The State of the Evidence

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Rep point. Because I disagree with your last sentence.

I really have been trying. It's just not worth the crap. 

[jkwilliams]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You mean you want to see other people?  

It's not you. It's me.

[Rajah Manchou]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are still doing in John. You cannot see anything without Cartesian dualism.

You make a general statement which ignores nuances and then reify that statement into concrete, and take that statement as the only way to see the "truth"

???

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

???

Funny, the other day he was deriding me for saying "nuanced stuff." He describes his journey of faith, "It may seem like jumping around, but I see it as a straight line." I genuinely admire that consistency of principle and vision, but when I restate that and compliment him on his consistent quest for "truth" (as he defines it), he rails on me about Cartesian dualism and lack of nuance, and so on. 

So, yeah, there's not a lot of upside to continuing to interact. At this point, I pretty much know how he's going to respond to me: my posts are malicious or stupid, and usually both.  

[mfbukowski]

Uh, you know the posts are still there, anyone can go back and see for themselves, if anyone cares

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, you know the posts are still there, anyone can go back and see for themselves, if anyone cares

Indeed they are. There are very few people I can't get along with, but it's silly to keep trying when there's no point.

[jkwilliams]

I was thinking about whether I've had a major paradigm shift. I think most people would say that losing my faith in Mormonism represents a major paradigm shift, but as I was trying to say to Mark, I don't think my overall approach to life is all that different in terms of what I value and why. Following my conscience and doing the right thing has always been important to me. It was when I was an active, believing member of the church, and it is now. (Of course, it goes without saying that I haven't always done the right thing.) Maybe what I see as the right thing has changed, but I don't think at the core my paradigm has been radically altered, just "tweaked" and redirected as needed. 

That's what I had in mind in my comments to Mark. I was surprised he took them as insulting, but I understand that every word I say carries with it a lot of unpleasant history.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Indeed they are. There are very few people I can't get along with, but it's silly to keep trying when there's no point.

And you are still talking.

You spend more time talking about not talking to me than I can imagine.

Try not responding this post as a test, OK? Feeling strong? Ready?  Don't respond!

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/15/2016 at 9:25 AM, jkwilliams said:

............................................................................

Maybe I'm not understanding, but I thought he and I had a good long conversation, and I certainly was receptive enough to look into what he sent to me. But as I said to Stan, the usage has to be consistent or at least statistically significant to show an early modern English translator, but again, the other problem is that there are plenty of other common sources for such usage. If you can point me to where the usage is shown to be consistent and significant and unlikely to come from other sources, I'm all ears. 

Stan provided me with the following summary of his work, which is supported by his long and well-documented articles (list on request):

Quote

We currently know a number of things about the language of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon (Yale edition, 2009), including the following subset presented here in abbreviated fashion:

The did usage of the BofM systematically matches only the early-modern period (usually the middle to late 16th-century) in at least three ways: rate, syntactic distribution of did and the infinitive, and individual verb tendencies to heavily use did or lightly use did to express the past tense. The last book we've seen which is somewhat similar to the BofM in this respect was written in the 1670s by a Cambridge theologian and mathematician and published posthumously in 1680.

Verbal complementation after the verb command is systematically not biblical or modern.  The last book we've seen with usage similar to that of the BofM was published in 1483 by Caxton.  It has 65 instances of layered object syntax (COMMAND X that X (should/shall) do something).  No book appears to have as many until the BofM 346 years later (74 instances).

"More part" usage similar to what is found in the BofM (rate and forms) is found last in Holinshed's Chronicles, published first in 1577, 252 years before the BofM.  We have found five books, four from the 16th century and one first published in 1494, with comparable levels of usage.

Causative constructions in the BofM are unlike biblical usage (hundreds of examples in both texts) and fit only in the early-modern period.  The layered construction found a dozen times in the BofM with the verb cause matches verified eModE usage and is not found in the KJB. We haven't found it yet in the modern period, and so if it turns up, it will properly be classified as very rare.

Verbal complementation after the verbs desire, suffer, and make in the BofM is archaic, well-formed, and nonbiblical in its tendencies.

We have found two or three books whose usage matches the heavy use of non-restrictive "people which" in the BofM, both from the early 1600s. The KJB is mostly "people that", the modern period is mostly "people who". The only time we find "people which" used more than "people that/who" in English is in the early-modern period.

The BofM uses agentive "of" after many different regular past participles more than 50% of the time.  The KJB's rate is about 75%.  Pseudo-biblical texts have very little agentive "of" (10% or less), since it became increasingly uncommon through the decades of the 1600s and 1700s.

The present-tense {-th} plural of the BofM 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 eModE tendencies.  The {-th} plural was very rare by the 1820s.

There is plenty of nearby variation found in the BofM which we have found principally or exclusively in eModE.  This means that the poor grammar of the BofM is more easily and properly explained by eModE usage than by modern American dialect, contra Hardy, The Oxford Handbook of Mormonism (2016), page 145 <http://bit.ly/2aWTnYF>.

As one example of suspect grammar, we find hundreds of cases of "things that/which is" in eModE, and more than a dozen in the earliest text.  We can even find this type of "bad grammar" in 16th-century English Bibles.   Stanford Carmack, Aug 15, 2016 email

 

[Gervin]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Stan provided me with the following summary of his work, which is supported by his long and well-documented articles (list on request):

 

The Early Modern English period ran from about 1475 - 1675, just as an agrarian and religious class of English speakers began to establish themselves in North America.  I would be more surprised if EME didn't show up in the 18th century, with vestiges beyond that. 

The summary, above, appears very definitive in the identification of EME phrases unique only to the Book of Mormon.  I suppose the footnotes and references bear this out?  But, is it really unusual for EME phrases of any kind to be found in a book published in the 1830s?  

What I find more interesting, and compelling, are the word strings and phrases that come out of American history and religious writings, circa late 1700s and how they thread their way through writers using similar and verbatim words and phrases, eventually landing in the Book of Mormon.  I wonder how that propensity compares to the number of EME occurrences?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

The Early Modern English period ran from about 1475 - 1675, just as an agrarian and religious class of English speakers began to establish themselves in North America.  I would be more surprised if EME didn't show up in the 18th century, with vestiges beyond that. 

The summary, above, appears very definitive in the identification of EME phrases unique only to the Book of Mormon.  I suppose the footnotes and references bear this out?  But, is it really unusual for EME phrases of any kind to be found in a book published in the 1830s?  

What I find more interesting, and compelling, are the word strings and phrases that come out of American history and religious writings, circa late 1700s and how they thread their way through writers using similar and verbatim words and phrases, eventually landing in the Book of Mormon.  I wonder how that propensity compares to the number of EME occurrences?

The EME grammatical items in the BofM studied and defined by Skousen and Carmack are diagnostic because they become extinct and do not show up in later America.  That is their value as markers on this issue.  Words and phrases which do appear in the BofM (which you mention) are not the diagnostic items and are irrelevant to the effort to explain how extinct items suddenly appear in the BofM.  Think of it as a detective mystery, Gervin.  Who dunnit?

[Peppermint Patty]

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It's not you. It's me.

John,

Good decision. From what I've read, you were definitely in an abusive relationship.

[James Tunney]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The EME grammatical items in the BofM studied and defined by Skousen and Carmack are diagnostic because they become extinct and do not show up in later America.  That is their value as markers on this issue.  Words and phrases which do appear in the BofM (which you mention) are not the diagnostic items and are irrelevant to the effort to explain how extinct items suddenly appear in the BofM.  Think of it as a detective mystery, Gervin.  Who dunnit?

I appreciate your zeal, but given the lack of external evidence, JS and his fertile imagination probably did it. I don't think the spiritual pretranslation theory is even remotely plausible. I could be wrong though, however, theories that need too many questionable explanations regarding the evidence seem unlikely.

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, Peppermint Patty said:

John,

Good decision. From what I've read, you were definitely in an abusive relationship.

Someone definitely needs to think he is the smartest one in the room and it's not you john.

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Someone definitely needs to think he is the smartest one in the room and it's not you john.

Why not?  I think he is the smartest.

[James Tunney]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why not?  I think he is the smartest.

Haha

[bcuzbcuz]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why not?  I think he is the smartest.

Sorry.That's not a credible statement.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I appreciate your zeal, but given the lack of external evidence, JS and his fertile imagination probably did it. I don't think the spiritual pretranslation theory is even remotely plausible. I could be wrong though, however, theories that need too many questionable explanations regarding the evidence seem unlikely.

It has nothing to do any zeal I might have, James.  In fact I am quite surprised by the results of the Skousen & Carmack research.  The thing about basic research is that, done well, it tells us a great deal about how remote from reality our preconceptions can be.  Having to explain the results may be a problem, but placing our head in the sand won't help.  Can you imagine, for example, a group of physicists ignoring the evidence for dark energy & dark matter -- only because they cannot yet find a rational explanation?  We have already seen what happened when Galileo attempted to draw valid conclusions from his (and others') scientific observations:  The defenders of established Ptolemaic astronomy (the Jesuit scientific establishment) heaped calumny upon and silenced the Copernican revolutionaries.

I know of no one who thinks of this as a "spiritual pretranslation theory."

Your suggestion that Joseph Smith could have systematically reinvented extinct features of early Modern English in the Book of Mormon sounds more like someone baying at the moon than part of a rationale discussion of the evidence.  You might try engaging the abundant actual evidence and discussing it, rather than pretending that it is questionable.  I know that it is discomfiting, but that is the nature of it.  I can provide the citations to the literature, if you like.

[Gervin]

On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 11:44 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

The EME grammatical items in the BofM studied and defined by Skousen and Carmack are diagnostic because they become extinct and do not show up in later America.  That is their value as markers on this issue.  Words and phrases which do appear in the BofM (which you mention) are not the diagnostic items and are irrelevant to the effort to explain how extinct items suddenly appear in the BofM.  Think of it as a detective mystery, Gervin.  Who dunnit?

I watched a little of a Skousen/Carmack video presentation of these ideas and read another article where a poster fairly easily dismantled one of Carmack's claims about the extinction of the word/application of "extinct." (oddly enough)

Is there a comprehensive list of EME occurrences in the BoM?  Such a list, and the location of these uses in the Book of Mormon by book and chapter might yield some trends.

Re extant phrases that made their way into the Book of Mormon, I'm simply pointing out that the Book contains dozens and dozens - if not hundreds - of phrases that find their origin in the King James Bible language and the writings of people like Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814), David Ramsay (1749-1815), Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), Jonathan Edwards, Jr. (1745-1801), Gilbert Hunt, Solomon Spalding (1761-1816), et al..  Perhaps these writers carried some EME forward that found their way into the Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, Gervin said:

I watched a little of a Skousen/Carmack video presentation of these ideas and read another article where a poster fairly easily dismantled one of Carmack's claims about the extinction of the word/application of "extinct." (oddly enough)

And that article is located where?

20 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Is there a comprehensive list of EME occurrences in the BoM?  Such a list, and the location of these uses in the Book of Mormon by book and chapter might yield some trends.

Re extant phrases that made their way into the Book of Mormon, I'm simply pointing out that the Book contains dozens and dozens - if not hundreds - of phrases that find their origin in the King James Bible language and the writings of people like Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814), David Ramsay (1749-1815), Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), Jonathan Edwards, Jr. (1745-1801), Gilbert Hunt, Solomon Spalding (1761-1816), et al..  Perhaps these writers carried some EME forward that found their way into the Book of Mormon.

If you are calling any of that into question, it is incumbent upon you to find and point out any such survivals from EME into the modern era.  Then you need to show the ratio or proportion of such use in a modern work.  Skousen & Carmack have done that and have specified their results.  If they are in error, by all means point that out.  This is not being done in a hidden corner somewhere.  The sources, methods, and results are published for all to see:

Skousen, Royal J., and Stanford Carmack, “Editing Out the ‘Bad Grammar’ in the Book of Mormon,” BYU lecture, April 6, 2016, formal transcript published by Interpreter, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/grammatical-variation.pdf . 

Carmack, Stanford, “A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar,” Interpreter, 11 (2014): 209-262, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-look-at-some-nonstandard-book-of-mormon-grammar/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter, 13 (2015): 175-217, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/what-command-syntax-tells-us-about-book-of-mormon-authorship/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter, 14 (2015): 119-186, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Why the Oxford English Dictionary (and not Webster’s 1828),” Interpreter, 15 (2015): 65-77, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/why-the-oxford-english-dictionary-and-not-websters-1828/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 33-40, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/ .

Carmack, Stanford, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 41-64, online at
   http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-smith-read-the-words/ . 

Carmack, Stanford, “The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 79-108, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-the-th-plural-in-the-earliest-text/ . 

Carmack, Stanford, “The Case of Plural Was in the Earliest Text,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 109-137, online at  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-case-of-plural was-in-the-earliest-text/ . 

 

[Gervin]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And that article is located where?

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-look-at-some-nonstandard-book-of-mormon-grammar/

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you are calling any of that into question, it is incumbent upon you to find and point out any such survivals from EME into the modern era.  Then you need to show the ratio or proportion of such use in a modern work.  Skousen & Carmack have done that and have specified their results.  If they are in error, by all means point that out.  This is not being done in a hidden corner somewhere.  The sources, methods, and results are published for all to see:

Can you point me to anyone who has critically reviewed the work of Skousen and Carmack?

[James Tunney]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It has nothing to do any zeal I might have, James.  In fact I am quite surprised by the results of the Skousen & Carmack research.  The thing about basic research is that, done well, it tells us a great deal about how remote from reality our preconceptions can be.  Having to explain the results may be a problem, but placing our head in the sand won't help.  Can you imagine, for example, a group of physicists ignoring the evidence for dark energy & dark matter -- only because they cannot yet find a rational explanation?  We have already seen what happened when Galileo attempted to draw valid conclusions from his (and others') scientific observations:  The defenders of established Ptolemaic astronomy (the Jesuit scientific establishment) heaped calumny upon and silenced the Copernican revolutionaries.

I know of no one who thinks of this as a "spiritual pretranslation theory."

Your suggestion that Joseph Smith could have systematically reinvented extinct features of early Modern English in the Book of Mormon sounds more like someone baying at the moon than part of a rationale discussion of the evidence.  You might try engaging the abundant actual evidence and discussing it, rather than pretending that it is questionable.  I know that it is discomfiting, but that is the nature of it.  I can provide the citations to the literature, if you like.

Didn't Joseph Smith claim that he "translated" the book of mormon by the "gift and power of god?"  And isn't your belief that the book of mormon was supposedly "translated," prior, into early modern english?  When and where do you think that occurred?  And don't you think it is a little over the top to compare this to Galileo and call this scientific and rational?

[cdowis]

On 6/27/2016 at 2:41 PM, jkwilliams said:

A few years ago, my stake president (a biology professor) gave an address in stake conference in which he invited those who were struggling based on issues of historicity and other LDS truth-claims to make an appointment with him so he could help resolve our concerns. I did so, and after discussing my issues, he made a curious statement, that if he didn't have a testimony, he would think the church's claims (the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and so on) were obvious frauds. I was a little shocked. He gave me the names of some "experts" (his words, and I corresponded with them. Two of them made similar statements to the effect that, absent a testimony, the truth-claims don't stand on their own.

I have come "out of retirement" to comment on your story.

There has bee several church leaders, including bishops, and even Area Authorities who have allowed their doubts to overcome their testimony of the Gospel.  Some have become active critics of the church and they were wolves in sheep's clothing while acting within the church.

Your stake president is appearing to go down this path, recruiting members who have doubts, and encouraging their doubts, to the point of referring you to other such doubters.    I personally advise you to take this to your bishop and tell your story.  Someone needs to help this brother get back on track before he leaves the church, and takes other members with him.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Gervin said:

..................................................

Can you point me to anyone who has critically reviewed the work of Skousen and Carmack?

No, but perhaps you or someone you know could give it a go.  It would be much appreciated.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Didn't Joseph Smith claim that he "translated" the book of mormon by the "gift and power of god?"  And isn't your belief that the book of mormon was supposedly "translated," prior, into early modern english?  When and where do you think that occurred?

As Royal Skousen so often points out, the word "translate" includes "transmit" in its full range of meaning, so that we need not be troubled by a very young man who puts a stone in his hat and reads phrases off it for his scribes.  Naturally, he is going to speak of it as the "gift and power of God."  How else could he explain it?  It is clear that he himself did not understand what was taking place.

Quote

 And don't you think it is a little over the top to compare this to Galileo and call this scientific and rational?

Not at all.  What I said was:

Quote

Can you imagine, for example, a group of physicists ignoring the evidence for dark energy & dark matter -- only because they cannot yet find a rational explanation?  We have already seen what happened when Galileo attempted to draw valid conclusions from his (and others') scientific observations:  The defenders of established Ptolemaic astronomy (the Jesuit scientific establishment) heaped calumny upon and silenced the Copernican revolutionaries.

I see no purpose to be served by sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the evidence.  That is what my comparisons are designed to point out.  Perhaps you have better examples?

Edited August 19, 2016 by Robert F. Smith