Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. I wouldn't have noticed it was old until you did this! Glad you got to use it, lol.
  7. 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.
  8. My favorite emoji so I have to use it whenever I can
  9. 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.
  10. 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:
  11. I would have to see what Stanford Carmack thinks about that McGuire notion, because I just don't see it. Not at all.
  12. Today
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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?
  16. Sounds fair. I'm enjoying your discussion with Benjamin and Robert, by the way. Thanks.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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)
  20. 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 textual data to work 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.
  21. Robert writes: Ryan responds with: I don't agree with Robert's conclusion here (really any of it). But on the assumption that he is right, it also makes no sense to me. After all, if the language is different enough that (as Carmack has argued) " The linguistic fingerprint of the Book of Mormon, in hundreds of different ways, is Early Modern English. Smith himself — out of a presumed idiosyncratic, quasi-biblical style — would not have translated and could not have translated the text into the form of the earliest text. Had his own language often found its way into the wording of the earliest text, its form would be very different from what we encounter." If this is true, then it means that the Book of Mormon is not a good, or a fluid translation, and it means that its first readers were not terribly competent readers. So what are we to make of a text that is lousy translation - and not just a lousy translation but one that would progressively become more and more difficult for its readers to understand? What is the purpose of this obsolete language in the text? One of the biggest problems that I have with much of these discussions is what Ryan does here. He tries to turn the issue towards the question of authenticity. I commented on this in my FairMormon presentation: Ben McGuire
  22. I was at the conference when you presented your essay, and quite enjoyed it. I similarly have respect and appreciation for your research on other various topics. I agree that is a valid and important question. What I'm suggesting is that there is a relationship between identifying the translator(s) of a text and trying to determine the rhetorical purpose of the style of its translation. Knowing who/what did or did not produce the English text potentially gives us other clues and data to refine any assessment of rhetorical purpose. To clarify, I'm not saying that proposals of rhetorical purpose are meaningless or somehow invalid if the agent(s) that produced the text can't be identified. They are just more nebulous.
  23. Clark writes: I can agree generally with this (at least to the point that I don't think we need to keep beating the nail with the hammer). I want to focus for a moment just on that last part. Unless a text has multiple authors working together at the same time, it isn't a multiple authored work in any practical sense. This is a view of a textual history which presupposes a complex work that has an editorial and redactive history. But that describes a series of texts which changes over time - it doesn't describe the text that is being read. The topic of the unity of Isaiah (or its disunity if you will) doesn't change the fact that we can read Isaiah with the expectation that it was written by a single author perhaps at a single point in time (and many people read it this way). I expect that if we were to look at a historical Nephi, he would have read Isaiah in this fashion (as a single author). We (as the audience) usually don't have access to the hypothetical audience that an author had in mind - this is more true when we are dealing with ancient history, and not really true at all when we are dealing with personal correspondence addressed to us personally. Regardless of the complexity of its sources, each new version of a text is authored at a certain point in time with certain understandings and expectations (which as you note don't have to resemble the expectations and understandings of the sources on which it is built). When we have real multiple authors of a text - when a text comes about not through editing and redaction, we fully expect that there is some communication and dialogue between the participants. This doesn't happen with these historical processes where the present author doesn't engage the original author - he only engages the text and constructs a hypothetical author. As Davidson notes in his essay "The Third Man": The idea that authors change is something that I believe (and discuss in that essay). In fact, in that essay, I argue that Nephi uses four narrative beginnings, one at the end of his writing - which functions as an invitation for us to re-read his writing with a new set of expectations. And as I describe Nephi's change over his lifetime: And then: Perhaps I should describe it as the "text-that-is-read" then. I think we are talking past each other. When you call Isaiah a complex work with multiple authors, you cannot easily say that Part A was written by author A, and Part B was written by author B, and so on. What we have is a fully formed text, not a text of parts. As Walter Bruggemann liked to point out, this is one of the challenges of textual criticism (from David and his Theologian) If we want to reduce the issue to one of simple intertextuality, then of course, there are no texts that aren't already a patchwork of many different authors and sources. But when we read Isaiah, if our objective is to identify the different authors and their points of view, we are no longer reading Isaiah, we are reading a series of hypothetical documents, none of which actually look like the text that we have in front of us. This is what I mean when I speak of the "text-that-is-read". It is not a text that has multiple authors even if the author that is responsible for it took much or even most of his material from historical sources. I hope that this makes sense to you. I agree with you completely here. Ben McGuire
  24. I essentially agree. I would just clarify that it is the particular combination of EModE features, with their relative usage rates, in the rapidly dictated Book of Mormon text that preclude it from having been produced by Joseph Smith or any of his associates. I agree with Benjamin that EModE certainly was used by various 19th centuries authors for rhetorical purposes. I just think the evidence conclusively rules out the Book of Mormon as being a 19th century human production.
  25. So i wasnt the only one who got this emailand im the other side of the world.Oh well i just did the survey ive nothing to hide or be ashamed of . good luck everyone .
  26. No, it doesn't. Part of the reason for this is that we can, from the record, identify much easier when something new enters the language. Often, we can pinpoint with some degree of certainty when something changes. The challenge is that a change in usage doesn't eliminate the record of past usage, or its meaning in popular understanding, which doesn't go away immediately, even if it becomes progressively less and less common in contemporary usage. Things do change more quickly when there is a strong shift in meaning, or the shift comes with a surge in frequency. Words like chauvinism for example, which changed dramatically in the mid 1970s is one example that I like - or perhaps we could go back to the 18th century poet who wrote: "The great creator raised his plastic arm." Where we might need now to consult a historical dictionary to understand its meaning. But, while we can identify a first usage in the written record as a starting point for a term or form, the last usage does not indicate that obsolescence has occurred. It not just about usage, but about how well it's understood. And inevitably we can find outliers for different usages in written material published long after the usage moves from current to archaic. The fact that we have the usage of archaic language as a rhetorical device makes this idea of obsolescence even more difficult to narrow down. So no, I don't agree that identifying first uses and obsolescence share the same constraints and limitations. Further - and this is also important in this discussion - there are many usages in EME that are identical to the same uses in ME. These are features of the English language that haven't become obsolete yet. So our distinction between ME and EME is one of parts, not of wholesale replacement. And as my presentation that I link to above points out, the approach that has been taken by Skousen and Carmack seems to put the proverbial cart before the horse. Ben McGuire
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...