tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post5870967916909855525..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 Surprise in the Dictated Language of the Book of MormonJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-54681483666615976902017-07-13T15:31:10.606-05:002017-07-13T15:31:10.606-05:00Abusing the word “obviously”? “Church points of v...Abusing the word “obviously”? “Church points of view” and “LDS views of things” are not obviously different to the rest of humanity.<br /><br />If you are stuck on getting nick picky, Mormanity is “Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.” Mormanity does not promote the “LDS view of things”, he moves it towards the critics.<br /><br />If you found my comments to be dismissive, it is only because your early comments were.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability<br />If you can’t proving something false, then you can’t prove it true.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4894820237975038462017-07-13T11:41:07.314-05:002017-07-13T11:41:07.314-05:00Please explain the importance and relevance of the...Please explain the importance and relevance of the "principle of falsifiability" as it pertains to true knowledge. I don't recall ever hearing about that principle before, or perhaps not stated that way.<br /><br />And you wouldn't be trying to be "dismissive" would you, by stating that these discussions are of little utility. Seems I was accused of that because of something i said earlier.<br /><br />I was thinking about this blog earlier, wondering how many participants in this discussion have actually read the Book of Mormon. I can see how it might be more appealing to argue about it than to actually read it, especially if one doesn't mind spending so much time doing something of little utility.bearybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489716403013822895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12527300726550191032017-07-13T11:13:48.992-05:002017-07-13T11:13:48.992-05:00Of course Jeff consistently states that he does no...Of course Jeff consistently states that he does not represent official Church points of view. That is appropriate and as it should be. And that's not how I characterized his blog. I said they are a "promotion of the LDS view of things."<br /><br />That's obviously not the same as claiming official authority.bearybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489716403013822895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42467105846639492322017-07-12T19:54:33.578-05:002017-07-12T19:54:33.578-05:00"Here you assume or stipulate a single transl..."Here you assume or stipulate a single translator. Why?"<br /><br />I guess I'm going by what the church claims: that JS was the translator. Do you have doctrine from the church that shows otherwise?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67331155962497191652017-07-12T15:39:48.439-05:002017-07-12T15:39:48.439-05:00Hiser -
Ha, ha and yawn ....
“Whether he is or i...Hiser -<br /><br />Ha, ha and yawn ....<br /><br />“Whether he is or is not a preferred author is irrelevant.” <br /><br />Now you are agreeing with me.<br /><br />“And I didn't imply or state that Joseph "distrusted his own divinely derived dictation".” <br /><br />Obviously, as you know, you did. If I you did not, you would have clarified what part of "distrusted his own divinely derived dictation" you don’t like. Those that nick pick defacto admit defeat on the items they do not nick pick, therefore you conceded that you indeed implied “ recklessly editing the most correct scripture without the proper linguistic training.”<br /><br />“Mormography has rashly jumped to a number of false conclusions. M also throws around the term ad hominem indiscriminately.”<br /><br />If that was true you would have been able to prove it. <br /><br />“M can do better than this.”<br /><br />I could easily do better. I successfully exposed your contradictions with only a fraction of my brain. Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-66477396124784803622017-07-12T13:23:47.130-05:002017-07-12T13:23:47.130-05:00This is a faulty assumption or stipulation: "...This is a faulty assumption or stipulation: "If EmodE usage was intentional--transmitted to Joseph by a native EmodE speaker--why are the usages so scattered throughout the EmodE period?" Here you assume or stipulate a single translator. Why?Hisernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43699028738174990722017-07-12T09:54:53.366-05:002017-07-12T09:54:53.366-05:00Hiser,
You make a number of faulty assumptions in...Hiser,<br /><br />You make a number of faulty assumptions in your 5:10 post above and have attacked me, but you've still failed to answer the questions I posed. Alluding to a questionable study isn't proof of something and is evidence of a poor argument. Why don't you answer the question by providing us with specific details from Skousen's work that prove your take on things? You complain that I haven't taken the time to carefully study the work but exhibit no evidence that you have. You're arguing from a position of conjured authority based on someone else's questioned authority.<br /><br />If you are an expert in the subject, perhaps you can answer the question that Carmack so carefully avoided answering above. If EmodE usage was intentional--transmitted to Joseph by a native EmodE speaker--why are the usages so scattered throughout the EmodE period? A native speaker would use EmodE constructions familiar to himself/herself from his or her time within the period, but usages from the breadth of the period are anachronistic. How do you explain it? Also, why are there usages from within as well as without the period? Why is the text EmodE only "in large part" and why does it reach "back in time to the transition period"?<br /><br />http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865609214/The-very-surprising-language-of-the-Book-of-Mormon.html<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34675629546508221582017-07-12T09:06:15.792-05:002017-07-12T09:06:15.792-05:00The data on 1837 editing is in Skousen, Grammatica...The data on 1837 editing is in Skousen, Grammatical Variation, 2016. It is nowhere else. Whether he is or is not a preferred author is irrelevant. And I didn't imply or state that Joseph "distrusted his own divinely derived dictation". Also, the 116 pages is a different matter entirely. Obviously, Mormography has rashly jumped to a number of false conclusions. M also throws around the term ad hominem indiscriminately. M can do better than this.Hisernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-5593548347053413032017-07-12T02:43:59.471-05:002017-07-12T02:43:59.471-05:00Bearyb –
“the underlying reason for Jeff's po...Bearyb –<br /><br />“the underlying reason for Jeff's postings”<br /><br />On the contrary, Mormanity consistently states he does not represent the LDS view. He, like FAIRMORMON, do not make official statements for the LDS church. Mormanity is an iconoclast constantly and openly overthrowing traditional Mormon ideas.<br /><br />“none of these discussions will prove or disprove anything about the nature of the most important kind of knowledge we should seek.”<br /><br />Exactly, that is why these discussions are not discussions, genuine dialogue, and of little utility. Ideas lacking the principle of falsifiability, contribute very little to knowledge.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-14960897382607329582017-07-12T02:43:02.299-05:002017-07-12T02:43:02.299-05:00Hiser –
You demand others share data and study yo...Hiser – <br />You demand others share data and study your preferred authors, but share no data yourself. Then resort to more ad hominem attacks and engage in silly semantics.<br /><br />Most bizarre of all, while railing against an anon commenter for lacking your preferred study and analysis, you fail to realize you implicitly attack JS for the same. According to you, JS distrusted his own divinely derived dictation, recklessly editing the most correct scripture without the proper linguistic training. Form your perspective, it appears JS learned little from the lost 116 pages.<br />Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-26232852916742307632017-07-11T19:49:44.849-05:002017-07-11T19:49:44.849-05:00to Anonymous 6:13 PM, June 29
On the contrary, I ...to Anonymous 6:13 PM, June 29<br /><br />On the contrary, I appreciate Jeff's multiple contributions and attempts at enlightening the rest of us about some very interesting discoveries.<br /><br />But then so many ensuing arguments arise over whether this or that proves or disproves the claims of the Book of Mormon, or whether Joseph Smith was a prophet.<br /><br />If the arguments were limited only to linguistic analysis for its own sake, that's one thing - and fine with me.<br /><br />Of course, we cannot forget the underlying reason for Jeff's postings, which I understand to be the promotion of the LDS view of things.<br /><br />Likewise, we should not forget that none of these discussions will prove or disprove anything about the nature of the most important kind of knowledge we should seek.<br /><br />If Jeff's postings arouse enough curiosity in an individual that they look beyond the arguments thrown back and forth here, and into the prescribed way that the most important truths can be known, I think even he would agree that would be preferential.bearybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489716403013822895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88828389683780779572017-07-11T17:10:32.807-05:002017-07-11T17:10:32.807-05:00Well, it would be helpful if one name had been con...Well, it would be helpful if one name had been consistently used along the way. No one should be expected to link up a series of anonymous posts as coming from a single individual.<br /><br />"Why the need to retranslate the translation?"<br /><br />Have you studied Skousen 2016 on this point? Nothing you've written gives any evidence that you have. Yet you go on as if you have valid points to make based on study. Are you interested in knowing the data? Maybe you are but haven't gotten around to it. Obviously the potential for misleading others is high when you throw out unfounded opinions, but it hasn't stopped you from doing it.<br /><br />Of course Joseph didn't need to alter the translation. He chose to edit it. His editing was inconsistent.<br /><br />"Inherent in the act of revision is recognition of error."<br /><br />Wrong. There are many potential reasons for revising any writing. "Recognition of error" is not established by revision.<br /><br />"If Joseph knew it was archaic and wanted to keep an archaic text, he could have done so."<br /><br />He knew it was archaic generally, but wasn't familiar with many of the archaisms, and so how could he have been sure that many of the archaisms were actually archaic? He wasn't an English philologist. Of course he could have kept the text the way it was, but he chose to change it and modernize a lot of things. Maybe you know of something Joseph said related to his reasons for editing the text, something you could share with us.<br /><br />"The other, more logical alternative, is he became more informed, realized there were many errors, and sought to correct them."<br /><br />It is ridiculous to make this statement without study and analysis. Without that you have no way of knowing whether this is a likely view of things. In 1837 Joseph wasn't a language expert. He didn't know enough or have the resources to isolate and correct a variety of "errors" reliably.Hisernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86880468709153521532017-07-10T17:54:25.611-05:002017-07-10T17:54:25.611-05:00"They show an incurious attitude, and that id..."They show an incurious attitude, and that ideology is of primary importance for the person who made them."<br /><br />I wrote 3 lines of text and in those 3 lines, I asked three different, relevant questions. I'm not sure how that demonstrates an incurious attitude. They definitely were not rhetorical questions and yet, no one has answered them. If you look through this discussion, there are several on-topic questions I have asked that I'm extremely desirous (see what I did there?) to have answered--unfortunately they have not been addressed.<br /><br />Also claiming that ideology is "of primary importance" isn't born out by the discussion. Concern with research methods and proof of assertions have been my primary points of contention--beliefs haven't been part of it. You seem to be grafting your own bias onto things. Are your beliefs somehow tied to the BoM being an EmodE text? If so, you may want to go back to a Gospel Principles class for a year or two. . . Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-17220826944578161392017-07-10T15:41:13.475-05:002017-07-10T15:41:13.475-05:00You see, Anon 9:16, you just admitted you resort t...You see, Anon 9:16, you just admitted you resort to irrelevant, ad hominem, strawmen attacks indicating that ideology is the primary importance to you. You are jumping at what you mistook for your reflection. Self-hate?<br /><br />Anon 12:52p was responding to Jason Robertson’s contradictory reasoning. Turning the issue of a random commenter’s (Jason Robertson) hasty and poorly thought 30 words into a “serious study” is on definitely on the extreme margins of normal human psychology.<br />Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20172669668964047692017-07-10T09:16:14.039-05:002017-07-10T09:16:14.039-05:00Anon 12:52p: Inherent in the act of revision is re...Anon 12:52p: <i>Inherent in the act of revision is recognition of error. Else why revise? If Joseph knew it was archaic and wanted to keep an archaic text, he could have done so. The other, more logical alternative, is he became more informed, realized there were many errors, and sought to correct them.</i><br /><br />You see, Mormography, the above observations don't appear to be founded on serious study of the issue. They show an incurious attitude, and that ideology is of primary importance for the person who made them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22483649305393745532017-07-08T14:19:17.878-05:002017-07-08T14:19:17.878-05:00Anon 7:31a, What is the relevance of your ad homin...Anon 7:31a, What is the relevance of your ad hominem in the form of a strawman?Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4364226487454686392017-07-08T07:31:33.341-05:002017-07-08T07:31:33.341-05:00Anon 12:52p, if you know so much about this topic,...Anon 12:52p, if you know so much about this topic, then why don't you tell us what Joseph's most frequent edit was for the 1837 edition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23317840595422306362017-07-07T20:54:21.066-05:002017-07-07T20:54:21.066-05:00Anon – Don’t sweat it. People who pretend they do...Anon – Don’t sweat it. People who pretend they do not understand the basic principle of falsifiability who then declare you need to study more and your reasoning flawed only further damn themselves.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79969893847547195392017-07-07T12:52:30.561-05:002017-07-07T12:52:30.561-05:00"The 1837 revision indicates that the text Jo..."The 1837 revision indicates that the text Joseph dictated was archaic even for Joseph's own time and he modernized it for his contemporary audience."<br /><br />How does this follow logically? Why the need to retranslate the translation? Inherent in the act of revision is recognition of error. Else why revise? If Joseph knew it was archaic and wanted to keep an archaic text, he could have done so. The other, more logical alternative, is he became more informed, realized there were many errors, and sought to correct them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29687164934760183682017-07-07T12:08:31.088-05:002017-07-07T12:08:31.088-05:00You really don't know what you're writing ...You really don't know what you're writing about, Anon 9:12am. Obviously you haven't tried to get up to speed on the subject. Many of these facts are already known and discussed elsewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85656833748240084842017-07-07T11:59:11.583-05:002017-07-07T11:59:11.583-05:00Anonymous said:
"Mr. Cormac,
There are a co...Anonymous said:<br /><br />"Mr. Cormac,<br /><br />There are a couple of flaws in your reasoning showing more critical thinking is indicated. . .<br /><br />1) If the grammar was edited by Joseph in 1837, it's obvious he found flaws in the text. Are you saying he was less inspired in the 1837 revision than he was in the original translation? If there weren't mistakes in the grammar (what Joseph recognized as mistakes), why was it revised?"<br /><br />The flaws are in Anonymous's reasoning. The 1837 revision indicates that the text Joseph dictated was archaic even for Joseph's own time and he modernized it for his contemporary audience.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09789738497441251760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-27229977357789499542017-07-07T11:58:19.507-05:002017-07-07T11:58:19.507-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09789738497441251760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37489398565812310252017-07-07T09:12:34.304-05:002017-07-07T09:12:34.304-05:00Mr. Cormac,
There are a couple of flaws in your r...Mr. Cormac,<br /><br />There are a couple of flaws in your reasoning showing more critical thinking is indicated. . .<br /><br />1) If the grammar was edited by Joseph in 1837, it's obvious he found flaws in the text. Are you saying he was less inspired in the 1837 revision than he was in the original translation? If there weren't mistakes in the grammar (what Joseph recognized as mistakes), why was it revised?<br /><br />2) If Joseph undertook the 1837 revision, it's obvious that he learned something about grammar in the interim. He became more educated and realized that the text he created was chock full of errors and set out to correct them. This bears out my argument above that he learned something about grammar and future revelations did not contain many of the same errors. My hypothesis is that the BoM dictation was the catalyst for that learning, though I haven't the time, resources, or expertise to explore that further.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-17125339590361787852017-07-07T08:29:15.828-05:002017-07-07T08:29:15.828-05:00[I]t's probably good to wait for the computeri...<i>[I]t's probably good to wait for the computerized collation and a tagged Yale edition to come out.</i><br /><br />Better than that would be some actual peer review.<br /><br />The fact that Mr. Carmack avoids genuine outside peer review speaks volumes.<br /><br />The fact that Jeff Lindsay is not the first one demanding genuine outside peer review tells us quite a bit as well.<br /><br />-- OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37141921975184295782017-07-06T15:50:46.967-05:002017-07-06T15:50:46.967-05:00Anon 1102:
First, your comments show that you lac...Anon 1102:<br /><br />First, your comments show that you lack background in this material--a need for study is indicated. Second, most of the grammatical mistakes in the Book of Mormon aren't actually grammatical mistakes. Third, Joseph and Oliver and other scribes could make visual and auditory mistakes as well as substitution mistakes. Fourth, it is well known that the printer asked Martin Harris about typesetting apparent grammatical errors, and Harris said to set what was found in the printer's manuscript. Fifth, Joseph edited heavily for grammar in 1837, modernizing inconsistently. Sixth, most of the Book of Mormon's "bad grammar" is Early Modern English, since almost all of the verbal system is.<br /><br />Some simple cases of "bad grammar" that are verified as being part of Joseph's own grammar (like plural <i>was</i>) could be part of the original text or could come from Joseph, Oliver, or another scribe. However, it is a very difficult task to determine which cases out of many potential candidates are likely dictation mistakes. One could try to estimate the rate of occurrence of simple bad grammar, but how does one go about accurately determining an uncorrected dictation error rate? If the latter is determinable, odds could be calculated for any single item of simple nonstandard grammar being due to human error. It would be a low probability. It's not a very interesting question to me at the present time, but you may be interested in it enough to undertake it. However, it's probably good to wait for the computerized collation and a tagged Yale edition to come out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com