Carborendum

Members
  • Posts

    4498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    200

Everything posted by Carborendum

  1. OK, I forgot we were talking about the BoM. I was still thinking about Shakespeare. Back to the BoM. "attempt to mimic it." You say that like it's a bad thing. It was actually quite common among the VERY Christian 19th century America. Families were raised on the KJV. People would quote the KJV as part of every day speech. They used the KJV to teach the children how to read. People used the Bible to learn foreign languages. They'd have a Bible in English, one in the foreign language, a bilingual dictionary, and a grammar book. That's how common it was to know and understand that language. Yes, the common 19th century America had its own vernacular and speech patterns. But in common practice, when someone wanted to make a point, the KJV was their go-to for authority on right and wrong. And they avoided paraphrasing or "modernizing" it. They quoted. And everyone understood because that was what they were raised with. In fact, I don't think I've ever read any of the 19th century critics of the BoM complain that the archaic language was one of their complaints. That seems to be entirely a modern invention to complain about it. Even in the latter half of the 20th century when I grew up, as Christianity was fading, I was raised to pray like that. I was raised reading the KJV. So, I really don't think much of the linguistic differences. This was the culture that Joseph Smith was raised in. So, it is no wonder that when translating a work that was to go side-by-side with the KJV, that he used the same language as the KJV as far as he knew how. This basically consisted of using "thou art" instead of "you are." Pretty simple. I just don't see the fuss. One school of thought was that Joseph considered not only the KJV to be sacred, but the KJV language itself to be sacred. So, when being scriptural, it only made sense for him to use that language as best he could. I certainly wouldn't fault him for thinking the Bible is sacred. I'd like your honest opinion as to which "sounds better". Not more familiar, but better. And I'll just modernize the thee and verb conjugation. Yes, they say the same thing. But the second is just plain boring. If I wanted the reader to fall asleep, I'd write it in that manner. And notice the use of the present progressive vs. the present indicative. There is more power and more formality in the indicative than the progressive. It speaks to the mind differently. Not only that, we have the "ending a sentence with a preposition" issue. That is how we speak today. That is common speech. And according to my English teacher, it isn't "incorrect". But it is stylistically weaker to do so. Is that how we want scriptures to sound like? Remember that scriptures are to convey an overall message that paints a picture and conveys emotion as well as forensic information. "My heart goaneth" is quite emotional in such a way that we can relate. When I hear "I feel sad", I tend to roll my eyes and someone who is just complaining. Then there is the improper pronoun usage of "who". It is the object of the sentence. But people today talk like that. Is that what you want? What is different about "speaking like people talk today" vs "contemporary with proper grammar" vs "speaking with a different grammar that was once correct, like the day it was written?" Aside: I always feel pricked when I hear people use "you and I" when they should say "you and me". Similarly, people who always use "whom" regardless of object / subject. Anyway. Yes, there are reasons to use this language. Is it sacred? I don't know. I tend to like it. Is it wrong to change the language to a more contemporary vernacular? I don't know about "wrong", but I think things will get lost as we do so.
  2. Out of curiosity, what does "church" mean to you? Is there only one definition? Or do you use the same word with different meanings for different contexts?
  3. Yes, it was better. But you pretty much nailed it. To your earlier point, yes, it may be a personal preference. But I cannot put aside the elegance of the Bard's choice of words. Such meaning and weaving of sound, meaning, metaphor, and trickery of linguistics. "Out. Out, brief candle." (I'm sure this inspired Elton John). "This proud o'er-hanging firmament (look, you, the sky)." (I wonder if it inspired "High Flight"). "And anything that may not misbecome The Mighty Sender, doth he prize you at." (I have a book of "Shakespeare's Inuslts"). "‘Our doubts are traitors, And make us lose the good we oft might win, By fearing to attempt." And interesting words like "aroint". No, we don't use that one anymore. Is there any that can compare? I have read Cyrano de Bergerac in the original French. I've read the original Don Quixote in the original Spanish. And I get the story and the emotional meanings of the passages. Unfortunately, I can't grasp the beauty of the language since it isn't my primary language. But with English, yes, I see the beauty of the archaic tongue. Does anything compare to Shakespeare? "By the Eternal! There is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land." (Oh, wait, I believe it is.) "When in the course of human events... we mutually to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." "... to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." Language was not invented to communicate, but to cause women to swoon. Yet, I find myself swooning at the beauty of such language. Me, a man of numbers. I appreciate beauty in all things. Numbers are not beautiful. They simply are. My wife is beauty incarnate. The painted pictures of intricate language is also beautiful. "The tulip field's sunrise after the rain." Yes, beauty in words is something that tends to mesmerize me.
  4. If we take all your points here and put it together with other things we know, the point of intersection of these lines would be that the photograph is of Joseph III. That would be supported by the fact that while I don't believe it is Joseph II's face, it certainly would pass for a near male relative. @scottyg mentioned Samuel. That's also a possibility. But being in Bertha's locket, a more likely candidate would be Joseph III. Your theory of the picture being from her side of the family is also valid. But that would discount any blood relation to Joseph II. It is also possible that Bertha's family shared some physiological/facial similarities with the Smith family.
  5. I think I sort of understand. I'm not really a collector myself.
  6. Agreed. I understand he arrived on April 27th. I did not know he was staying at the Smith mansion at the time. That is certainly a fact that pushes the meter more towards credibility. Yes, yes. I'm familiar with the technology. Makes sense. No, the studio (the place where pictures are taken) doesn't take much time at all. My father (a professional photographer) had a mobile set that he could set up in an hour. It was the gathering of equipment, supplies, etc. Then the actual equipment to be used needed to be set up. If he already set it up prior to the prophet's death, then he could easily have moved it the few blocks away to his residence. It would have taken maybe a day to have people help him move the stuff. But it wouldn't have taken four months. It certainly took longer than today's technology. But according to the latest tour of the print house in Nauvoo, they said it took a couple of days for a full article. The only reason for it to take longer is if it required unusual artwork. That article you posted only had common text. I could believe that. If all the rest happened, that would certainly seem reasonable. That is a good point. And it would explain the difference in the cheek-to-mouth crease that I noticed. But it does not explain other differences. Perhaps there are other explanations for these additional differences. But there are still other differences. This may actually counter the previous point above. The reason why people didn't smile in old photos is that it is difficult to smile for 20 to 30 min a stretch. Smiling takes muscles. Death does not. The muscles in the cheek bones don't droop. Fatty cheeks do. Joseph was not a fatty. Yup. Agreed. I disagree that this fact explains ALL the differences I see.
  7. OK, you got me on those. I wouldn't have gotten those either. But my point still stands, the vast majority of the Book of Mormon is fairly easy to understand as long as you can get past the pronoun usage. I'm sure you could find a few exceptions. But the fact is that you can find such exceptions in most long books written to a post college audience. So, what's the problem? Do you really want it written so a 6th grader could understand it (esp. today's 6th graders)? If I saw a book like that claiming to be written as formal scripture, I'd probably drop it like a bad habit.
  8. I'm curious about this. Help me understand. I realize many people would find this really exciting. You're apparently one, as are many on this forum. For myself, I don't get it. It's a photograph. Whether real or not, what does it actually do for us? I don't understand it. I understand historical records. So, yes, put it in a museum or archive for preservation. I understand "memories". Photographs can often spark memories of events and feelings during those events. And if it is a memory that has faded, the photo can spark those memories and feelings anew. Sound great. But this is a person we have no living memory of. We know "about" him from books, writings, stories, etc. All those things we have access to without the aid of a photo that was taken in a studio that we have no memory of. So, what is the deal? Maybe it is one of those things that comes from a person of my background. But I just don't get it.
  9. I can't speak on behalf of the English, but if someone were to "appropriately" quote the Bard as the situation calls for it, I'd think that was perfectly fine. But there is the issue of communication. I once quoted Merchant of Venice to a friend of mine who was moderately educated. He had no idea what I said. But that happens if you speak out of someone's knowledge base. Try this joke: Just because the person I'm talking to doesn't get it, doesn't mean it isn't funny. I'd believe that most "educated" Brits, and many "educated" Americans understand those words since they come from the most famous soliloquy of all time. But then again, it is like saying the one recognizes Beethoven's 5th because one knows four notes. So, there's that... I'm just weird because I generally look up words when I don't understand them. Then I tend to remember the definitions.
  10. I can speak to the Spanish and French versions. It is easier for them to understand it than English speakers understand the KJV. The primary difference is the use of pronouns and their verb conjugations. Take that out, and we're not that far from the KJV. And as a Brit, I'm confused why you consider it more difficult to understand than Shakespeare. Spanish Examples: One thing that puzzles speakers of both languages is that the "thee/thou" is considered the familiar form. Yet that is what we use for God? In Spanish they have the Singular familiar (thou/tu) Singular formal (you/usted) Plural familiar (ye/vosotros) Plural formal (you/ustedes) Yet, Biblical language always uses the "tu" and "vosotros". Beyond that, we have to get rid of all contemporary jargon and slang. So, the more educated and formal your contemporary speech, the less of a problem you'll have with the remainder of the work. In fact, there was an instance where BoM language helped me understand in item in the Concrete Code that my colleagues couldn't make out. The Code used "or" in an unusual way. It is normally a conjunction. But in this context it clearly meant "or I mean to say" or "in other words." This was used a few times in the BoM. And having read it as many times as I have, I immediately understood the meaning in the code. But my colleagues did not. Once I pointed that meaning out, they all understood that it made a lot more sense. But they simply couldn't make heads or tails of it before.
  11. The time of overlap hasn't changed since then. The only new variable is the introduction of Lucian Foster. Curious timeline: 1) He moved in to Nauvoo two months before Joseph was arrested (two months to the day of his martyrdom). 2) Joseph was arrested in June. 3) The studio was set up in August of that year. Is it possible that he took a photo of Joseph in that brief two month period? If he were able to take a photo of Joseph that quickly, why wait several more months to set up the studio for the public? It didn't take that long to set up a studio. It is the equipment to take and develop the photo that takes the time. If that was all set up, the studio is just a day or so of work. Possible, yes. Probable, no. And we still deal with the fact that the image has distinct differences from the death mask.
  12. I agree with @scottyg It is interesting that my first intuition was that it didn't look at all like the death mask. But when I took to itemizing the differences, I noticed several similarities. I began changing my mind. Then I noticed several giveaways that indicated they were not of the same man. ************* I looked into this a few years ago. The presence of the daguerreotype in the US was extremely limited during Joseph's lifetime. We also know of Joseph's schedule during those same years. (only a four year overlap). And they did not line up. He simply could not have had a daguerreotype done in his lifetime. They're all hoaxes.
  13. The Myth: The US military is so OP that no force on earth can possibly conquer it. The Fact: Given enough individuals working separately, but united in a cause, having simple hand guns or simple hunting rifles, the personnel of the US military can be wiped out. And without people, the equipment and materiel is useless. The Theory: People imagine such a showdown going on with Napoleonic warfare. We all line up and have a ho-down. Well, of course the people with hand guns would be obliterated with hardly an effort. The Reality: How have the Taliban been a thorn in the side of the US military for over a decade? How is it that Afgan militia groups have been a thorn in the side of the former Soviet military? It is said that there are more hunting licenses issued each year in the states of Texas and Louisiana than in all the standing armies of the world. I looked into this, and it is partially true. The statement on its face is true. However, it does not necessarily mean "hunting with guns". The include fishing licenses, for instance. The best guess is that maybe half of them would indicate "hunting with firearms". The interesting point is that (at the time I looked it up) even half of that number would be more than the US, Chinese, and Russian armies combined. The standing order would be: Anyone with a gun, shoot at least one person in uniform or a person in a suit giving orders to someone in uniform before they get you. Eventually, we win.
  14. The "feeling" of insecurity that you're describing is just that. A "feeling" that such is caused by the existence of guns. If you can separate yourself from simple feelings and impressions and observe the actual "facts" then those feelings will go away. FACTS say that if WIDESPREAD gun ownership is commonplace, the kinds of crimes that give you that "feeling" will all but disappear. Something that most anti-gun nuts don't understand is that MOST people who own guns are good guys. There is this MYTH that people outside the US are used to that says,"If you have a gun, you're the bad guy." No, if EVERyONE had a gun, that would mean everyone is a bad guy. SIMPLY HAVING A GUN DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD GUY. And there's the problem.
  15. It is remarkable how much I agree with this entire post. As an aside, I just realized that I have no idea if you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice (and what definitions you'd use to state such). To your question about "life" vs "alive", I'm not sure where you're getting that as an argument from anyone. The question is whether the fetus is a "human being" distinct from the mother. Notice that I used the term "distinct" not "separate". I don't buy the umbilical chord argument because that means a baby could be killed outside the womb for several minutes (as long as the chord is pumping) and still be considered acceptable. I just don't agree with that.
  16. I thought I made that clear by the remainder of my post. Or are you being cheesy? When you ADVERTIZE that "WE HAVE NO GUNS HERE!" Do you honestly believe that makes people safer? It doesn't. It actually paints a target on their heads. Take a look at any location in the US. The areas with more gun ownership sees less gun violence. Areas with less gun ownership sees more gun violence. I'd think this is just common sense. But I guess people just have a different mindset down under. Statistics upon statistics back up the idea that greater gun ownership prevents gun crimes. And it will also decrease the body count when someone wants to go on a shooting spree.
  17. As recently as 2016, I actually had this discussion with my ex-mo, liberal friend. I said that children will become sexualized and have adults teaching children about homosexual relationships in schools. He thought that was ridiculous. His position was, "We've always been about adult consent and leaving children alone." I stood my ground and promised it would happen in the not too distant future. Today, he probably wouldn't even be aware of it because you just don't hear about it on CNN. I don't talk to him anymore because he finally couldn't keep up the appearance of having a conservative, LDS friend anymore. I thought we actually were friends. But it turns out, it was all an act for him. All the lunches we had together, all the times we worked together. I even gave him a watermelon from my garden. But no. It was just an act.
  18. So, you're talking about the insecurity comes from creating "gun free zones"? I absolutely agree. It is like announcing,"Hey, bad guys! We are defenseless here. So, if you have a gun, then you will probably be able to kill a whole lot of people before you get gunned down. So, if you want more bang for your buck, attack here." You don't believe me? Try putting a sign out in front of a gun abolitionist's house that says, "This house has no guns." How do you think criminals will react?
  19. I always find it curious when people make statements like this. Read what? Where in scriptures does it say anything about when the spirit enters the body? Did I miss a verse about that? Everyone is allowed opinions and interpretations. But when you say that you "read it" that way, what verse specifically are you reading "that way"?
  20. I think I agree with the unspoken message here. If we do truly go green, we'll be living without electricity. With some conditionals, I largely agree. But my larger point was that Biden had two conflicting goals. The only way that those TWO goals can converge is through nuclear. Life before electricity solves the "green" half of the equation but not his other stated goal. His other promise was to "create energy jobs."
  21. That's a pretty bold statement when nowhere in the scriptures does it say when the spirit enters the body.
  22. You may have read about Biden's address: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1549835486172221442/video/1 Interesting things about words being used, mistaken words, stretching the literal for conceptual hyperbole... His primary purpose for this address was to say what he's going to do to address the "climate crisis" and "create energy jobs." Let's assume for a moment that the climate alarmists are 100% correct about greenhouse gasses, etc. There is only one solution with current or up-and-coming technologies that will address both of these issues: Nuclear power. There is no other way. Wind, solar, hydro, ethanol, or bio-deisel simply do not produce the results that are sought to address the supposed climate issue while even producing anywhere near the energy that we use today. If you were to scale up any of these, they would cause more environmental problems than petroleum based energy. If you do not include nuclear as the front and center method of moving forward, you simply cannot be taken seriously on this issue, so stop talking about it right now. He conflates coal power plants with oil refineries as if they are the same thing. He first mentions the "gunk" to form on one's windshield due to coal power plants. Then he likens it to refineries doing the same thing "at first frost". First frost = oil slick??? Since when do we hear of oil sitting atop a layer of frost on a windshield? An oil slick on windshields from refineries? I haven't been able to debunk it. But I've never heard of it. I've never worked with coal power plants, but I've worked in and around refineries for the last 15+ years. I've never heard of it from anyone. And I've never noticed anything like that on my windshield. He says that Claymont, DE has more refineries than Houston, Tx. This is not difficult since Houston only has two active refineries within its city boundaries. And there are only three others in the surrounding area. I haven't looked into how many are in the Claymont area. But it doesn't really mean much if there are more than in the Houston area. He says he "has" cancer. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't. But his spokespeople are saying he meant "had" cancer. Ok, he misspoke. I can forgive him for mistakes. But how often does he keep doing this? Can we take him seriously if he so often "misspeaks"? How are we supposed to trust him on anything? A few mistakes here and there, sure. No problem. But we all know his record. And cancer is not something that you just throw around willy-nilly. He says DE had one of the highest cancer rates in the nation. "Had"? Still does, actually. And nothing has changed with the changes in the number of refineries or refinery activity. The cancer rates in DE have not changed with refineries or energy production. So, what can we actually take seriously from his speech? "Shrug".
  23. If it were known that most of the population was carrying, we'd have a few crazy people trying to do mass shootings, but they'd be quickly dispatched as in Indiana. We simply would not have mass shootings anymore. So, what insecurity are you talking about?