Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Hi, my name is Tony. just joined recently and hope to learn and ask some questions. Thanks
  3. Identifying the earliest usage of words or phrases has essentially the same constraints and limitations as identifying obsolescence. The issue isn't merely about dating the text, but whether or not the nature of the text can help reliably identify the medium of its production--i.e. whether it was produced by Joseph Smith or was revealed to him (or, under some theories, somehow naturally transmitted to him or discovered by him). Obviously, being able to identify the agent(s) responsible (or at least those not responsible) for producing the English text will potentially influence interpretations of its meaning and the rhetorical purposes of its words and phrases.
  4. I affirm that one of the primary reasons the early LDS were commanded to practice polygamy was to “raise seed to the Lord.”. These things being unless commanded by God. Please use the entire quote.
  5. As long as that's not the only thing they desire or the most important thing, otherwise the marriage is destined to end or end in dissatisfaction and resentment and maybe even hate. Same thing with a woman marrying for money. What happens if he loses it?
  6. To my knowledge, Carmack has never stated or implied that the rhetorical purpose of the archaic language is merely to convey a text written in Early Modern English. He does a lot of research that simply doesn't address the issue of the text's potential rhetorical purposes, but that shouldn't be confused with an assertion that the purpose of the archaic language is merely to be categorized as EModE.
  7. Yesterday
  8. Well, good to know I guess. You do bring up something true, that the church doesn't expect someone with no income to pay, but still they shouldn't delete the words, IMO. Just let it go and if someone asks, explain.
  9. The Book of Mormon clarifies the position of the United States, North America and the new world in the latter days. As an EV we studied with various different preachers and there were various different scenarios for the US to play in the latter days but we are never called out as a nation. I thought it was rather odd that the most powerful nation in the world was not mentioned in any Old Testament prophecies regarding the latter days. A study of the lost 10 tribes of Israel with these preachers would make it seem that Ephraim and Manasseh were the United States and England (or Vise versa).This would appear to turn out to be true. The thing that struck me the most when I discovered the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church was that I knew Christ had come to America. It was an aha! moment for me. The Book of Mormon confirmed it for me.
  10. Really? Eliza Snow, one of his most prominent wives was older. Given JS had no issue from any of his plural marriages, I acquit him of “targeting” anyone.
  11. I recall a story from the bible. Jesus was with Mary, who was anointing his feet with some very expensive oil. Judas asked if it would have been better to sell the oil in order to provide for the poor. Jesus said there will always be poverty, but he would not always be with them. We are tithed to give to Christ's church. We are not tithed to give to the poor. And these two things are not mutually exclusive. A person can both pay tithing and give money to charitable organizations.
  12. I mean a couple of things. We can discuss English language usage in terms of its earliest usage (and Skousen does). We can go through the OED and look at what documentation exists for a specific kind of usage first appearing. But, what is much more difficult is looking for the latest usage. Skousen points to all of this EME in the Book of Mormon, but the problem is that we don't really care about when it first shows up, but rather, whether or not it would be understood at the time the Book of Mormon was published. It is much more difficult to put a date on when a usage would no longer be understood by English language speakers and readers. So the idea that EME appears in the Book of Mormon does not convince me in any way that the Book of Mormon text (or portions of it) originate in a time frame earlier than the 1828-1830 translation period. (This is another issue I bring up in my FAIR presentation on the translation of the Book of Mormon). So when we talk about the EME in the Book of Mormon, much of that EME still exists in ME. And even more would have still existed within the awareness of readers in 1830. And so we can talk about when specific words and usages enter the English language, but we usually cannot talk with any certainty about when they leave. My belief is that the Book of Mormon in translation uses archaic language as a rhetorical style, as a way of making the text as a whole mean something different. As I noted: Ben
  13. I'm not sure 'looser' is what you meant to write here ...
  14. Just to add a little more context to Tacenda's Drive by statistics, you can find actual, real bankruptcy statics at this website. https://www.abi.org/newsroom/bankruptcy-statistics if you download the spreadsheet, you will see that over the years, Utah has been as high as 4th place and currently is 10th place.
  15. There are always better reasons to doubt religious assertions than there are to scientifically believe them.
  16. Clark writes: This just isn't true Clark. Authors have no control over who actually reads what they write, but they have absolute control over the hypothetical audience that they are writing for. Authors always write to some audience, even if the audience that they write for and to bears no resemblance to the real audience that eventually reads the material. I do go over this in that essay. The degree to which a real audience understands the text as intended by its author is to some extent the degree to which that audience resembles the hypothetical audience that the author is writing to. I write this: The author doesn't actually write to the real audience over which he has no control. At the same time, the question of composite authorship is not as meaningful as you suggest in this discussion. Why? Because we don't have the text as-it-was, we only have the text-as-it-is. And the meaning of the text can change dramatically as it goes through a complex history, but, we don't have the text in the form in which it starts (we can only speculate about this). When we deal with reader-response, we don't deal with the text in terms of how the reader is responding to the earlier forms of the text because the reader doesn't encounter them. We can discuss how the later editors/redactors/contributors function both as readers and as authors, but in the end the text that we have is the text that we encounter. We don't have to understand the complexity of the history of a text (and a textual tradition) to find meaning in a text. And in fact, it is likely that a person who believes that they understand the complexity of the textual tradition will read a text much differently than someone who has no clue. But, unless the author of a text was writing to someone who understands the complexity of the textual tradition, our understanding of that textual tradition doesn't necessarily make us better at reading the text and coming to the meaning intended by the final author(s) of the text. This is certainly true in places. The problem is that in 2 Nephi 26-27, where Nephi is quoting Isaiah, he also quotes Nephi. Here is 2 Nephi 26:14 -15 - This isn't Isaiah's prophecy, it is Nephi's prophecy. But in verse 15, we get Isaiah 29, right (starting with that bit from 29:3-4a)? We can reconstruct this from two sources - Isaiah 29 and 1 Nephi 13:34-25. And while a lot of this comes from Isaiah, we progress through the prophecy given to Nephi in 1 Nephi 13. the Lord God shall bring these things forth (2 Nephi 26:14) I will bring forth unto them (1 Nephi 13:34) After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have dwindled in unbelief (2 Nephi 26:15) after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren (1 Nephi 13:35) and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles (2 Nephi 26:15) and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles (1 Nephi 13:34) They shall write the things which shall be done among them (2 Nephi 26:17) they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them (1 Nephi 13:35) And so on. This isn't to say that Nephi isn't using a different version of Isaiah (something I think is inevitable - it gets corrected to the KJV in translation because it has to become meaningful in translation - something I discussed at the FAIRMormon conference a few years ago). What I am saying is that Nephi employs Isaiah as a way of interpreting his own prophecy. And in doing so, he recontextualizes the events that Isaiah describes into a context that no one in Jerusalem at the time that Isaiah 29 was written would have ever considered. This means that it isn't a traditional pesher, or a midrash. And this is why I disagree with your comment here: Nephi is more than willing to tell us (and I do think it is unusual in a way) about what he intends to convey in his text. We have very, very few ancient sources that explicitly describe the appropriation of texts in the way that Nephi does. And it seems to me that Nephi is giving us examples of this sort of thing in his text, not just talking about it. Clearly, this is colored by expectations (which isn't a bad thing). The challenge is that for any specific reader, the text isn't ambiguous at all. Isaiah was wildly popular, we have plenty of interpretations of Isaiah, all of which change as the contextualization changes (as the reader changes). So our argument that there's no unambiguous prophecy in the Old Testament is only a reflection of the interpretive history of the text spread across many different communities. This doesn't mean that Isaiah wrote ambiguously. What it means is that the audience becomes partners with the author in terms of forming meaning. And just as the author writes to a hypothetical idealized audience, so to, audiences read with assumptions about a hypothetical, idealized author. Obviously we can't read the author of Isaiah's mind. Ben McGuire
  17. This. People who pontificate on this topic always seem to pass right over this. We had a family in our ward a few years ago when I was serving in the bishopric. She lost her job, and they could no longer afford to pay tithing and make their home loan repayments. Since we know the blessings of tithing, this is easy. I encouraged them to tithe, and the ward contributed what was needed to meet their loan obligations until their situation improved. It's just that simple. No, let's do. If one consults the 19th-century Dictionary of American English, one will find the definition of the word means current at the time that Pres Snow spoke these words: 'income, revenue'. And if one consults the Cambridge English Dictionary, mindful of the fact that Pres Snow had a good education and may have spoken a more British English, one will find that the British definition was quite similar: 'money, for example from an income'. So what did Pres Snow say to the Saints in 1899? That every man, woman and child with an income should tithe. Now, what does an honest person do with a historical quote when the meaning of a word has shifted enough that the original intention might be misconstrued? One option would be to insert '[an income]' in place of 'means'. But of course, that would still result in people falsely accusing the Church of quote fiddling. One could also leave the quote intact but add an explanation in a footnote. In a piece of academic writing, that would be preferred. Or one could do exactly what the Church has done in this case. But to pretend that the Church has altered this quote in order to obscure a doctrinal shift is historically inaccurate, misleading, and, quite possibly, dishonest.
  18. Every time I try to Control-C anything it yells at me "Do you wanna a log in? NO?!? Well press this obnoxious in your face button to copy even though it makes no difference." I would like to ask what the heck is going on.
  19. You are relying on a bankruptcy law firms advertisement to reach your conclusions about bankruptcy statistics in Utah. Try and use statistics more responsibly next time.
  20. As I already said to the narrator, I never claimed were better qualified than Bokovoy on this issue. I'll also say again, not all our feedback was incorporated. I am not going to go into details about what we disagreed with, but I'd suggest not assuming you know what we did or did not tell him about Isaiah 29. Honestly, at the end of the day, I really don't care if people think Elder Callister should have gotten feedback more better people than us or whatever. I was simply correcting the assertion that Elder Callister didn't have any scholars at all. If people really want to believe we are just apologetic hacks who weren't really qualified to give Elder Callister good advice, that's y'alls prerogative.
  21. I flew from Canada to the MTC, the church footed the bill and there was an option for that. I got picked up at the SLC airport and driven to Provo by some friends. In Hindsight I should have left days earlier as I could have gone sight seeing, ah well!
  22. I don't know that it's worth it to make much ado about the alteration of the quotation of President Lorenzo Snow from the original to how it appears in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow manual, since the Welfare Program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as we know it didn't exist in President Snow's day, but it does exist now. If you don't have sufficient means to meet your needs but you pay your tithing anyway, Church of Jesus Christ Welfare can and will make up the difference.
  23. Things change over time. As a young man in Florida, I was required to pay for my ticket to SLC. From that point on all flights were handled by the Church. It was certainly a different experience for those living in Utah. I can still remember all the missionaries and their parents/families in a big room for a short meeting. Then the missionaries were asked to go one direction and the families the other. I was sitting near the back and saw all these family members hugging their missionary as he was asked to depart from them. I just got up and walked through the directed door and I was off on my mission. I am sure that I wished to have my parents with me, but I had already said my goodbye's in Florida. It is just a frame of mind or a perspective. There was a great eagerness to be on my mission, through the LTM and off to France.
  24. Were you this concerned about Welch's particular expertise when you had him write the foreword of Bokovoy's book, Authoring the Old Testament? Welch has more relevant expertise than you seem to think. His actual academic training may not be in biblical studies, but he's spent decades involved in the field at places like SBL, and he has a decent smattering of publications in non-LDS biblical studies venues (more than Bokovoy has, to my knowledge, though I'll admit I may not be aware of all of Bokovoy's more recent publications). I know I've randomly happened upon citations to Welch's work in non-LDS publications much more frequently than I have to Bokovoy, and I've been in the room with big name biblical scholars who had good things to say about him. And Welch was the co-editor of a volume on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, which included an essay on Isaiah 29 in the Book of Mormon--an essay folks might want to get familiar with before assuming things about what kind of feedback we "apologists" might have given to Elder Callister. I'd think all that constitutes at least some sort of relevant "professional" experience, no? I am not saying Welch is better qualified than Bokovoy, but I would suggest you aren't really giving Welch enough credit.
  25. The rationale is to raise up seed. If it is implemented not to raise up seed, then the rationale is not met. These things being
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...