Jump to content

tkv

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tkv

  1. 3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

    Pointing to verses in Alma 3:5-6, he shows us why we can interpret “skin” as clothing: First, the Lamanites were naked, “save it were the skin which was girded about their loins,” and then, “the skins of the Lamanites were dark.” He asks — as we should ask — do they not refer to the same thing? Clothing, or garments? Surely that is a possibility.”

    That would be nice if it was a likely reading. When the text refers to skin in a possessive way, it refers to human skin, not animal skin.

    • Like 1
  2. 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    Actually, Metcalfe got that idea from me.  I got it from my original work on the Book of Mormon Critical Text while at the RLDS Archives in the late 1970s and early 80s.  Seemed to me at the time that it was just too much of a coincidence that P had just 116 pages covering the same material as the book of Lehi.  I concluded then that people discussing the missing pages had retrojected that number on the book of Lehi after the fact.  It is speculation, but reasonable speculation.

    Can you explain how your idea works since P wasn't even 100 pages long when 116 was typeset in August 1829?

  3. 23 hours ago, DonBradley said:

    As I mention in the book, the late John Tvedtnes was really the first pioneer in piecing together contents from the lost pages. You can read his much briefer take on the Shilom hill incident mentioned in Mosiah 11, as it relates to the lost pages, in the BYU Scholars Archive, here and here.

    This is from Tvedtnes (1994):

    Quote

    Mosiah 11: 13 speaks of a tower north of Shilom that "had been a resort for the children of Nephi at the time they fled out of the land" of Nephi. The flight obviously refers to the departure of Mosiah I from his homeland, which is mentioned on the small plates in the book of Omni. In this case, Mormon's abridgment includes details not known from the small plates and which, consequently, had to be on the large plates and most probably included in the abridgment that formed the 116 lost pages.

    The conclusion that an account of the flight was on the large plates seems secure, and there's no reason it couldn't have been on the 116 pages. Actually, the flight's in the small plates; it's the resort that's missing. Just realized this distinction. So that must be the point you make. There's no reason to speculate about whether the flight was in the lost pages, since it's in the small plates. The issue is the mention of the resort.

    The way Tvedtnes wrote it, however, presents the tower as the resort (taking "north of Shilom" to be an adverbial phrase), even though the tower was built later by Noah. The hill was the resort (again taking "north of the land Shilom" to be an adverbial phrase):

    Quote

    and he [Noah] caused a great tower to be built on the hill north of the land Shilom, which had been a resort for the children of Nephi at the time they fled out of the land; (Mosiah 11:13)

    But I guess the land Shilom can't be ruled out as possibly being the resort.

    So the point you must make in your book is that mention of the hill or Shilom being used as a resort was on the 116 pages. Okay, but it's in the main clause part of the relative clause. So it's more speculative to say that's old information in Mosiah 11:13 because main clauses often have new information. Subordinate clauses often have old information. But my initial point was that sub-clauses can also convey new information.

    In any event, I'll check out what you have on this in the near future.

  4. 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

    It seems like a really odd usage, that's all. I am not interested in manufacturing some odd usage, surely that would be easy,  simply one example in common usage. It just strikes me as a peculiar idea.

    It isn't an odd usage in an absolute sense, and any examples you might consciously manufacture using events in your own life wouldn't be odd unless you inserted something else that was odd. It's an odd usage in a relative sense, since we almost always use when instead of at the time. But neither present-day usage nor even colloquial early nineteenth century usage is a useful standard to judge the language by.

    Here's a Book of Mormon example from Omni where at the time is used with new information (Zedekiah being taken to Babylon): Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.

    This looks to be the first mention of Zedekiah being among those who were taken to Babylon. Of course, it's possible this was on the large plates and that the author assumed the reader would know this. After all, it's speculative.

  5. 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

    There are no such "sources" for linguistic usages, which are in flux constantly.

    Can you show an example of your usage?

    I cannot think of any.

    There are of course treatises on English usage, and they aren't all prescriptive.

    I get it, you're trying to defend Don, but since I think this particular point is impossible to defend, I'm interested in hearing what his defense of it is.

    I really don't know what you mean about showing an example of my usage. The Book of Mormon case in question is a possible example, and a multitude of examples could be given where a when-clause provides new information. You could probably manufacture a dozen related to what you've done this past week.

  6. 16 hours ago, DonBradley said:

    Not going to be responding a lot here, but curious whether you read the verse:

    Quote

    Mosiah 11:13 And it came to pass that he caused many buildings to be built in the land Shilom; and he caused a great tower to be built on the hill north of the land Shilom, which had been a resort for the children of Nephi at the time they fled out of the land

    If the phrase "...at the time that..." is a way of introducing something new to the reader, it's one I'm not familiar with. I believe the observation that this was in the lost pages initially came from the late John Tvedtnes, in his Most Correct Book.

    So you're saying that a when-type clause can't introduce new information. Can you direct me to a source for that view?

  7. Quote

    Mosiah 11 . . mentions King Noah building a tower on this hill that was north of the land Shilom, “which had been a resort for the children of Nephi at the time they fled out of the land.” The current Book of Mormon does not mention any details about this “resort” or the time they “fled out of the land,” but it assumes that we already know about this story, indicating that it had been in the part of the Book of Mormon that is now lost.

    How does he get that the text assumes we already know about this story?

  8. So God set up a sexually asymmetric world, where men, on average, enjoy many advantages over women.

    Also, men, on average, are more selfish than women, so less interested in service than women.

    Because of some of the inevitable consequences of this real world asymmetry, some people reject God, for setting up and placing us in such an obviously biased world.

    What are the implications of those biological realities for the domain of church leadership?

×
×
  • Create New...