Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. What do you think of the statement below, is this enough documentation? Or not? I know this isn't about polygamy necessarily, your conversation with Exiled, just curious to know what would it take to have confidence in information out there as being fact. http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history/polygamy-causes-martyrdom/#DidJosephSmithIntendtoAbandonPluralMarriage In the years after the Prophet’s martyrdom, William Marks, who had served as the President of the Nauvoo Stake in 1843, reported that in the weeks prior to his death, Joseph Smith had issued instructions for the Mormons to abandon polygamy, Marks wrote in 1853:
  3. Obviously, based on my past talking points on this issue, I don't believe Joseph could have produced the text and therefore whatever rhetorical purposes its archaism may have, it didn't come from him. I think you and I are just talking about different things, and are essentially in agreement.
  4. I asked you a question precisely because I am not a mind reader. I want to know why you responded the way you did. I make a statement that related to a private conversation I had where a person expressed an opinion about the past. Because the opinion casts a past practice as a mistake of men, you automatically assume there must have been a miscommunication. Why? Clearly, there are others who believe that polygamy was a mistake and the church doesn't claim its leaders are infallible, so mistakes can and do happen. Therefore, it is entirely possible that polygamy was a mistake (seems pretty obvious to me) and that this person so expressed his opinion that it was a mistake. Also, Rex Williams was a good man but clearly didn't speak for the church and was never a G.A. So, why do you assume a miscommunication? What's the big deal? Would you have even responded if I related a conversation I had with one of my father's G.A. friends on the golf course that was faith promoting? Probably not. Why? Because belief in the story is contingent on the outcome. Less faithful stories or stories that cast doubt are heavily questioned and faith promoting stories are left alone because why wouldn't anyone here doubt the faith promoting story? I think this is why you are pushing the Bishop might be suffering from dementia speculation, based on anonymous sources, of course. It is just too hard to fathom that the church let a predator lead the MTC so the story cannot be as bad as people are portraying it. Therefore, perhaps Mr. Bishop is not entirely lucid. That must be what is happening. No true leader would do such and such ......
  5. You seem to be conflating a text's readability in a certain time period with the likelihood that a specific author (Joseph Smith) produced it in that same time period. Carmack and Skousen obviously don't think their findings indicate that the text is "not good" or not "a fluid translation" or that it is "lousy." In fact, they have been impressed by the way the text draws upon archaic usages that would have been discernible (if not readily producible) by a 19th century audience. Skousen has talked about the text being massaged, meaning that its archaisms seem to have been carefully selected to not be incomprehensible for a 19th century audience. It employs many KJV usages better than other pseudobibilcal texts of the time, and yet it transcends them by consistently utilizing a suite of extrabiblical syntax, grammar, and lexis. I think it is a brilliant text in the way that it is both comprehensible to 19th/21st century audiences and yet distinctively archaic. As for reaching definitive conclusions about the rhetorical purpose(s) of its archaic style, there are still too many unknowns. We can't be sure what process was used to produce the text or even who its primary audiences are. Whatever the answer is, I believe our collective thinking has usually been too narrow in scope. We need to think bigger. How long will the Book of Mormon be read in English? How will it be viewed in 500 years or 5,000 years? What will English be like in later periods (considering that its current grammatical prescriptions have afforded it a notable degree stabilization). Is an English text utilized on the other side of the veil, and, if so, how does it correlate to its editions/translation on this side of the veil. When did it first become available to individuals on the other side of the veil? Etc. All I can say is that we may be too mortality-centric and pre-millennium-centric in our views about the English text. If some divine process produced it, we might do well to broaden our thinking about what factors may have influenced its rhetorical purposes.
  6. A few comments. McGuire is primarily interested in objects of inquiry that are different from what Skousen and Carmack are interested in. Large-scale syntactic patterns in the Book of Mormon that are different from (pseudo)biblical and modern patterns and Joseph Smith's own patterns indicate that he didn't word the text. The verbal system is almost all early modern in character. The syntax supports the presence of dozens of items of obsolete lexical usage. The large majority of the non-persistent, archaic lexical usage is understandable in context. All the words that are used archaically were also used with other meanings in modern English and quite often in the text itself. Unfamiliar English words are confined to the biblical quotations. OED def. 2 of the verb translate (today's default sense) doesn't work for either view of Book of Mormon translation, although def. 1 does, which is another primary sense of the term with similar time-depth. On the received view, Joseph didn't turn foreign words into English; he didn't even change English words into his own biblically influenced English. He took externally sourced thoughts and expressed those as he saw fit (with many exclusions). That is the revealed-ideas view — the received view — which is textually contra-indicated. Earliest attestation is of interest in the case of late vocabulary. Latest attestation is of interest in the case of archaic vocabulary.
  7. The shocking part is not that she says and may believes all this and much much more (cain tried poisoning her in the SLC airport; certain spirits made secret pacts w lucifer in the pre-existence that God didn't know about and they slipped through and made it to mortaity anyway; she is 4th member if the 1st presidency in NJ; all the encounters w evil spirits she details...) after all she is a deeply disturbed and sad individual. No, the shocking part is how many people believe her. There are FB pages with people pledging their undying belief in her. Also the positive comments on the youtube vids railing against her excommunication was startling. Really, my only question is why did it take so long to X her?
  8. Hi, Tony. Hope you find this interesting. I do have a question: Are you from Palos Verdes, California? Your moniker reminds me of the old Marineland of the Pacific. http://www.moderndayruins.com/2008/01/marineland-of-pacific.html . I used to live on the peninsula.
  9. Today
  10. That is only possible when the style being employed is actually known by someone who wishes to employ that style. Using a kind of generalized KJV style, for example, was not only possible but was regularly employed by translators of early texts. I can cite many. Since the special features of EModE not used in the KJV show up in profusion in the BofM, one has to ask where they came from? We cannot answer that question, because the systematic nature of that style was simply extinct. One could not ape it without having a knowledge of it, or being a regular user of it, such as a scholarly writer in say 1540. You and McGuire are simply on a wild goose chase there.
  11. Fair point, but I read it a little differently than you. I read it as saying that if someone has lost trust in the organization of the church and its leaders, using their words as trump cards to prove an issue won't work. I agree with that sentiment. But then it refers to other types of church produced writings that may be better, not as the trump card but at least in trying to address the issue and provide sources for further review. I imagine reading the essays or books or even conference talks helps some people but I see the overall statement suggesting that a family member should NOT expect to drop the mic after sending a link to someone who has lost trust in the church.
  12. Your assumptions about how I think really get in the way of your reading what my intent is. Mindreading is not your strength. I would say the same if someone claimed Brother Williams was supportive of the Church. Name dropping without documentation from an anonymous source is useless.
  13. I wouldn't have noticed it was old until you did this! Glad you got to use it, lol.
  14. Ben This last makes no sense in light of Carmack's demonstration of the systematic nature of the EModE text. No one in the 19th century was aware of that old style, and no one was capable of using it as a rhetorical vehicle. The BofM would have to be unique in dredging that old systematic style up -- but from where? It is much easier to believe that Joseph simply read the text from the surface of a stone. That does not address where the English text actually came from, and that is unsettling, but that is our fate. At least for now.
  15. My favorite emoji so I have to use it whenever I can
  16. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. What I'm saying is that there seems to be validity to the idea that some 19th century authors intentionally utilized archaic language for rhetorical purposes. That is likely why the genre of pseudo-biblical literature exists. Maybe you agree with that notion and are talking about something else.
  17. I receive them on occasion. Recently one was sent to my 27 yr. old son but to my email, I don't know why. But I won't tell him about it, because he is pretty anti, and would probably love to get some things off his chest in a bad way. Here is the email and at the bottom they share where in the handbook it's stated that they send these surveys out, I guess verifying that it's okay. I looked it up and read it. Email content below, I starred out my son's name. ************, We recently sent you an invitation to participate in a Church survey. If you have already completed the survey, thank you. If you have not yet completed the survey, please refer to a copy of the letter and instructions below:  Under the direction of Church headquarters in Salt Lake City, the Correlation Research Division of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints periodically conducts research. You have been selected to participate in an internet-based survey. This survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. If possible, please complete this survey within the next few days. To begin, click on the internet link below: Take the Survey Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: https://lds.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9YVo30NnJ16BWV7?Q_DL=eu6dPe4bZpc9uKh_9YVo30NnJ16BWV7_MLRP_8ADSve69McKVnSZ&Q_CHL=email Thank you for your willingness to help with this important research. Sincerely, Church Headquarters Correlation Research Division The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [email protected] For more information about research studies in the Church, see Handbook 2: Administering the Church. If you have questions regarding the legitimacy of this request, please refer to Handbook 2 21.1.35. Follow the link below to opt out of this survey:
  18. I would have to see what Stanford Carmack thinks about that McGuire notion, because I just don't see it. Not at all.
  19. God knows how to build a ship, yet he's speaking with ants constrained to the resources of a primitive economy. Proverbs 30:24-28 24 “Four things on earth are small, yet they are extremely wise: 25 Ants are creatures of little strength, yet they store up their food in the summer; 26 hyraxes are creatures of little power, yet they make their home in the crags; 27 locusts have no king, yet they advance together in ranks; 28 a lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in kings’ palaces.
  20. Does successful communication turn on the results in your mind, e.g., if the communication supports the current church narrative, then communication happened and if the narrative isn't supported, then, obviously a miscommunication happened?
  21. I don't know if its reductionist, more grounded in complexity and economic theory. In the Expanse by Abraham and Franck the mormons contract Fred Johnson to build the largest starship ever constructed the LDSS Nauvoo. The starship has Epstein fusion drives, and is constructed of materials which we cannot mass produce at the current time. The book series is set in the future about +300 years. Would it be plausible to assume that one person receiving dreams, visions, and direct visitations, with a team of a few hundred can produce the LDSS Nauvoo in 2019?
  22. Sounds fair. I'm enjoying your discussion with Benjamin and Robert, by the way. Thanks.
  23. Narrator did put it better than I ddi, so I"m glad you responded. I'm happy to see your responses and they are helpful. Thanks.
  24. That feels a little awkward. I like the article overall but there are some parts that I question and this is one. Each of the items she mentions should stand on their own. Everything the Church produces has a goal of making the Church at least possible. That unfortunately brings this dogmatic statement into question, even if perhaps I'm being a little picky on this. That is say, for instance, if someone has an issue with the DNA issue related to the book fo Mormon. That one likely is not fond of the seemingly dismissive and maybe incomplete handling of it in the Church essay on the topic. It may even be a little propaganda-ish. So it's not very helpful to say that this essay is an exception to the lack of trust in Church sources. It feels like this paragraph of mentioning exceptions was thrown in after the fact, as if it was needed in some other person's view. It honestly doesn't even really fit. It's saying to members who are trying to communicate with their family or friends who are leaving or have left to try and give these members or ex-members these exceptional resources as if they each are pristine in their handling of the issues. I'm not sure that's a helpful approach. Ah well. The article is ok. I like some of what is said. I'm not sure it'll resonate with most active members, as when I deal with members they hardly treat me anywhere near what this suggests for the most part. But it's an important topic, I think , and will likely be a topic for forever.
  25. I got one too: ******* , Under the direction of Church headquarters in Salt Lake City, the Correlation Research Division of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints periodically conducts research. You have been selected to participate in an internet-based survey. This survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. If possible, please complete this survey within the next few days. To begin, click on the internet link below: Take the Survey Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: https://lds.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/**** Thank you for your willingness to help with this important research. Sincerely, Church Headquarters Correlation Research Division The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [email protected] For more information about research studies in the Church, see Handbook 2: Administering the Church. If you have questions regarding the legitimacy of this request, please refer to Handbook 2 21.1.35. Follow the link below to opt out of this survey: Click here to unsubscribe © 2019 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. 50 East North Temple, Salt Lake City Utah, 84150 Terms of Use (Updated 2018-09-01) Privacy Notice (Updated 2018-09-01)
  26. People usually invoke arguments about oral preservation and intentional dialectal choices between formal/informal usage to argue for the limitations of accurately identifying obsolescence. Yet these factors apply to the first textual attestations of a usage as well as to their apparent last attestations. I grant that a large amount of usage in the past textual record, even if it is in the distant past, makes it somewhat more likely to be picked up and used in later times. However, it should also be noted that earlier time periods have less overall textual data to search through and therefore it would be easier for significant amounts of a usage to predate the first attested usage, and yet go undetected in the textual record. It should also be noted that diachronic shifts in meaning and rates of usage face the same essential constraints (intentional or unintentional oral preservation, absent textual preservation) throughout the textual record and aren't limited to a usage's apparent periods of origin and obsolescence. They are ever-present possibilities.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...