The Book of Mormon is a conundrum.

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The question is not what President Kimball said (I'm nearly 65, a lifetime member of the church, so I do have an idea), nor whether he would be be standing in the road for a bus if I happened to be driving one, but whether what he said on this accurately matches the content of the Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon is not responsible for our misreadings.  We are responsble to correct them by "preparing our minds," and searching, including out of the best books, and considering that the people of the past who provided our records has a different culture, and we cannot understand like unto them unless we get out of our own cultural blinders and learn how they understood. (See 2 Nephi 25:1-6).  The authority of LDS leaders is formally stated in D&C 1:6, 24-32 does not mean that their statements always correct and thus eternally binding on members, but rather "inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known." verse 6, which, you ought to consider, I refuse to drive past, ignore, dismiss, deny, avoid, or in any way, refuse to acknowledge.   We should not expect to get everything out of the scriptures at first glance, at first impression, but to recognize our unavoidable weakness and take steps to "prepare our minds" 3 Nephi 17:2-3.

On this point, Kimball misread.  It happens.  People make mistakes.  People also get to be humbled by their mistakes, be made strong and be blessed from on high, and recieve knowlege from time to time.

This is one of those times, if you would receive it.  If not, I'm sure a bus will come eventually.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I am starting to see what @Navidad  is talking about when I read the below from a talk from Pres. Kimball. Also I'm understanding more why he did what he did while president/prophet concerning the Native Americans. And I can definitely see why the website's author/authors are upset here https://lamanitetruth.com/the-list/  The so-called Lamanites didn't need to be changed into what they are not and that is that they are from Jeruselem. Below is the link to Pres. Kimball's talk, and a quote.  

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1975/12/our-paths-have-met-again?lang=eng "The Lamanites must rise again in dignity and strength to fully join their brethren and sisters of the household of God in carrying forth his work in preparation for that day when the Lord Jesus Christ will return to lead his people, when the millennium will be ushered in, when the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory and its lands be united and become one land. For the prophets have said, “The remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land; and it shall be a land of their inheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, like unto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more be confounded, until the end come when the earth shall pass away.” (Ether 13:8.)"

Edited March 23, 2019 by Tacenda

[champatsch]

31 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Anyway, I don't think Mr. Carmack has shown that it is "unlikely in the extreme that Joseph Smith is the actual author of the Book of Mormon." He doesn't explain how slippery treasures and seer stones, items from JS's magic world view, found their way into the book. Also, JS Sr.'s tree of life dream made it in, or how JS had Lehi's son Joseph prophesy about JS himself. These show JS authorship.

Bear in mind that highly contextual language (content-rich) is weak evidence for authorship determination and that largely noncontextual language (content-poor) is strong evidence for authorship determination.

Yet here's an early example of "slippery treasure":

1643, EEBO A56969, Quarles, Emblems (1634)

Go choose a substance, fool, that will remain
Within the limits of thy leaking measure;
Or else go seek an urne that will retain
The liquid body of thy slipp’ry treasure:
Alas, how poorely are thy labours crown’d?
Thy liquour’s neither sweet, nor yet thy vessel sound

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, champatsch said:

Bear in mind that highly contextual language (content-rich) is weak evidence for authorship determination and that largely noncontextual language (content-poor) is strong evidence for authorship determination.

Yet here's an early example of "slippery treasure":

1643, EEBO A56969, Quarles, Emblems (1634)

Go choose a substance, fool, that will remain
Within the limits of thy leaking measure;
Or else go seek an urne that will retain
The liquid body of thy slipp’ry treasure:
Alas, how poorely are thy labours crown’d?
Thy liquour’s neither sweet, nor yet thy vessel sound

So, you found examples of archaic forms in the book of commandments and the Plot of Zion. Have you looked at some of the early mormon documents found in Dan Vogel's books on the subject for archaic forms? I would think some of Martin Harris' correspondence or Joseph Knight, Sr.'s would be fine candidates to find some of these archaic forms.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

So, he had help from some outside co-conspirator?

Anyway, I don't think Mr. Carmack has shown that it is "unlikely in the extreme that Joseph Smith is the actual author of the Book of Mormon." He doesn't explain how slippery treasures and seer stones, items from JS's magic world view, found their way into the book. Also, JS Sr.'s tree of life dream made it in, or how JS had Lehi's son Joseph prophesy about JS himself. These show JS authorship.

You seem not to have followed the discussion closely at all nor engaged with any of Stanford's research and the information he has presented.

[champatsch]

Quote

So, you found examples of archaic forms in the book of commandments and the Plot of Zion. Have you looked at some of the early mormon documents found in Dan Vogel's books on the subject for archaic forms? I would think some of Martin Harris' correspondence or Joseph Knight, Sr.'s would be fine candidates to find some of these archaic forms.

I've looked at some of them, but haven't made a concerted effort that way. Of course I have no problem with looking at them, and may in the future. It would be good to have a corpus of such writings that was searchable. I wish we had more of early letters from Joseph Smith

Book of Mormon usage is in many respects deeply and broadly archaic, with earlier patterns that later shifted and many systematic and individual instances of archaism. If you're hoping that the language is explainable by a variety of 19th-century American usage, I don't necessarily mean to dissuade you from looking, but I personally don't see it as very likely.

Edited March 23, 2019 by champatsch

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

You seem not to have followed the discussion closely at all nor engaged with any of Stanford's research and the information he has presented.

I have followed it and engaged. We haven't found any Nephite artifacts in the Americas. The book of abraham problems, kinderhook plates, changing the d&c revelations cast doubt on JS being inspired in anything to me. So, I automatically assume EmodE in the book of mormon is because JS was trying to sound old worldly like Campbell, the preacher Rigdon was involved with, said. Or perhaps these archaic forms found are merely a product of the backwoods spoken language of 1820's N.Y.  It seems oversold to me, like NHM being Nahom has been.

Disagreement doesn't mean a lack of engagement. I grew up mormon in SLC. I know some current 70's personally and find them to be good people. I just find Mormonism doesn't add up. I so wanted it to be true but can't turn a blind eye to the problems. Also, if one looks at it as an outsider would, it doesn't add up to me.

Anyway, I come here to engage because I have family that are still members and an ex that I still care about who is involved. This motivates me to continue to engage and not simply move on.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

I've looked at some of them, but haven't made a concerted effort that way. Of course I have no problem with looking at them, and may in the future. It would be good to have a corpus of such writings that was searchable. I wish we had more of early letters from Joseph Smith

Book of Mormon usage is in many respects deeply and broadly archaic, with earlier patterns that later shifted and many systematic and individual instances of archaism. If you're hoping that the language is explainable by a variety of 19th-century American usage, I don't necessarily mean to dissuade you from looking, but I personally don't see it as very likely.

Thanks for responding

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Claiming that what the Bible says - that apostasy would occur in the last days - a "mythology" doesn't help your case. You end up simply fighting against what the Bible plainly states. Paul flatly states many would depart from the faith. He also says some will have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.

That is not the claim. The claim is that the creeds are an abomination - not that other Christians are an abomination.

I don't quite agree with Tacenda's claims either. The BoM does not teach that the "American Indian ancestors" were evil. It does teach that some Lamanites were evil, but the reader should note that the Lamanites were at one time living the covenant of marriage much better than the Nephites.  

Thanks for your always thoughtful replies. I won’t get into a debate with you about this because as we both know, that won’t change anyone’s mind, and I think too much of you to even suggest anything I say might do that.

I will assure you that I hold a very high regard for the Bible and what it plainly states and at times, isn't quite so clear. I simply do not read in it the concept of a great apostasy that you do, except for perhaps two exceptions: I Tim 4:1 Paul uses the indefinite pronoun tines to imply that in the later times “some” will fall away. Tines implies that someones, certain ones, some, will fall away at some time in the future. There are other words he could and would have used if he were referring to most folks, all folks, or that the majority of folks would fall away. I don’t believe we know which or when were the later (not latter) times to which he refers, the Greek again refers to some time “after now.” There is no specificity in the language used.

Others believe that I Tim 4:1 is directly tied into II Thess 2: 3,4. If this is true, which I doubt, then his use of later times refers to the time just before the rapture (the return) of Christ prior to the tribulation period and millennial reign. This is the ultimate latter times when the antichrist will be revealed and set himself up in direct opposition to God. This time has not yet come. Bottom line, we don’t know when the latter day in this construct will happen. I am 70 and have heard it was around the corner since I was a boy. In Gospel Doctrine Class the other day someone referred to the LDS teaching that right now we are in the last generation that will live prior to the return of Christ. There is no way we could possibly know that (whether Saint or Baptist). Folks have been saying that for a thousand years. It appears that Paul in II Thess. Is referring to the very latter days and a major apostasy either just before or even after the rapture of the Saints. He even uses the definite article in front of the word apostasy, implying this one is thee apostasy, not a partial apostasy. This cannot be the one referred to by the Saints. This certainly hasn’t occurred yet, nor had it occurred by the early 19^th century. I say I don’t connect the two scriptures because the second is a big apostasy and the first is one in which some folks (tines) were or are involved. This was evidently happening in the early church and has happened to some groups ever since, but was never more than “some,” just as Paul predicted.

I am not really sure of LDS eschatology to totally understand what happens after the literal physical return of Christ to earth. Most Mennonites are amillenial; I am premillennial. That means I am a rapture, tribulation (apostasy), and literal thousand-year reign (in that order)  kind of a guy. That view may both share commonality and differ from LDS eschatology.

So the views I have expressed about the apostasy don’t go counter to the Bible as I understand, interpret, and believe it. Of course, hermeneutics is a discipline which when used correctly leads to widely-divergent views. I respect that and I respect you.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Navidad

[Navidad]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Many tribes in the US came originally from the Mexico region. As such it's certainly completely believable they'd have Lamanite heritage if the Lamanites existed. If they mixed genetically with other tribes then they too would have Lamanite heritage - albeit perhaps just a small amount. Saying that oral history or DNA invalidates this just is factually incorrect depending upon what you mean by that. Archaeology is a bit more complicated. There are things that don't line up like metallurgy but while there are reasons to disbelieve I don't think it raises to the level of disproof.

Many tribes in the US came originally from the Mexico region? Do you mean as currently bordered? I would love to read some secular sources on this. I live in a buffer area between Puebloan and MesoAmerican cultures. I am not challenging you, but I attend conferences quite often here in Mexico on the origins of the indigenous peoples here and in the US. Which tribes in the US came originally from Mexico as we know it today? Thanks. 

Edited March 23, 2019 by Navidad

[Glenn101]

48 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I have followed it and engaged. We haven't found any Nephite artifacts in the Americas

Right now we are not talking about those. The current subject is on the EmodE in the Book of Mormon. Do you have any linguistic evidence or any other evidence to refute anything that Stanford has said? That is what I mean by engaging.

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your always thoughtful replies. I won’t get into a debate with you about this because as we both know, that won’t change anyone’s mind, and I think too much of you to even suggest anything I say might do that.

Thank you Navidad. No, I expect you won't change my mind, but it has been known to happen before  I always enjoy respectful exchanges of viewpoints.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I will assure you that I hold a very high regard for the Bible and what it plainly states and at times, isn't quite so clear. I simply do not read in it the concept of a great apostasy that you do, except for perhaps two exceptions: I Tim 4:1 Paul uses the indefinite pronoun tines to imply that in the later times “some” will fall away. Tines implies that someones, certain ones, some, will fall away at some time in the future. There are other words he could and would have used if he were referring to most folks, all folks, or that the majority of folks would fall away. I don’t believe we know which or when were the later (not latter) times to which he refers, the Greek again refers to some time “after now.” There is no specificity in the language used.

Those do imply a somewhat partial apostasy. However, I invite you to consider Revelation's prophecy that the whole world would be fooled by the false prophet. I also invite you to consider 

Acts 3:21

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

 I assure you that I too have an extremely high regard for the Bible. In fact I will say that it is because of this regard for the Bible that I came to conclude that The Church of Jesus Christ does represent the restored gospel. Look up that word restitution of all things which is supposed to occur before the earth can receive Him again. The dictionary says that means restoration. That is the heavens would receive Him until the times all things are restored. For there to be a restoration there must have been a loss. Do you not agree? I am not one to go around criticizing people. In my view neither is our Lord doing that when He says the creeds are an abomination to Him. Anything that is untrue or a misrepresentation is an abomination to His gospel. That doesn't mean He thinks less of people. Did He think less of me, when I was born into a Baptist family? Did He think I was an abomination before I converted? 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Others believe that I Tim 4:1 is directly tied into II Thess 2: 3,4. If this is true, which I doubt, then his use of later times refers to the time just before the rapture (the return) of Christ prior to the tribulation period and millennial reign. This is the ultimate latter times when the antichrist will be revealed and set himself up in direct opposition to God. This time has not yet come. Bottom line, we don’t know when the latter day in this construct will happen.

I pledge to you that you are witnessing it, but just haven't realized it. That is why this Church carries "Latter Day Saints" in its name. I will proffer to you though that there is no "the antichrist." There is the false prophet of Revelation. To be an antiChrist I feel one must deny Christ or His sonship. False prophets don't necessarily do that. I believe there are many antiChrists who fit this bill. One is Muhammed, and the Quran has been around for some 1500 years all the while denying Yeshua died on the cross or is the Son of the Father.

Quote

I am 70 and have heard it was around the corner since I was a boy. In Gospel Doctrine Class the other day someone referred to the LDS teaching that right now we are in the last generation that will live prior to the return of Christ. There is no way we could possibly know that (whether Saint or Baptist). Folks have been saying that for a thousand years.

Doesn't the Lord say He does nothing except He telleth His servants? There is a scripture in D&C which says the day of His return shall not come unawares upon the Church. The Church will know it, but the world does not accept the restored gospel. I suppose it also depends what one believes about His return. Is it His return in the clouds or his return to Jerusalem? The former is about to occur - yes. 

Quote

It appears that Paul in II Thess. Is referring to the very latter days and a major apostasy either just before or even after the rapture of the Saints. He even uses the definite article in front of the word apostasy, implying this one is thee apostasy, not a partial apostasy. This cannot be the one referred to by the Saints. This certainly hasn’t occurred yet, nor had it occurred by the early 19^th century. I say I don’t connect the two scriptures because the second is a big apostasy and the first is one in which some folks (tines) were or are involved. This was evidently happening in the early church and has happened to some groups ever since, but was never more than “some,” just as Paul predicted.

I am not really sure of LDS eschatology to totally understand what happens after the literal physical return of Christ to earth. Most Mennonites are amillenial; I am premillennial. That means I am a rapture, tribulation (apostasy), and literal thousand-year reign (in that order)  kind of a guy. That view may both share commonality and differ from LDS eschatology.

We may indeed be seeing a minor apostasy inside the His Church - some have left. Some are fighting doubts. Some are just along for the societal ride. I am not their babysitter. The Church leaders have been warning the Church for years. I am not sure the Church is sure of its eschatology. I seem to differ in various outlooks, but I will leave you with my confident testimony that the Lord is alive in this Church...

Love ya...and respect ya. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

On 3/23/2019 at 6:11 AM, Tacenda said:

Native American cultural and spiritual traditions are considered remnants of evil within the Lamanite story found in the Book of Mormon. This destroys the beauty and spirituality of real living people. Native Americans should feel no shame over their cultural traditions, nor shame about their ancestors. They have been forced to choose between culture and the church, for choosing both is not welcomed in Mormonism.

It is unfortunate that this narrative became so prominent. It would have been just as easy to run with a different narrative. Remember Joseph Smith claimed to have found the bones of Zelph, a righteous white Lamanite prophet in Illinois who fought for freedom with the Prophet Onandagus.

Goes to show that (1) not all Lamanites were evil, (2) not all Lamanites were cursed with a skin of blackness, and (3) those with Lamanite ancestry today could just as easily be white, like Zelph the white Lamanite prophet.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Many tribes in the US came originally from the Mexico region? Do you mean as currently bordered? I would love to read some secular sources on this. I live in a buffer area between Puebloan and MesoAmerican cultures. I am not challenging you, but I attend conferences quite often here in Mexico on the origins of the indigenous peoples here and in the US. Which tribes in the US came originally from Mexico as we know it today? Thanks. 

It's generally thought the tenfold increase in Anasazi populations during their peak came from migration from Mexico.  That's the period from 700 AD - 1000 AD. We know that they had extensive trade as well. There's some indication of trade across the Caribbean by Mayans and Aztecs as well. Exactly how thorough that trade was in the Mississippi region remains controversial. Although I think at this stage most accept a fair bit of trade with Florida. Again how much remains debated.

Most tribes come from the north. So for instance the Apache come originally from Canada and pushed out who was already in that region. (Or they simply left as part of the Anasazi migrations that depleted the region) However trade routes, such as the famous Camino Real corridor leading to Aztec states, meant there was movement of goods and typically some genetic interchange as well. We know of trade from as far south as (now) Mexico City up to the Sante Fe region and from there across the Pueblo regions. (Turquoise was a popular item of trade)

The big question is whether prior to the Aztecs there were trade routes to the Hopewell areas. So far as I know there's no evidence of that even though the Hopewell were known for their trading culture that reached as far as Florida. So I'm not saying there's strong evidence of genetic flow from mesoAmerica to the northeastern and centeral US. But it certainly is plausible. For the southwest tribes, while their origins are from further north, they'd have intermixed with the groups there making them genetically partially from the Mexico region.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not really sure of LDS eschatology to totally understand what happens after the literal physical return of Christ to earth. Most Mennonites are amillenial; I am premillennial. That means I am a rapture, tribulation (apostasy), and literal thousand-year reign (in that order)  kind of a guy. That view may both share commonality and differ from LDS eschatology.

I honestly can't keep all the terms in contemporary conservative Protestantism straight. If I recall dispensationalist premillennialists believe in the rapture but regular premillennialists just think Christ comes before the millennium begins. Mormons don't have anything like a rapture doctrine. We believe that there will be wars, apostasy and so forth prior to the 2cd Coming which is taken fairly literally. However in some ways our conception of the Millennium is more akin to postmillennialists. That is we think the main work of the Millennium will be missionary work and that many if not most who survive will be of other religions. However unlike most postmillennialists we think there's a sense of Christ literally ruling from his throne. Although what that entails isn't quite clear. Some interpret it more like premillennialists do while others interpret it in a position closer to how postmillennialist take it. Finally in some ways Mormons consider the restoration in a fashion somewhat akin to how ammillennialsts conceive of the Kingdom. 

There are echos of this in the Book of Mormon where Christ comes to Bountiful but it takes a while to achieve a Zion society. (And then it doesn't last long)

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Right now we are not talking about those. The current subject is on the EmodE in the Book of Mormon. Do you have any linguistic evidence or any other evidence to refute anything that Stanford has said? That is what I mean by engaging.

 

Does disagreement bother you that much?  It is the proponent of EmodE's burden to prove and I don't think it has been met in this case.  It hasn't been reviewed by a non-mormon linguist, who doesn't have a horse in the race.  Joseph Smith's possible knowledge of EmodE forms (maybe from a spell book like Lumen Walters had) has not been refuted.  Joseph Smith's spoken language has not been eliminated as a source for EmodE.  Also, perhaps one sees EmodE where another, more secular linguist would not see it. 

Look at Robert's answer to Jarman above.  Do you think this is a namby pamby relief society discussion where people don't have to face disagreement?  Again, you are declaring victory too soon.  Your case has not been made, yet. So, it is still your burden of proof to satisfy.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

Anyway, I don't think Mr. Carmack has shown that it is "unlikely in the extreme that Joseph Smith is the actual author of the Book of Mormon." He doesn't explain how slippery treasures and seer stones, items from JS's magic world view, found their way into the book. Also, JS Sr.'s tree of life dream made it in, or how JS had Lehi's son Joseph prophesy about JS himself. These show JS authorship.

I'd put it as he makes it unlikely he's the sole author, although as I've mentioned I'd like to see a few more checks to eliminate other possibilities.

Speaking only for myself, while I think there is these old English structures in the text that there's no evidence of appearing in that era, there's other stuff plausible from Joseph's era. Whether "slippery treasure" is or not I don't know. Doing a quick Google search I don't find it in pre-1800 texts. But it's not like Google Books is a great corpus either.

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think other linguists need to join into this endeavor in order to solve the supposed EmodE mystery. I wonder, as Clark Goble pointed out, how wide a berth Mr. Carmack gives to what is considered EmodE and what is not?

I think you confuse what I meant by broad. I'm more talking about structures. So consider "of the." That's fairly narrow since you could consider "of [definite article]" or "of [article]" increasing in broadness. For any structure you can get fairly narrow and specific or extremely broad. The question is always how broad should one examine to determine a structure's significance? Going narrow we'd only look at sentences with "of the." Going broad we'd include "of the" or "of a" or "of an." It's that issue of broadness that I think is the only question one could point to in Carmack's work (outside of pockets or older oral patterns in the US).

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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

It also helps in considering the curse in the Book of Mormon to notice that skins can be garments.  See Ethan Sproat, on Skins as Garments.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3592&index=6

Sproat has this:

Quote

According to a reading I will defend in the course of this article, this passage suggests the possibility that “the skins of the Lamanites” are to be understood as articles of clothing, the notable girdle of skin that these particular Lamanites wear to cover their nakedness. Significantly, these are the only two references to skins in Alma 3, which contains the Book of Mormon’s most thorough explanation of the Lamanite curse and the curse’s relationship to skins. Thus situated, Alma 3:5–6 might serve as an interpretive Rosetta stone. If both instances of skins in Alma 3:5–6 refer to clothing, then the other five references to various-colored or cursed skins in the Book of Mormon could also refer to clothing and not—as traditionally assumed—to human flesh pigmentation.

 It's an important essay,  essential I think, but could have been improved by considering passages like 1 Nephi 12:11, 2 Nephi 8:24 (where Jerusalem is to put on beautiful garments... how does a city put on garments?  Or are the garments a metaphor for righteous behavior?), Jacob 1:19,  Jacob 2:2, Alma 5:22, Alma 7:25, 3 Nephi 27:19, Ether 12:37, that discuss the the significance of clean and filthy garments in exactly the same was as the passages on clean and filthy skins.  Jacob  It's always about behavior.   The righteous are favored of God.................................................

Alma 3 is also important for another reason clearly using metaphorical language in which a mark placed upon oneself is spoken of as having been placed by God:

Alma 3:13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.

14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

15 And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also.

16 And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

Mr. Carmack finds it in the Book of Commandments (forerunner to the D&C as you know). You can find it here as you know: https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/on-doctrine-and-covenants-language-and-the-1833-plot-of-zion/

He thinks he would find more if he had better, more trustworthy original manuscripts. Interestingly, Mr. Carmack views the finding of archaic forms in the earlier version of the d&c and the plot of Zion language as evidence of tight control or evidence of God's language.

Than, you for setting me straight on that.  Very important.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Does disagreement bother you that much?  It is the proponent of EmodE's burden to prove and I don't think it has been met in this case.  It hasn't been reviewed by a non-mormon linguist, who doesn't have a horse in the race.  Joseph Smith's possible knowledge of EmodE forms (maybe from a spell book like Lumen Walters had) has not been refuted.  Joseph Smith's spoken language has not been eliminated as a source for EmodE.  Also, perhaps one sees EmodE where another, more secular linguist would not see it. 

Look at Robert's answer to Jarman above.  Do you think this is a namby pamby relief society discussion where people don't have to face disagreement?  Again, you are declaring victory too soon.  Your case has not been made, yet. So, it is still your burden of proof to satisfy.

Disagreement does not bother me at all. But you have given nothing but disagreement. I have not declared any type of victory, but I have asked for something that I can check to verify or try to refute. Now it does not matter if there is a linguist without a "horse in the race" as you put it because Stanford has published the details of his research and his sources. His facts can be verified by anyone who wishes to check his work.

Now, if you will go back to the initial post you were responding to, I was commenting on the several discussions that have sprang up around this one subject and I was making an observation, in the form of a question that those discussions are tangential to the main conclusions that Stanford has drawn from his EmodE in the Book of Mormon research and in his research into Joseph's own writings. And that conclusion is that it is very unlikely that Joseph was the author of the Book of Mormon based just on that research. There is not a consensus on that question even among LDS scholars, but they voice concrete objections. And Stanford is researching those ideas that are brought up.

Glenn

[Burnside]

On 3/22/2019 at 4:11 PM, Tacenda said:

 Please be sensitive to the Native American community as they have often been wrongly labeled, which is connected to colonization. The most acceptable terms to use are Native American or Indigenous.

 

Oh really?

Notice the word “Indian” isn’t used by Native Americans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_reservations_in_Arizona

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Indian_reservations_in_Utah

https://www.utahpaiutes.org/

[Rajah Manchou]

8 minutes ago, Burnside said:

Oh really?

Notice the word “Indian” isn’t used by Native Americans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_reservations_in_Arizona
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Indian_reservations_in_Utah
https://www.utahpaiutes.org/

Did you just list out the names of reservations and federally designated "Indian" tribes as evidence that Native Americans use the word Indian? 😂

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not really sure of LDS eschatology to totally understand what happens after the literal physical return of Christ to earth. Most Mennonites are amillenial; I am premillennial. That means I am a rapture, tribulation (apostasy), and literal thousand-year reign (in that order)  kind of a guy. That view may both share commonality and differ from LDS eschatology.

 

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I honestly can't keep all the terms in contemporary conservative Protestantism straight. If I recall dispensationalist premillennialists believe in the rapture but regular premillennialists just think Christ comes before the millennium begins. Mormons don't have anything like a rapture doctrine. We believe that there will be wars, apostasy and so forth prior to the 2cd Coming which is taken fairly literally. However in some ways our conception of the Millennium is more akin to postmillennialists. That is we think the main work of the Millennium will be missionary work and that many if not most who survive will be of other religions. However unlike most postmillennialists we think there's a sense of Christ literally ruling from his throne. Although what that entails isn't quite clear. Some interpret it more like premillennialists do while others interpret it in a position closer to how postmillennialist take it. Finally in some ways Mormons consider the restoration in a fashion somewhat akin to how ammillennialsts conceive of the Kingdom. 

There are echos of this in the Book of Mormon where Christ comes to Bountiful but it takes a while to achieve a Zion society. (And then it doesn't last long)

I will add to what I have said because there seems to be confusion on it. 

His next return will not be in a physical form to the earth. Here is a scripture which I believe describes it:

D&C 88:

93 And immediately there shall appear a great sign in heaven, and all people shall see it together.

94 And another angel shall sound his trump, saying: That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles; her bands are made strong, no man can loose them; therefore, she is ready to be burned. And he shall sound his trump both long and loud, and all nations shall hear it.

95 And there shall be silence in heaven for the space of half an hour; and immediately after shall the curtain of heaven be unfolded, as a scroll is unfolded after it is rolled up, and the face of the Lord shall be unveiled;

96 And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him.

97 And they who have slept in their graves shall come forth, for their graves shall be opened; and they also shall be caught up to meet him in the midst of the pillar of heaven—

98 They are Christ’s, the first fruits, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God.

What I say is not currently taught, but we are in the millennium now. We are in the half hour. So this scripture is unfolding. Note that it does not say Christ will sit on the earth on his throne. He will rule personally. I believe that means He will speak to His servants, and the Holy Spirit will not be relied upon so much. I don't believe He will physically return to Jerusalem for several hundred years. This will mark the end of the tribulation period to begin the millennium.

Clark, I am not sure what you mean by many who survive will be other religions. I assume you mean many who are left after the rapture. However, the time will come that all alive in the millennium will be members of this Church, and all will bend the knee. Because all will be of one accord, the power of Satan will be bound until the end of the thousand years, when apostasy will again enter the Church, and Satan will be loosed again. That is from Revelation. 

Just thought I'd point out this scripture, because I believe it clears up a few things.  I will say that the half hour is the same half hour that Revelation starts the seventh seal with. For your benefit Navidad, I will tell you that D&C teaches that each seal represents a thousand year period of the earth. From Revelation it is obvious that Yeshua came at the start of the fifth seal since many were beheaded for Him. Two thousand years have passed. After the end of the half hour warning to the world, the tribulation you speak of comes, and the world will be at war. The only way to avoid it will be to come to the New Jerusalem. If you would like scriptural references for these points I will provide them....

[RevTestament]

31 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Did you just list out the names of reservations and federally designated "Indian" tribes as evidence that Native Americans use the word Indian? 😂

Burnside has a habit of being facetious - it doesn't always work so well in internet posts.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Burnside said:

Oh really?

Notice the word “Indian” isn’t used by Native Americans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_reservations_in_Arizona

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Indian_reservations_in_Utah

https://www.utahpaiutes.org/

 

Interesting...

Edited March 24, 2019 by Tacenda

[Dan McClellan]

I agree that the Book of Mormon is a conundrum, and I think there remains a wealth of new insights and possibilities to be discovered regarding its form and function, but I'm seeing lots of references to the tight control theory, and I just don't understand the appeal. It seems so methodologically rickety. I see the repeated assertion that there are some linguistic elements that are best situated in a 16th-century context, but I have yet to come across one of those elements that cannot be found occurring multiple times in early-19th century publications. Granted, I've not read the millions of pages these people have written on this topic, but every time I see a synopsis or a presentation about it, the main pieces of evidence they highlight are easily found in 19th-century literature. Then there's the most ridiculous part (in my opinion): the insistence that tight control not only includes 16th-century English, but also every other kind of English all the way up to that contemporary with the Prophet himself. Can someone point me to the clearest set of data that support the notion that the Book of Mormon language constitutes something that could not reasonably have been composed in an early-19th century context?

[mfbukowski]

On 3/18/2019 at 10:08 AM, hope_for_things said:

Well, the argument that God can do anything essentially is an faith position that has nothing to do with any evidence.  No need to even evaluate evidence if this is the fall back position. 

Maybe you are starting to get the bigger picture.

"Evidence" is irrelevant and worthless when faith is the bottom line.

So why debate it?