tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post8821550952055270145..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: Seeing the Hand of the Lord: Perspective and TimingJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-44593867902306648722016-07-25T10:32:24.447-05:002016-07-25T10:32:24.447-05:00In response to your (Jeff's) suggestion at the...In response to your (Jeff's) suggestion at the end of this post about other analogies one might think of pertaining to your lily photos, I sat contemplating the final picture you posted. It occurred to me that it could be likened to each of us, that as we face the light (and heat) of the day, we show a side of ourselves that is much more beautiful and meaningful to others than what we might keep hidden in the dark profile of our shadows. It is important that we understand that the Lord comprehends our entire selves, but it is not necessary or appropriate to be completely open to everyone about all aspects of our lives.<br /><br />Also, it might appear that the shadow in the water is the part actually facing the light (since it seems to be blocking it), when in fact it is the real flower doing so. That could remind us to carefully consider the source of our inspiration and enlightened ideas to be sure they are based in truth and real light, and not the illusions of them.bearybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489716403013822895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31965971434251459932016-07-19T21:12:22.818-05:002016-07-19T21:12:22.818-05:00James, because of the analytical way with which yo...James, because of the analytical way with which you seem to approach most subjects here I was intrigued by your statement:<br /><br /><i>I definitely do have my own ideology, but it's one that is comfortable with the existence of legitimate religious texts besides the ones in which I myself find inspiration.</i><br /><br />Assuming that at least some of the texts in which you find inspiration are religious in nature, are you comfortable sharing what those might be, and why you accept them?bearybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489716403013822895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71325030209049498202016-07-19T21:01:23.025-05:002016-07-19T21:01:23.025-05:00The means are important, I suppose, but probably n...The means are important, I suppose, but probably not in the way I think you mean.<br /><br />There are many instances in the scriptures of those who incorrectly based their judgments of the validity of an end on the means. That is one reason why so many rejected Jesus' claims of being the Christ, for example. They looked at his birthplace, background, upbringing, and appearance and judged otherwise.<br /><br />It is expressly stated that "by small and simple means" shall great things be brought to pass.<br /><br />Maybe we shouldn't be so focused on the means sometimes...bearybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489716403013822895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61481857656146245572016-07-11T22:10:32.694-05:002016-07-11T22:10:32.694-05:00James, what is it that compels you to repeatedly s...James, what is it that compels you to repeatedly state opinions on things you know little about?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-63157642111538325422016-07-11T19:31:38.298-05:002016-07-11T19:31:38.298-05:00The problem with that being a problem is that we r...<i>The problem with that being a problem is that we really don't know much about the translation process. Joseph Smith did not leave many details concerning it.</i><br /><br />Others did leave details, enough that the church's own website says he used a peep stone in a hat, as this blog post also admitted. That's enough to show the similarity with scrying and other forms of folk magic. The means matters as much as the end. Judenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51033630850609344772016-07-11T15:50:52.225-05:002016-07-11T15:50:52.225-05:00@ Anonymous 12:06 —
Whether or not you are the sa...@ Anonymous 12:06 —<br /><br />Whether or not you are the same Anonymous with whom I'm at loggerheads now, the point about the Book of Mormon (supposedly) being an edited collection from many authors is a good one. Unless its translation for some reason aimed at producing a single voice, one would expect the language of such a compiled collection to be varied. If a really good translator actually wanted to convey some of the flavor of these diverse styles, one might expect some quite quirky variations in language.<br /><br />One might also expect quirky variation if several conspirators combined to concoct a fake text, or even if just one faker did it in a hurry, with a style that lurched around with the mood of the day. Stylistic variation won't prove authenticity. <br /><br />But if won't disprove it, either. It would be consistent with authenticity, for a compiled text that was expertly translated.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19095157855413291862016-07-11T15:28:41.018-05:002016-07-11T15:28:41.018-05:00The basic reason they fall short is simply that th...The basic reason they fall short is simply that the text of the Book of Mormon, whatever else it may be, is perfectly possible to read and pronounce. Nobody even noticed all these weird linguistic features until quite recently. The text passed for King James English, more or less, for more than one hundred years. That means that there's nothing literally impossible about producing the text of the Book of Mormon. And so the only possible argument against a faked text is that producing the particular kind of language of the Book of Mormon would somehow have been psycholinguistically impossible for anyone like Joseph Smith.<br /><br />But psycholinguistics doesn't deal in impossibilities. People can and do speak and write in all kinds of crazy ways — and not even the most doctrinaire Chomskyan imagines otherwise. Chomskyan innate grammar is about recognizing correct forms in a given dialect. People can freely choose to speak in ways that they know are incorrect in their normal dialects. They can adopt new grammatical rules, and follow them. It's difficult for adults to adopt the precise new rules of a foreign language, but the problem that adult second-language learners face is that they clumsily adopt the wrong new rules, not that they are stuck forever with only the same old rules they learned when they were young.<br /><br />Precisely what kinds of limits so people face when they try to adopt new ways of speaking? That's an active research topic. Most of the basic questions are still open, even for the ordinary case of people trying honestly to learn a living foreign language. There has been very little study, if any, of what psychological barriers there might be for archaic dialects deliberately imitated or invented, for literary reasons or for fraud.<br /><br />If we don't count the Book of Mormon itself, then statistical analysis of the handful of other pseudo-Biblical texts from the 18th and 19th centuries is a decent effort at beginning that kind of study. But it's only the tiniest beginning step, and it can't go much further. There just isn't enough of a corpus to say anything definite. The control group is much too small.<br /><br />Even that baby-step kind of study might conceivably hurt the Book of Mormon, by showing too close a resemblance between the Book's text and one or more confirmed fake texts. But even if all eight of the other pseudo-Biblical documents had proven to be exactly similar to each other (which in fact they aren't), but very different from the Book of Mormon (when in fact they're only all that different in some respects), all that this would have shown would be that Joseph Smith could not have been quite like those other eight guys. By no means would it have proven that he couldn't have written the Book of Mormon. The control group is simply too small to support such strong statements.<br /><br />(I'm not a linguist, but my wife is a full professor of linguistics. She was a post-doc for five years at the same Max Planck Institute that Royal Skousen visited at one point on sabbatical. I've met a lot of her colleagues, some of whom are big names in their fields, and after twenty-odd years of conversations with professional linguists, I think I have some take on how linguists think. So if I make a linguistic claim of my own, you can be skeptical, but if I tell you that your linguistic claim sounds dubious, you might want to re-check it. And by re-checking, I don't just mean re-reading assertions made by a couple of Mormon scholars that haven't even passed linguistics peer review.)James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47247875823150001322016-07-11T15:01:39.227-05:002016-07-11T15:01:39.227-05:00In particular these linguistic arguments just are ...In particular these linguistic arguments just are not very good — as apologetic arguments. That is, they are inherently unable to prove that the text could not have been made up by Joseph Smith and/or associates. I certainly don't mean by that, however, that studying the Book of Mormon language, or making blog posts about such studies, are stupid or pointless things to do.<br /><br />For Mormons who already believe in the Book of Mormon for other reasons, it may be very interesting to learn that its language is a curious hybrid that includes features which might have been more typical in pre-KJV dialects. I myself have even suggested reasons, which might make sense from a Mormon viewpoint, why a divinely translated text should have such an exotic quasi-dialect as its target language.<br /><br />It's only as apologetic arguments, to try to prove the Book's authenticity to non-Mormons, that the linguistic studies fall so far short.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4814438243898755962016-07-11T14:51:30.655-05:002016-07-11T14:51:30.655-05:00Thank you, Jeff. I also object to saying that I li...Thank you, Jeff. I also object to saying that I lie. <br /><br />And I don't think I'm ideologically driven to attack the Book of Mormon, either. I definitely do have my own ideology, but it's one that is comfortable with the existence of legitimate religious texts besides the ones in which I myself find inspiration. I don't believe that the Koran is really the word of God, for instance, but I accept the Muslim claim that Mohammed regularly went into short trances in which he would pronounce these verses, and that his utterances were preserved with reasonable accuracy by followers who were waiting to do just that. I don't speak Arabic, so I'm prepared to accept the statements of people who do speak it, that the Koran is such amazing Arabic poetry that no normal person could have produced it. My theory is that Mohammed was a historically gifted poet, perhaps subconsciously.<br /><br />As far as my ideology is concerned, the Book of Mormon could absolutely have a similar status to the Koran. If I criticize Mormon arguments about the Book of Mormon, it's because I really see problems with the arguments.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3215560775110342112016-07-11T10:08:29.301-05:002016-07-11T10:08:29.301-05:00The problem is that the process for translating th...<i>The problem is that the process for translating the Book of Mormon is indistinguishable from folk magic.</i><br /><br />The problem with that being a problem is that we really don't know much about the translation process. Joseph Smith did not leave many details concerning it.<br /><br />But it exists, and is not easily dismissed by serious inquirers.<br /><br />Go ahead and disprove its claims if you can. In the process you can take down a whole religious movement that seems to be growing. But please hurry, before it fills the earth.bearybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489716403013822895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64405357412258006432016-07-11T09:54:36.360-05:002016-07-11T09:54:36.360-05:00Is there some accepted, standard criteria we can r...<i>Is there some accepted, standard criteria we can refer to determine if a text is "revealed" or not? How can we tell if a text is revealed? Is it possible with to confidently apply this criteria to other texts to ascertain if they are revealed or not? </i><br /><br />If by "revealed" you mean "from God" then yes. The biblical criteria is to "do His will" to know the source. The Book of Mormon criteria would include that, but specifically mentions asking God with real intent, among other things.<br /><br />Do you believe the Bible is the revealed word of God? If so, how did you figure that out?bearybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489716403013822895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-90012369568251328462016-07-10T18:48:27.591-05:002016-07-10T18:48:27.591-05:00I think your characterization of the critical reac...I think your characterization of the critical reaction to Joseph Smith's translation process using a peep stone and a hat is unfair. It isn't just that it's "silly." The problem is that the process for translating the Book of Mormon is indistinguishable from folk magic. We know that folk magic doesn't work, so reasoning by analogy, why should the process work any better when it comes to translating ancient records? To make this point clearer, suppose that Joseph Smith had translated the Book of Mormon using Tarot cards. Wouldn't this raise suspicion about the results? To simply characterize the critical viewpoint as labeling the translation process as "silly" misses the best parts of the criticism. It's much worse than silly. Judenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32582329693423984172016-07-10T12:38:33.323-05:002016-07-10T12:38:33.323-05:00And my apologies for my harsh tone....And my apologies for my harsh tone....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62621190934883874862016-07-09T19:40:26.110-05:002016-07-09T19:40:26.110-05:00My apologies to you and anon. . .My apologies to you and anon. . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75496273565036495032016-07-09T15:27:53.305-05:002016-07-09T15:27:53.305-05:00I have a real dictionary, thank you very much. Sev...I have a real dictionary, thank you very much. Several, in fact. The one here at my desk is a 1981 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and yes, it lists <i>sophisticatedly</i> as an adverb.<br /><br />Did you follow the Merriam-Webster link I provided? <i>Sophisticatedly</i> is right there. You'll find it at Dictionary.com as well.<br /><br />Know where else you'll find it? In the <a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sophisticated?q=sophisticatedly#sophisticated__7" rel="nofollow">Oxford Dictionary of American English.</a><br /><br />Just because something sounds wrong to a grammar snob doesn't mean it really is wrong.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-24737529155222005932016-07-09T14:35:43.814-05:002016-07-09T14:35:43.814-05:00Just because you add an -ly at the end of somethin...Just because you add an -ly at the end of something doesn't make it an adverb. <br /><br />Check a real dictionary or try looking up the word in an online dictionary (even the Merriam-Webster version) and see where it gets you. I don't have access to the OED--maybe there is evidence of EmodE usage and he was channeling Joseph Smith. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-35163952966612364102016-07-09T11:00:49.454-05:002016-07-09T11:00:49.454-05:00FWIW, there's nothing wrong with the use of th...FWIW, there's nothing wrong with the use of the adverb "sophisticatedly" by Anon 12:24. The word is not Anon 12:24's invention, either. (See this <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophisticated" rel="nofollow">Merriam-Webster</a> entry.)<br /><br />Also: am I the only one who thinks "Anon" sounds like a Book of Mormon character?<br /><br /><i>And it came to pass that after Anon had smitten off the head of Ibid, he did address the elders of Passim....</i><br /><br />;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32424809396528553302016-07-08T21:10:22.940-05:002016-07-08T21:10:22.940-05:00This is just too rich. Anon 12:24, in an argument ...This is just too rich. Anon 12:24, in an argument about grammar creates the word "sophisticatedly."<br /><br />so·phis·ti·cat·ed<br />səˈfistəˌkādəd/<br />adjective<br /><br />My smile for the day--thank you :^)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42897970501579994072016-07-08T16:49:08.749-05:002016-07-08T16:49:08.749-05:00I object to saying that Anglin lies. Not assimilat...I object to saying that Anglin lies. Not assimilating or accepting arguments made in an article he may have seen does not make a person a liar. Repeating one's old arguments even when we LDS defenders think we have exposed their foolishness does not make a person a liar. They may be biased, obstinate, contentious, etc., but I think there is no basis for such a harsh label. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-9604768386201306172016-07-08T12:24:22.735-05:002016-07-08T12:24:22.735-05:00OK, Anon 1246a, here you go.
Anglin: "It use...OK, Anon 1246a, here you go.<br /><br />Anglin: "It uses some old-fashioned words." Anglin knows Skousen has discussed a subset of archaic vocabulary from the BofM in at least two places. He also knows Carmack has presented a longish list of possible obsolete vocabulary items. He should know from these writings that this is not all of the archaisms found in the BofM.<br /><br />Anglin: "It overuses some archaic constructions." This is a clear lie, since he knows that the BofM systematically uses archaic constructions on a massive scale appropriately and sophisticatedly. Anglin has read at least one article on point, and probably more. These show with many examples and much analysis that systematic archaic syntax in the BofM is widespread. Agentive "of" is just one more piece of evidence that BofM language is genuinely archaic, beyond what a 19c author could have accomplished.<br /><br />Anglin: "In some passages, though, it sounds a lot more modern." This goes against recent articles on the earliest text. Also, I have gathered that Anglin hasn't studied the earliest text of the BofM (the 2009 Yale edition) and early and late Modern English carefully. If that is so, as seems almost certain to me, then he has no way of knowing that what he wrote is true. Yet he presumes to pass judgment: "That sounds a lot like a fake, to me." He lacks knowledge to make this conclusion, but acts as though he does. He simply makes an assertion against reality because it agrees with a preconceived belief.<br /><br />Anglin is ideologically driven and lies. He usually does so in reasonable language, but if you know the subject matter, it is possible to see through the veneer of fair sounding criticisms. He has studied some, but he ignores a large part of what he has read (including what he has read here) in order to make lying assertions. At this point his musings aren't terribly interesting. He's interested in the BofM and Mormonism for some reason. But he's ideologically dug in, so new insights into the BofM, even though some of them are substantive and groundbreaking, do not change his mind. He makes assertions against what Joseph Smith and many scribes and witnesses said. He makes assertions against recent evidence he has recently read. But when confronted with counter-assertions, he reveals himself to be a firm anti-Mormon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60891814664401372302016-07-08T00:46:52.591-05:002016-07-08T00:46:52.591-05:00Anon 12:28
I'd be curious to know specifics. ...Anon 12:28<br /><br />I'd be curious to know specifics. It's pretty weak to follow up James' detaled and reasoned argument with "I question your judgement." It causes one to question your position and your ability to judge. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51859869445232563332016-07-08T00:06:19.435-05:002016-07-08T00:06:19.435-05:00One thing that consistently seems to be overlooked...One thing that consistently seems to be overlooked in these linguistic studies is the "fact" that the Book of Mormon is a compilation of writings by many different authors over hundreds of years. This distinction is muddled by it being an abridgment by Mormon and then a translation by Joseph Smith. If these narratives were written by different authors however, there should be linguistic and stylistc differences captured in the translation. Therefore, any study that considers the entire book without taking this into account hasn't done its due dilligence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79225854273759247342016-07-06T14:04:28.755-05:002016-07-06T14:04:28.755-05:00I made some typos, which is why I reposted....if t...I made some typos, which is why I reposted....if that is a precarious situation in your opinion, you are delusional. The content of my two contributions are the same. The fact that you fail to address the content is sad. <br /><br />What is the criteria by which we can consistently and effectively determine if a book is a "revealed text?" <br /><br />Declaring that a text is a "revealed text" may sound perfectly rational in discussions with other Mormons. But in discussions with just about anyone else, it sounds really juvenile. <br /><br />But if you believe in such things, surely you have some sort of criteria by which you can determine which texts are revealed and which are not. So what is it? <br /><br /> Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8187307756101464012016-07-06T12:28:22.960-05:002016-07-06T12:28:22.960-05:00ebu, I think you know you've placed yourself i...ebu, I think you know you've placed yourself in a precarious position. So be it.<br /><br />Anglin, you're not very convincing, and I question your judgment, and I find it rather unfortunate.<br /><br />Nevertheless, best wishes to both of you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39261382551918601122016-07-06T11:00:35.958-05:002016-07-06T11:00:35.958-05:00The match between the BofM and the KJB is extensiv...The match between the BofM and the KJB is extensive, impressive, and complex. There is a large amount of expertly interwoven biblical language in the BofM text, something one would not expect possible from what is known of its production. Nick Frederick has studied this. The BofM matches biblical language better than pseudo-biblical writings.<br /><br />The match between the BofM and eModE is extensive, impressive, and complex. There is a large amount of systematic older usage that is not found in the KJB but which is primarily or exclusively attested in the period before the year 1700, something one would not expect possible from what is known of its production. Pseudo-biblical writings represent a control, and have been used by various researchers to declare that the BofM was possible for Joseph Smith. But it turns out that the BofM exceeds them in many types of archaic usage.<br /><br />Jeff, the study I saw hasn't been published yet but it probably will appear next year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com