verbs such as “spirit and element inseparably connected receiveth a fulness of joy” (D&C 93:33) also indicates tight control, since it was very rare by May 1833. While this language might have followed Book of Mormon usage, the {-th} plural of section 3, received in 1828 (“the Lamanites . . . who hath been suffered to destroy their brethren”), supports the view that D&C 93:33 could be independent of Book of Mormon influence.

Subjunctive ~ indicative variation is scriptural and a natural linguistic phenomenon. The D&C 3:4 example after the hypothetical — “if he boast . . . and sets . . . and follows” — preceded all Book of Mormon examples. Because this nearby variation in grammatical mood is probably tightly controlled in the Book of Mormon, there is no reason it could not have been in Doctrine and Covenants revelations.

The {-s} plural seen in early Doctrine and Covenants revelations (of the form “things which/that is”) could have been tightly controlled. Examples of “things which is” occur sufficiently early in the Doctrine and Covenants so that their independence of rather frequent Book of Mormon usage is possible. The Decalogue-like phrase “all things that in them is” is a creative modification of biblical language, incorporating the Early Modern English plural is.

Plural was occurs early in the Doctrine and Covenants, just after Joseph had dictated the lost 116 pages (which probably had examples of it as well). The D&C 3:13 instance of plural was precedes published Book of Mormon language and is therefore independent. The Book of Mormon and internal evidence argue for taking the case of plural was at D&C 3:13 to be tightly controlled. There is no compelling reason why this also could not have been the case in later Doctrine and Covenants examples such as “things which was” at D&C 35:18 (7 December 1830), “glories which was” at D&C 66:2 (29 October 1831), and “even things [ which were from the beginning before the world was ] which was ordained of the Father” at D&C 76:13 (7 February 1832).

The Challenge

In general, tight control of Doctrine and Covenants language also provides greater clarity with respect to the challenge found in section 67:

D&C 67:6–7 [about 2 November 1831;
copied about November 1831 by John Whitmer]¹⁶⁹

now seek ye out of the Book of commandments even the least that is among them & appoint him that is the most wise among you or if there be any among you that shall make one like unto it then ye are Justified in saying that ye do not know that [it] is true but if you cannot make one like unto it ye are under condemnation if you do not bear [record/testimony] that it is true.

[Page 333]It is possible that this challenge would not have been made if Joseph Smith had been in control of the wording of these revelations from received ideas. At this time there were certainly a number of church members who were better educated and more literate than Joseph was and were able at that time to “express beyond his language,” all things being equal.¹⁷⁰ But because the Lord was probably in charge of the wording of the revelations, any such persons were unable to surpass the revelatory language. Indeed, if we exclude the content from consideration, who among the challengers would have been able to readily produce, by dictation, some of the obscure, archaic language discussed throughout this paper?

Grandstaff asserts that “Section 67 was not given because the elders criticized Smith’s grammar.”¹⁷¹ Nonetheless, it is interesting that section 66, given to McLellin days before section 67, probably contained a clear case of bad grammar.¹⁷² Therefore McLellin could have very recently formed doubts about the source of revelatory language because a revelation containing “glories which was” was addressed to him personally and he was a school teacher and thus probably held strict views on grammatical usage. These facts are certainly worth bearing in mind in relation to the challenge of section 67.

Analysis of Some Language of the Plot of Zion

The tight control of Doctrine and Covenants language combined with Frederick G. Williams’s apparent upright character and general trustworthiness, as well as his lack of experience in city planning,¹⁷³ constitute the strongest evidence that various details of the Plot of Zion were revealed and tightly controlled. (An appendix contains the plot description, laid out in sense lines.)

As mentioned briefly in the introduction, an August 2, 1833, revelation to Joseph Smith states that a “pattern”¹⁷⁴ had been given for laying out a foundation for a city (see D&C 94:1–2).¹⁷⁵ Because of the likelihood of tight control, the import of this Doctrine and Covenants reference should be taken seriously. In D&C 94:4, dimensions are specifically given [Page 334]for an inner court (55’ × 65’), indicating that dimensions could have likewise been specifically given for the Plot of Zion as well.¹⁷⁶ Because of substantial evidence for tight control in this and other close in-time revelations, we can reasonably take plot measurements to have been revealed by the Lord. Moreover, Frederick G. Williams wrote on the temple plan that the city plot was revealed (see the text accompanying note 11).

Nevertheless, there is a clear, uncorrected error in the original plot description of June 1833, which argues that this item was not tightly controlled. And so other parts of the plot description could have been under loose control (or even no specific control).¹⁷⁷ In this particular case, a narrow 4 × 20 rod building lot (66’ × 330’) is wrongly indicated to be ¼ of an acre. Yet a simple calculation tells us that this is too small by a factor of 2, and so it is no surprise that this fraction was corrected to ½ in the Letterbook 1 copy.¹⁷⁸ However, before the incorrect figure of ¼ of an acre was written down, the governing dimension for a typical square or block had already been given as 10 acres and 40 square rods. This twice-specified areal measurement, along with the transparent 10 × 2 lot layout within a block, controls the size of individual building lots being one-half of an acre. Thus the mistake of “¼ of an acre,” uncorrected on the original plot manuscript, is not specific evidence that the block area of 40 square rods (10 acres) was not tightly controlled, or that other independent plot dimensions such as street width (8 rods) were not specifically revealed.

In this same vein, there is a somewhat confusing note given on the back side of the plot that acknowledges a scribal error, and that the order of two multi-word constituents should be switched where indicated by two dotted symbols (the note calls the symbols stars; see the end of the appendix). But this same note also indicates how to group these constituents so that this error may actually provide evidence for word and constituent control in the plot specification.

The beginning of the plot description reads: “This plot containes one mile square.” This language could be either archaic or modern, but plot used in this context in 1830s America was much less common than plat,¹⁷⁹ and “mile square” was much less common than “square mile.”¹⁸⁰ Had the language at the outset been loosely controlled, Williams might have written “this plat contains 1.44 square miles” instead of “this plot containes one mile square.” Also, this measurement was not corrected in Letterbook 1, unlike the ¼ acre ~ ½ acre variant.¹⁸¹

The Mile

[Page 335]The one square mile reference is the most interesting part of the opening sentence of the plot description: either it is an obvious error (as shown by the plot draft and its description),¹⁸² or it corresponds to an archaic measurement of the past. We have considered one item of archaic vocabulary (strange in “strange act”), and we have seen that the Doctrine and Covenants has archaic grammar that corresponds with 16th- and 17th-century usage. In like manner, there is phraseology in the referred-to plot description that is possibly archaic, such as “according to wisdom” (see below), and there are other potential archaisms, as discussed below. Consequently, it is not out of the question that the term mile as used in the plot might be a 16th-century measurement.

The mile referenced in the plot draft and description is apparently 6,336 feet. This plot dimension corresponds to the Saxton mile, in use in England before a statutory decree of 1593.¹⁸³ That distance is determined by the language and the ground-plan of the plot in the following way:

First, measuring north to south (from left to right on the plot), the distance is 8 streets, each one having a width of 8 rods, and 7 blocks, each one having a width of 40 rods. Taken together, those give a distance of 344 rods. In addition, the ground-plan of the plot indicates two easements: an easement of 40 rods on the north and an easement of 40 rods on the south. Half of each of those easements belongs to the Plot of Zion, in accordance with common approaches under property law.¹⁸⁴ Thus the total north–south measured distance of the plot is 384 rods. Because a rod is equivalent to 16.5 feet, that means that one side of the plot of Zion is 6,336 feet.

Second, measuring east to west (from top to bottom on the plot), the distance is 8 streets, each one having a width of 8 rods; 6 blocks having a width of 40 rods; and 1 block having a width of 60 rods. The Plot of Zion is silent on the matter of the east and west easements, but to make a square for the entire plot, as indicated by the first sentence of the plot description, each of the easements on the east and on the west must be 20 rods in width. As a result, half of the total east–west easement width of 40 rods is 20 rods, giving a square for the Plot of Zion of 384 × 384 rods, or 6,336 × 6,336 feet, as shown in the figure below.

Wherefore, the mile of the Plot of Zion is exactly 1.2 of a statute mile. Hence the community plat is 1.44 square statute miles in area.[Page 336]

Unusual Features Found in the City Plat and the Temple Plan

This short section lists a number of features of the Plot of Zion and the Plan of the House of the Lord that appear to be rare or unique for 1830s America. Some of these are consistent with centuries-old usage. (It is expected that these items will be discussed and documented in another paper.)

City Plat

• narrow building lots: 66 feet wide
• high-density living in half-acre lots:
  15 to 21 persons in several apartments
• the placement of east instead of north at the top of the plat drawing
• 24 central buildings can provide seats for the entire community

Temple Plan

• two inner courts of 55 × 65 feet, one above another
• inner-court size allows seating on two-foot-wide chairs
• curtains divide the house into four parts¹⁸⁵
• “14 feet high between the floors”; “each story to be 14 feet”¹⁸⁶

[Page 337]It is worth noting that the Kirtland Temple, as built, represents only about one-third of the prescribed plan. For example, the outer courts were left out of the temple as was space for pulpits. The builders put all the functions into the specified inner-court space; that may have been as much as they were able to build or could visualize building at the time. Also, the hanging chambers — mentioned not only in the temple plan but also at D&C 95:17 — were not implemented in the construction. These were to be located in the upper part of the inner courts.

“According to wisdom”

The three-word phrase “according to wisdom” occurs twice in the Doctrine and Covenants, and once in the plot description:

D&C 63:44 [30 August 1831; copied about 30 August 1831 by Oliver Cowdery]¹⁸⁷

Behold, these things are in his own hands, let him do according to wisdom.

D&C 96:3 [4 June 1833; copied between 6 June and 30 July 1833 by Orson Hyde]¹⁸⁸

and again let it be divided into lots according to wisdom for the benefit of those who seek inheritances as it shall be determined in council among you.

1833 Plot of Zion

the ground to be occupied for these must be laid off according to wisdom

This 3-gram is rare in the modern era before the 1830s, and is principally found in the 17th-century textual record.¹⁸⁹ The 1560 Geneva Bible is the one Early Modern English Bible with this exact phrase,¹⁹⁰ and the 4-gram “do according to wisdom,” found in D&C 63:44, occurs in this 17th-century example:

1638, EEBO A18610, William Chillingworth,
The religion of protestants a safe way to salvation

For first, this is most certain, that we are in all things to doe according to wisdome and reason rather then against it.

King James usage always has a determiner between according to and wisdom,¹⁹¹ and that is the more typical textual usage.

The subject matter of the D&C 96:3 passage with “according to wisdom” is similar to that of the June 1833 Plot of Zion, and laying off lots is also mentioned twice at D&C 104:36, 43 (April 1834). The phrasal verb “lay off” as used in this context is modern in origin, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. But the general sense may have arisen in the 17th century.¹⁹² And it is probably tightly controlled language in [Page 338]D&C 104, and so even though it could correspond to modern usage, it could have still been tightly controlled in the plot description.

The {-s} Plural in Plot Language

There are two possible occurrences of the {-s} plural in the plot description:¹⁹³

all the squares in the plot containes ten acres each

and the next the lots runs from the east and west to the middle line

In the first case, the intervening singular noun plot may make this a case of proximity agreement.¹⁹⁴ The adjacency of singular plot to the verb containes makes the apparent non-agreement sound less jarring to the modern ear.

Here are some 17th-century examples of the {-s} plural with the verbs contain and run, a usage which may account for the suspect verb agreement found in the plot description (since it may be an archaism):¹⁹⁵

1605, EEBO A21691, L. T. A. [fl. 1592] Falshood in friendship,
or vnions vizard: or wolues in lambskins

All the forepart and exteriour shew of thy body is fayre, yet semblable to painted and guilded Sepulchers, that containes within them nothing but loth-some smels and rotten bones:

1605, EEBO A20836, Michael Drayton [1563–1631] Poems

the riuer of Yarmouth runs, hauing West and South thereof a wood, and a little Village called Thorpe, and on the North, the pastures of Mousholl, which containes about sixe miles in length and breadth.

Pastures seems to be the antecedent of which, but it is not certain. This describes land in the Norwich area of Norfolk, England.

1656, EEBO A92204, Robert Read, The Fiery Change

though he be present in body, he is absent in minde, and either his minde wanders, & his thoughts runs out into the world,

1683, EEBO A58408, John Reid, The Scots Gardener

Plant no Trees deep; (albeit some deeper than other) when their Roots runs near the surface, there they receive the beneficial influence of Sun and Showres,

The {-s} plural form containes¹⁹⁶ occurs both times in the above examples after a relative pronoun, which is the grammatical subject, and is unmarked for number. The {-s} plural and the {-th} plural were more often found after opaque relative pronouns in Early Modern English.¹⁹⁷

[Page 339]An opposing kind of agreement phenomenon found in the plot is the phrase “none of these temples are,” with plural are being used despite the word controlling agreement being none. If we consider, however, that in present-day English one says “zero feet,” etc., then we can see that any prescriptive rule against plural are in this kind of grammatical structure is artificial. In this particular case, both early and late modern English have strongly favored the use of are after the 4-gram “none of these things.”¹⁹⁸

Some Semantic Usage

There is one term of measurement used in the plot description whose usage is found both early and late, but which is more characteristic of the Early Modern English period: perch. Like rod, perch signifies 16.5 feet. The plural form perches is used six times in the Plot of Zion, while rods is used only once (at the outset).

In all of EEBO (Phases 1 and 2) there are 46 instances of the two-word phrase “perches long/wide,” compared with only 16 of “rods long/wide” (75% perch).¹⁹⁹ In contrast, the Google Books Ngram Viewer currently shows that in 1833 “rods long/wide” was used approximately 95% of the time, and “perches long/wide” only 5% of the time.²⁰⁰

I have ruled out other potentially archaic semantic and morphological usage, determining that they do not strongly point to archaism. The following may or may not represent archaic language. These include range used to mean ‘row’ (as in “the middle range of squares”),²⁰¹ stand in the phrase “the houses stand on one street,”²⁰² the adverb alternate used instead of alternately in the phrase “laid off alternate,”²⁰³ and painted in “painted squares” meaning ‘colored.’²⁰⁴ Also, “inside of np” used in “the circles inside of this square” still fits the 1830s well, since it was more common in the early 19th century than “inside np,” which grew dominant in the 20th century.²⁰⁵

Summary of Plot of Zion Language

To be sure, we can take the pattern and measurements of the 1833 Plot of Zion to be revealed because of supporting declarations made in section 94 and by the scribe Frederick G. Williams. The term mile was probably tightly controlled since it has an obsolete meaning of 1.2 statute miles. Also, the opening sentence “this plot containes one mile square” could have been revealed word for word. The term perch could have been tightly controlled since it fits the earlier period better than the 19th century. There is some verb agreement that might have been tightly [Page 340]controlled since there is archaic matching of the syntax in question. However, loose control in these potential cases of the {-s} plural is also possible.

One mistake — “¼ of an acre” — may indicate lack of control with this dependent dimension (or scribal error), but another scribal mistake at the end of the plot description (on the back side) may indicate word and constituent control. One directive, “of which we send you the draft,” could be uncontrolled language, while another directive, “let every man live in the city for this is the city of Zion,” could be from the Lord (see note 177). Finally, the phrase “according to wisdom” is either tightly controlled language in the plot description or indirectly controlled by way of Doctrine and Covenants language. Beyond these items, it becomes more difficult to make definitive statements.

 

Primary Sources

The Joseph Smith Papers project and website (www.josephsmithpapers.org) and the Yale edition of the Book of Mormon were essential to this study: Royal Skousen, editor, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) (bit.ly/2ocoerM). Directly related to the latter is Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2004–2009); Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2017); and Royal Skousen, Grammatical Variation [Parts 1 and 2 of The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon] (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2016). LDS View provided access to the current LDS text of the scriptures (ldsview.wordcruncher.com; Salt Lake City: Intellectual Reserve, 2001–).

The principal English textual source used in this study was the Early English Books Online database (EEBO; eebo.chadwyck.com). It currently contains close to 60,000 transcribed texts printed between the years 1473 to 1700. The publicly searchable portion of EEBO (Phase 1 texts) is to be [Page 341]found at <quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebogroup>. Other important textual sources include Literature Online (LION; literature.proquest.com), Google Books (books.google.com), and Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO; quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco). The full database of ECCO is available through some public libraries, as is the Oxford English Dictionary (www.oed.com).

Mark Davies initially provided me with a very useful corpus and interface: Early English Books Online, 400 million words, 1470s–1690s (2013–) (corpus.byu.edu/eebo). I have mainly derived Early Modern English examples from a 700-million-word WordCruncher corpus that I made from almost 25,000 EEBO Phase 1 texts (www.wordcruncher.com; Provo, UT: BYU, 1991–). This corpus is precisely searchable, making it a valuable resource for discovering Early Modern English usage. In addition to ECCO, the Google Books database was essential for the modern period, as well as the associated Ngram Viewer.

Appendix

The 1833 Plot of Zion Description

The margin notes from the front side of the plot are rewritten below in sense lines:

East side of the plot

Explanation —
this plot containes one mile square
all the squares in the plot containes ten acres each
being 40 rods square
you will observe that the lots are laid off alternate in the squares
in one square running from the south and North
to the line through the middle of the square
and the next the lots runs from the east and west to the middle line
each lot is 4 perches in front and 20 back
making ¼ of an acre in each lot
so that no one street will be built on intirely through the street
but one square the houses stand on one street
and on the next on another
except the middle range of squares
which runs North and south
in which range are the painted squares
the lots are laid off in these squares North and south all of them
because these squares are 40 perches by 60
[Page 342]being twenty perches longer than the others
the long way of them being east and west
and by runing all the lots in these squares North and south
it makes all the lots in the City of one size
the painted squares in the middle are for publick buildings
the one without any figure is for store houses

West side of the plot

for the / Bishop and to be devoted to his use
figure one is for temples for the use of the presidency
the circles inside of this square are the places for the temples
you will see it containes twelve Figures
2 is for Temples for the lesser Priesthood
it also is to contain 12 Temples
the whole plot is supposed to contain
from 15 to 20 thousand people
you will therefore see that it will require 24 buildings
to supply them with houses of worship schools, &c.
none of these temples are to be smaller than the one
of which we send you the draft
this Temple is to be built in square marked figure one
and to be built where the circle is which has a cross on it.
On the north and south of the plot where the line is shown
is to be laid off for barns stables &c. for the use of the city
so that no barns or stables will be in the City among the houses
the ground to be occupied for these must be laid off according to wisdom
on the North and South are to be laid off the farms for the agraculturists
& sufficient quantity of land to supply the whole plot
and if it cannot be laid off
without going too great a distance from the city
there must also be laid off on the east and west
when this square is thus laid off and supplied
lay off another in the same way
and so fill up the world in these last days
and let every man live in the City for this is the City of Zion

South side of the plot

All the streets are of one width
being eight perches wide
also the space round the outer edge of the painted squares
is to be eight perches
between the temples and the street on every side

North side of the plot

[Page 343]No one lot in this City is to contain more than one house
& that to be built 25 feet back from the street
leaving a small yard in front to be planted in a grove
according to the taste of the builder
the rest of the lot for gardens &c.
all the houses to be of brick and stone

South side of the plot

the Scale of the plot is 40 perches to the inch

The notes from the back side of the plot are rewritten below in sense lines;
the phrases to be switched are preceded by dotted cross symbols:

Back side of the plot

The names of the temples to be built on the painted squares

Nos 10–11–12 are to be called
The house of the Lord
for the presidency of the high and most holy priesthood
after the order of Melchisedeck
which was after the order of the Son of God
upon Mount Zion City of the New Jerusalem

Nos 7–8–9
The Sacred Apostolical repository
for the use of the Bishop

Nos 4–5–6
The holy Evangelical house
for the high priesthood of the holy order of God

Nos 1–2–3
The house of the Lord
for the Elders of Zion an ensign to the nations

Nos 22–23–24
house of the Lord
for the presidency of the high priesthood after the order of Aron
a standard for the people

Nos 19–20–21
house of the Lord
⁜ the law of the kingdom of heaven and Messenger to the people
⁜ for the high priesthood after the order of Aron

[Page 344]Nos 16–17–18
house of the Lord
for the teachers in Zion Messenger to the church

Nos 13–14–15
house of the Lord
for the Deacons in Zion helps in government
underneath must be written on each house holiness to the Lord

NB. the Stars are to have the sentences placed together
having committed an error in writing
the sentence “for the high priesthood after the order of Aron
should be placed immediately after the house of the Lord