tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post1679576161770270643..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Another Test: The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Use of Command Syntax and What It Tells Us About the Language in the Book of MormonJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88157781138080875572015-08-25T21:19:34.791-05:002015-08-25T21:19:34.791-05:00I agree, James. The BoM is in no way a EModE text ...I agree, James. The BoM is in no way a EModE text by the very fact that it contains Early, Mid, and Modern English all at the same time. <br /> It's like an American doing a British accent. He may stumble from Cockney to Scouce to Welsh in an attempt to sound "British". If you suddenly detected what sounded like Yorkshire would you declare authenticity? Of course not, it's just an American trying to sound "British"flying fignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80277117186105389322015-08-25T13:42:11.201-05:002015-08-25T13:42:11.201-05:00I hate to keep repeating this, but I keep seeing c...I hate to keep repeating this, but I keep seeing comments here that ignore its importance: the fraud theory of the Book of Mormon is that the text was composed in a badly faked archaic style. <br /><br />That's not a far-fetched hypothesis carefully constructed to fit difficult evidence. On the contrary, it's the immediate reaction that literate non-Mormons have to the Book of Mormon. Whoa, somebody was trying to sound like the King James Bible, but they really overdid it; and they also let a lot of 19th century Americanisms slip in.<br /><br />So of course the text of the Book of Mormon is not like Smith's own dialect, and of course it's not like the King James Bible, either. It's a mish-mash of overdone archaism and anachronistic vocabulary. This is not a mystery at all — unless you want to avoid the conclusion of fraud.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-7046913528331471912015-08-12T12:38:28.757-05:002015-08-12T12:38:28.757-05:00Who cares about "came to pass". Weak evi...Who cares about "came to pass". Weak evidence either way. Every literate culture has a way to designate that something occurred.<br /><br />Anglin and Orbiting, there's a lot of language in the Book of Mormon that wasn't in use in the 19c. "The more part of X" is one (23x). See Holinshed's Chronicles for examples. The earliest text also has "a more part of" once, which you can find in Fabyan's Chronicle, and "the more parts of" twice (where "more" = 'greater'), also uncommon in the textual record.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-50626181984093499832015-08-12T09:52:17.108-05:002015-08-12T09:52:17.108-05:00Thought I would post this article about the Mayan ...Thought I would post this article about the Mayan tablet found written in hieroglyphics that is 1600 years old. Doesn't say and it came to pass though....sorry<br /><br />http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/08/12/ancient-mayan-tablet-with-hieroglyphics-honors-lowly-king/?intcmp=hpffbunkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09091655088509351675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30440983366068989742015-08-11T22:43:27.892-05:002015-08-11T22:43:27.892-05:00I might give the Book of Mormon a second look as h...I might give the Book of Mormon a second look as history if there were any solid evidence connecting it to actual history. By that I mean, not just some parallel that seems reassuring if you're already committed to the text on religious grounds, but something that would force you to take the text seriously as history even if you had no religious reasons whatever to care about it at all. Something like horses and chariots and swords, and a hill with a whole lot of bodies and weapons on and around it. If you believe in the Book for other reasons, then sure, you can say that the Americas are big, and that stuff might just not yet have been found. But if you want to make non-believers take the Book seriously as history, you need that kind of evidence. <br /><br />Once you have enough of that kind of evidence to establish that, Yes, there really was this culture at this place in this time period, then the game changes. Once we're sure a people actually existed, then we know they had to have some kind of customs and technologies, and history becomes a matter of trying to guess the details of how they lived. For that sort of guessing of details, even quite weak and tenuous evidence can be enough to tip the balance of probability in favor of one hypothesis over another. And so even quite tenuous evidence can be a respectable contribution to scholarly history — if it concerns details about something we know did exist. Until you have firm evidence for the basic existence issue, however, tenuous parallels are worth nothing at all. <br /><br />It's like the difference between trying to figure out how a bunch of fossilized bones originally fit together in a dinosaur skeleton, and hypothesizing the anatomy of a dragon. When you actually have a bunch of giant bones, then even tenuous parallels with the anatomy of other creatures elsewhere may be worthwhile indications of how those bones once fit together. But even though a dragon enthusiast might identify similar parallels between dragon legends and real flying creatures, this would not count as evidence for historical dragons.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-56636354916291347792015-08-10T19:48:46.053-05:002015-08-10T19:48:46.053-05:00OK, Anon 6:57, in the interest of respect, I'l...OK, Anon 6:57, in the interest of respect, I'll retract my reference to occultism.<br /><br />Since we all agree that JS did not "translate" the BoM in any of the usual senses of the term, that in fact he did so in a way that did not seem to require looking at the gold plates at all, then what are we to make of his claim that "by the wisdom of God, they [the plates] remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand"?<br /><br />What exactly did JS "accomplish by them"? Nothing that I can see. Mighty odd that they would be divinely revealed to him and that he would have to struggle to keep them safe when all he needed to produce the BoM was a rock from a well.<br /><br />Why call JS the translator at all? If Skousen et al are correct, God was the translator and JS a relay (to use your term) between translator and transcriber. To refer to JS as a translator, as the Church routinely does, seems at best misleading.<br /><br />It is also odd that the same rock he used to con the gullible into paying him to find buried treasure should have the ability to reveal another testament of Jesus Christ. Go figure.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85610069653218403452015-08-10T18:57:57.227-05:002015-08-10T18:57:57.227-05:00Orbiting, whatever you want to call it, medium, in...Orbiting, whatever you want to call it, medium, intermediary agent, transmitter, relay, etc. Who cares. Doesn't matter one bit what we call it, as long as the notion is clear about what happened -- that JS read words delivered to him from on high. You dragging in the occult, when Skousen has asserted that JS read words since at least 1998 with his term "tight control", is a juvenile way to discuss the matter. Please be respectable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70811731154061690512015-08-10T16:23:19.899-05:002015-08-10T16:23:19.899-05:00Darn you, Steve! Now that I know the Mayans had a ...Darn you, Steve! Now that I know the Mayans had a word meaning "happen," I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60918871407451809842015-08-10T15:35:42.697-05:002015-08-10T15:35:42.697-05:00I Orbiting Kolob,
You are a pushover:
http://mas...I Orbiting Kolob,<br /><br />You are a pushover:<br /><br />http://maskeryandlund.com/products/utchi-it-came-to-pass-book-of-mormon-lds-mayan-glyph-token-coin<br /><br />Does this mean you will jettison all of your critiques now?<br /><br />I do have to agree that prophets are mediums. This has always been the case so I suppose it isn't something that "really wants to go" but has already been there.<br /><br />Steve<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58424277879909783362015-08-10T12:52:55.957-05:002015-08-10T12:52:55.957-05:00Skousen's view [is] that JS read words given t...<i>Skousen's view [is] that JS read words given to him. So he's only a translator in a limited, physical sense.</i><br /><br />Um, no -- in this view, Smith was not a translator <i>at all</i>.<br /><br />He was a <i>medium</i>.<br /><br />Mormonism as founded in occultism. Is this where Skousen is leading the Church? Is this where LDS apologetics really wants to go?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38667010645541368972015-08-10T12:39:30.902-05:002015-08-10T12:39:30.902-05:00Anon 216: "KJV translation errors and italici...Anon 216: "KJV translation errors and italicized words found in the BoM is hard evidence of plagiarism".<br /><br />Sorry, it isn't. First, some biblical critical text readings are suspect. It depends on the methodology. But that aside, for the fraud view, which you espouse, then legitimate KJV translation errors can be evidence of plagiarism. For the divine view, it is a different matter. There are two competing views on the divine translation. The first one, which is espoused by FairMormon, is that JS was the translator, as we typically understand the term. The second one is Skousen's view that JS read words given to him. So he's only a translator in a limited, physical sense. For that view, the translation into English had already been carried out in the divine realm. The manuscript evidence, as well as syntax, morphology. support the second view. Phrasal evidence supposedly pointing to the 19th century can also be found in the 1600s. There is 100x the evidence for the second view, but people like Brant Gardner keep espousing the first view and using it on the FairMormon website. There's very little textual support for that view.<br /><br />So, with the textually supported view that JS read words given to him, that he had nothing to do with a translation into English, KJV translation errors and italicized words are understandable. First, italicized words could have been changed, deleted, or kept in a divine translation. Second, true KJV translation errors could have been changed or kept if they were deeemed inconsequential. Third, some translation "errors" deemed to be so by the critics are not actually errors.<br /><br />So if you've already concluded the BoM is a fraud, then these matters seem to support that claim. But they are not conclusive.<br /><br />I read through Runnells' treatment of this and some of it is quite lame. It certainly is unbalanced and naive in portions. I don't know that anyone has done a thorough balanced treatment of the issue. What are some of the KJV errors that you are referring to. Please provide some examples.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33981537790301523372015-08-10T11:03:32.861-05:002015-08-10T11:03:32.861-05:00Anon 10:38, I think all of us doubters would be mi...Anon 10:38, I think all of us doubters would be mightily impressed with a Central American inscription, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, independently authenticated and dated to 600 BCE, that translated into <i>I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents....</i><br /><br />Pushover that I am, I would personally be satisfied with a Mayan inscription reading <i>And it came to pass....</i> Or a 1600-year-old skeleton at the base of Hill Cumorah with a steel sword lodged in its ribs. Or the bones of a 1900-year-old horse unearthed amid the wheels and yoke of a chariot.<br /><br />The truth is out there, Anon 10:38. All you need to do is find it.<br /><br />Knock yourself out.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2628893887343542452015-08-10T10:38:54.705-05:002015-08-10T10:38:54.705-05:00What hypothetical evidence in favor of the authent...What hypothetical evidence in favor of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon would ever cause you to say, "Well, that is actually impressive. Maybe it's worth a second look?" Short of God coming down with a fleet of angelic Nephite scholars to answer all questions and provide mountains of peer-reviewed evidence to your eternal satisfaction, can you think of any scenario where a find of some kind would soften your stance against the Book of Mormon? Or are you too committed to your political and social reasons for having revulsion toward the Church to ever be open to anything else?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64099502686854966952015-08-10T02:16:49.468-05:002015-08-10T02:16:49.468-05:00Anon 112, KJV translation errors and italicized wo...Anon 112, KJV translation errors and italicized words found in the BoM is hard evidence of plagiarism. Look it up for yourself. Jeff acknowledges it, fairmormon does as well. <br /><br />"FairMormon does not take a position that God revealed 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, nor does FairMormon "concede" that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon. What FairMormon does do is acknowledge that there is scholarship that supports either position." <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2461866393122665752015-08-10T01:12:09.022-05:002015-08-10T01:12:09.022-05:00Critics are the classic pot calling the kettle bla...Critics are the classic pot calling the kettle black.<br /><br />I would like to know what over whelming evidence there is that J.Smith forged plates and bought everyone off, or masterfully hypnotized everyone when the need arose. I have yet to see any evidence. <br /><br />All I have seen is: probably, could have, may have, might have, possible. Also second, third, fourth hand information. <br /><br /> I think LDS critics have studied how Atheists argue against Christianity because the LDS critics arguments are identical to Atheists arguments against Christians. How convenient.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79350547066904917422015-08-09T20:41:29.643-05:002015-08-09T20:41:29.643-05:00The primary assumption that the world makes is tha...<i>The primary assumption that the world makes is that Joseph forged it himself or with the help of a peer.</i><br /><br />Just for the sake of clarification, Jeff, for many of us here in "the world," this is not an assumption. It's a <i>conclusion</i>, based on what we see as overwhelming evidence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33816030166436628062015-08-09T11:10:02.090-05:002015-08-09T11:10:02.090-05:00Absolutely agree, Everything, and I thank you for ...Absolutely agree, Everything, and I thank you for this salient and much needed reminder. Sometimes--though certainly not always--the arguments against the Church and the Book of Mormon turn out to be based on entirely bogus arguments, specious evidence, and even forged documents that don't deserve our attention. In the end, there was no need to use logic to overcome the attacks based on the Salamander Letter because it was completely bogus. <br /><br />As for the incredibly intricate text of the Book of Mormon, a puzzle remains as to how it was generated. The primary assumption that the world makes is that Joseph forged it himself or with the help of a peer. But neither of those possibilities can explain how he was able to dictate this text. Arguments based on Solomon Spaulding or Sidney Rigdon being the secret authors are increasingly falling into the camp of the Salamander Letter in terms of their credibility. Do you have a more plausible explanation of its origins? One that could give us a testable hypothesis?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39753900685391375362015-08-09T07:48:52.272-05:002015-08-09T07:48:52.272-05:00Here is something all apologists should read every...Here is something all apologists should read every morning before they get to work. It will remind them that the apologetic approach can be used to prop up falsehood and error. <br /><br />From Elder Oaks: "All of the scores of media stories on [the Salamander letter] apparently assume that the author of that letter used the word 'salamander' in the modern sense of a 'tailed amphibian.' One wonders why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of 'salamander,' which may even have been the primary meaning in this context in the 1820s.... That meaning... is 'a mythical being thought to be able to live in fire... A being that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the Angel Moroni:... the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem understandable. In view of all this, and as a matter of intellectual evaluation, why all the excitement in the media, and why the apparent hand‑wringing among those who profess friendship or membership in the Church?"<br /><br />As we all know, the Salamander Letter, which Oaks is defending here with the typical apologetic of "it doesn't meant what we think it means" was a forgery. A fraud. A work of deception. No amount of twisting, churning, stretching, and pulling the facts could change that.<br /><br />Keep this in mind. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62530316223153131712015-08-09T03:18:35.448-05:002015-08-09T03:18:35.448-05:00...and back to how many angels can dance on the he......and back to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while Professor Marvel tries to pull the curtain back around him and continue projecting the image of The Great and Powerful Oz. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com