tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post5744452052621685156..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: Remembering Thomas S. Monson: The Painful Obituary from the New York TimesJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72325837272381234212018-02-01T11:57:32.564-06:002018-02-01T11:57:32.564-06:00The Times obits did not treat Thomas Monson harshl...The <i>Times</i> obits did not treat Thomas Monson harshly, nor did they celebrate Hugh Hefner. Both obits were accurate, balanced, and geared toward the values and concerns of the general readership of the <i>Times</i>, rather than an audience of LDS churchgoers --- that's all.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23366421467032763662018-01-25T15:12:59.415-06:002018-01-25T15:12:59.415-06:00Way to stifle the truth, Jeff.Way to stifle the truth, Jeff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-11551578333210362812018-01-24T21:35:08.582-06:002018-01-24T21:35:08.582-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34832392391030047152018-01-24T10:40:52.666-06:002018-01-24T10:40:52.666-06:00Agreed. Language is an ever-evolving social constr...Agreed. Language is an ever-evolving social construct. I think this discussion is good evidence of why it is such a stretch for Cormack and other LDS linguists to claim that the BoM is an Early Modern English text. They cite instances of usage from the entire breadth of the period as evidence but provide no explanation as to <i>why</i> there are usages from the entire breadth of the period. Language is ever evolving--a native EmodE speaker from the beginning of the period wouldn't be using constructions from the end of the period and vice versa. It's comparable to a current-day American English speaker using the term gay to describe joy. That term has changed in less than a hundred years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48855610729542684252018-01-24T10:21:46.046-06:002018-01-24T10:21:46.046-06:00By that logic, we should be able to use the term e...<i>By that logic, we should be able to use the term execute to mean someone killed or severely injured by the government.</i><br /><br />The meaning of a word is a matter of social convention, of usage, not logic.<br /><br /><i>Curious to know when societal misuse caught up with the "official" definition.</i><br /><br />This is an empirical question, and it might make for an interesting research project in Linguistics 101. Note, however, that once the "misuse" of a term becomes widely enough accepted it ceases to be misuse.<br /><br />The meaning of a word is not necessarily determined by logic or consistency --- e.g., the fact that <i>arachnophobia</i> means "fear of spiders" does not mean that <i>homophobia</i> has to mean "fear of gay people" instead of "dislike of or prejudice against gay people."<br /><br />Nor is the meaning of a word determined by its original meaning. I think we can all agree that <i>hussy</i> no longer means "housewife."<br /><br />Since this sort of discussion, if it goes on long enough, almost always seems to devolve into an argument about descriptivism vs. prescriptivism generally, let me just cut to the quick and refer anyone interested to the <a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.html" rel="nofollow"> classic Language Log post</a> on that topic.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22268393600411165232018-01-23T19:21:06.867-06:002018-01-23T19:21:06.867-06:00Just re-checked my 1993 Merriam Webster hard copy-...Just re-checked my 1993 Merriam Webster hard copy--no mention of injury. Curious to know when societal misuse caught up with the "official" definition. . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32277741420656605202018-01-23T18:40:29.835-06:002018-01-23T18:40:29.835-06:00That's news to me. By that logic, we should be...That's news to me. By that logic, we should be able to use the term execute to mean someone killed <i>or</i> severely injured by the government. I guess if it can happen to gay, it can happen to electrocute. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80897525637269678092018-01-23T10:31:19.628-06:002018-01-23T10:31:19.628-06:00Anon 9:32 writes, Electrocution means death by ele...Anon 9:32 writes, <i>Electrocution means death by electric shock.</i><br /><br />The definition encompasses <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/electrocute" rel="nofollow">injury</a> as well as death.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57791445001617544062018-01-23T09:32:45.639-06:002018-01-23T09:32:45.639-06:00Electrocution means death by electric shock. Bein...Electrocution means death by electric shock. Being electrocuted would cure you of anything since, by definition, you would be dead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42833384516253283252018-01-20T23:23:24.130-06:002018-01-20T23:23:24.130-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31227054892293488362018-01-20T16:16:41.166-06:002018-01-20T16:16:41.166-06:00Carlos Slim, who is a Mexican citizen born to Leba...Carlos Slim, who is a Mexican citizen born to Lebanese Catholic parents, owns 17% of the <i>New York Times</i>. The bulk of the rest is owned by the publicly traded The New York Times Company.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-78021262744990680792018-01-20T13:46:23.351-06:002018-01-20T13:46:23.351-06:00The NYT is owned by a half Mexican half Lebanese c...The NYT is owned by a half Mexican half Lebanese communist who is not a citizen of the U.S A , and who goes by the name of Carlos Slim, which is not his real name. <br /><br />The New York Times praised Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and other communists and those who worship and push debauchery such as Hugh Hefner.<br /> <br />Non Mormon prominent voices blasted the New York Slimes for the attack on Mr. Monson. They need to be thanked for what they did. I did not see one prominent Mormon with a national voice blast the NYT. And I know why, which is very disgusting and shows what is happening to the Mormon church overall. <br /><br />Unfortunately too many Mormons, especially prominent Mormons who claim to be oh so righteous Mormons, are also politicized and defend their buddies (and their own actions) who attack those who hold opposing views. The hypocrisy is thick, eh Mr. Lindsey( and buddies?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28839120464954284912018-01-19T18:04:07.518-06:002018-01-19T18:04:07.518-06:00Anon, don't assume that your dislike of Presid...Anon, don't assume that your dislike of President Monson represents that of Mormon women in general. Millions of Mormon women and men sustained President Monson as a prophet of God and admired him for his compassion and Christlike service. Yes, a few vocal critics have criticized him, but to focus on those few and assume that his attitude toward women does not reflect basic human decency is not reasonable. Ditto for for those who assume that anyone who differs with their views on gender issues or same-sex marriage is a bigot. The issues are complex and reasonable people can hold different moral and social views. Demonizing those who disagree is simply not reasonable, nor is it appropriate for an obituary, especially when those who have caused significant harm to so many people (Castro, Hefner) get glamorized in their obituaries when they have similar political leanings or social agendas as the publisher. That's not journalism, and that's Gordon's point. <br />Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71206253836319281192018-01-19T18:01:14.318-06:002018-01-19T18:01:14.318-06:00To the "everything was accurate and relevant&...To the "everything was accurate and relevant" Anonymous, I'm not sure if you read much of my post or anything of Scott Gordon's before you shared your opinion, but I wanted readers to notice that the grievance wasn't merely that the Times wasn't adequately flattering, but that serious factual errors were made that may reveal serious bias and perhaps a political agenda at the cost of real journalism. <br /><br />If you did read the post and still insist that there was nothing that wasn't accurate, could you please clarify what facts you are aware of that might support your view with respect to Gordon's first contention? That is, can you provide any credible examples that show "Many Mormons faced sanctions for joining online forums questioning church positions on women’s roles"?<br /><br />I have never known of any Church sanction to a Mormon solely for joining an online forum. Sure, being a vocal critic of the Church in public can have repercussions, but just joining an online forum has not led to sanctions, to my knowledge, nor does merely questioning LDS policies. Questioning is fine and happens frequently. Leading public outcry and condemning the Church is a different matter. <br /><br />Note that the statement "Many Mormons faced sanctions for joining online forums questioning church positions on women’s roles" has been changed somewhat since the obituary first appeared. I saw the sentence Gordon quotes in the original obituary on Archive.org, but very strangely Archive.org is now saying it doesn't have that version. Not sure what's going on there, but it seems like the Times must have changed that line pretty quickly after publication and pushback. You can see <a href="http://pktodaynews.com/thomas-monson-president-of-the-mormon-church-dies-at-90/" rel="nofollow">a copy of the original article at PKTodayNews.com</a>. <br /><br />Since they backed off on that point, I guess the Times has recognized it was something of a stretch. Now it's "Some Mormons faced sanctions for questioning church positions on women’s roles." Not as blatantly ridiculous, but still improper. Again, questioning alone is never a cause for sanctions, as far as I can tell. <br /><br />There are other issues Gordon raises, but let's start there. I'm interested in your reasons why Error #1 in the obituary is not an error but, in fact, entirely accurate. <br /><br />Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-11684326468301721932018-01-19T15:13:48.297-06:002018-01-19T15:13:48.297-06:00The NYT obituary of President Hinckley was very go...The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/28hinckley.html" rel="nofollow">NYT obituary of President Hinckley</a> was very good. Having a religion correspondent cover a religious figure was simple common sense; Goodstein painted a balanced portrait, neither shying away from nor obsessing over the hot-button issues during Hinckley's tenure. The Monson obituary is a clear step backwards.Jim Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29598908870788718472018-01-18T21:00:19.074-06:002018-01-18T21:00:19.074-06:00There wasn't anything in the NYT obit that was...There wasn't anything in the <i>NYT</i> obit that wasn't accurate and relevant. <br /><br />If it wasn't flattering that's because a news agency isn't in the business of flattering the powerful. And if it was painful to Mormons then perhaps it's time to review where the church is in relation to women and gay people. The fact that the many wailings of the Mormon faithful weren't <i>congratulating</i> Monson for his regressive defense against what most Americans now consider to be merely human decency speaks volumes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28034562180187809942018-01-18T19:11:17.333-06:002018-01-18T19:11:17.333-06:00What the NYTimes inadvertently taught us is that w...What the NYTimes inadvertently taught us is that we can spend our whole lives reaching out to others in kindness and love, as President Monson did, and it matters nothing to them in comparison with whether we toe their fickle cultural lines.<br />Thank you for posting this well-deserved rebuttal.C Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01178189190498225759noreply@blogger.com