![\"Arizona's](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2016\/04\/mesa-temple-766331-gallery.jpg\")
<\/a>Surely the long-predicted demise of the Interpreter Foundation must be very near at hand. \u00a0In the meanwhile, though, hopeful critics will be obliged to content themselves with its tantalizing death rattles. \u00a0Here\u2019s one of them, which appeared today: \u00a0\u201cVideo and Audio Recordings are Now Available for the 2024 Temple on Mount Zion Conference\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Audio and video recordings of the presentations at the 2024 Temple on Mount Zion Conference are now available. They may be accessed at https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/conferences\/2024-temple-on-mount-zion-conference\/videos\/<\/a>. A playlist of the videos is also available the Interpreter YouTube channel at https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/c\/theinterpreterfoundation<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And here\u2019s another, which also went up earlier today on the nearly moribund Interpreter website: \u00a0The Temple: Symbols, Sermons, and Settings<\/em>: \u201cConsecration and Sacrilege in Early Rabbinic Judaism,\u201d<\/a> written by Avram R. Shannon<\/a>:<\/p>\n Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article originally appeared in The Temple: Symbols, Sermons, and Settings<\/em>, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. For more information, go to https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/books\/the-temple-symbols-sermons-and-settings\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cOne of the distinctive elements of the Restoration is the law of consecration. We often identify this law as one of the highest given as part of the Restoration. We find, however, that consecration is not just a modern concept but has its roots in the Lord\u2019s covenant path in every dispensation, including the Sinai covenant and the law of Moses.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n You might find this of interest: \u00a0\u201cHeretic<\/em>:\u00a0A Horror Film About Latter-day Saint Sister Missionaries:\u00a0Unofficial FAQ\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n And this, sadly, is something that people ought to know about: \u00a0\u201cNicaraguan Ortega regime bans priests from public hospitals:\u00a0Opposition denounces dictatorship, says Ortega regime is determined to \u201ccontinue a policy of indoctrination\u201d to \u201cexterminate\u201d churches and \u201cmake Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo the only leaders in the country\u201d\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n One more thing: \u00a0While it\u2019s popular in some circles right now to blame Latter-day Saints for the re-election to the presidency of Mr. Donald J. Trump and, thus motivated, to associate the Saints (both historically and today) with the Third Reich, it\u2019s possible that some other Americans \u2014 non-Latter-day Saints, no less! \u2014 may also<\/em> have voted for Mr. Trump. \u00a0(For what little it\u2019s worth, I did not.) \u00a0And this article, written by the invaluable Mary Eberstadt<\/a>, may help to account for at least some of those votes even without invoking Nazism: \u00a0\u201cWhy Catholics Voted for Trump.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n I\u2019ve just finished reading Stanford Carmack, \u201cBook of Mormon Grammar and Translation,\u201d BYU Studies<\/em> 63\/3 (2024): 49-74.<\/p>\n Early Modern English (EModE) is the form of the English language between approximately the late fifteenth century, or the Tudor period in the sixteenth century, and the English Restoration in 1660 or perhaps slightly later in the seventeenth century, at which point both written and spoken English begin to be familiar to speakers of the modern language. \u00a0What sets Early Modern English apart from it predecessor, Middle English, is the so-called \u201cGreat Vowel Shift,\u201d when all long vowel sounds in English changed to their current sounds.<\/p>\n Here, in order (I hope) to pique your curiosity, I share a few early passages from Dr. Carmack\u2019s \u201cBook of Mormon Grammar and Translation\u201d:<\/p>\n This paper discusses some of the Book of Mormon\u2019s nonstandard grammar, showing how in many cases it was not the kind of grammar that Joseph Smith would have been expected to produce, since it was neither his native usage nor a presumed biblically influenced English. In these contexts, if he had been in control of the wording of the text, it is highly likely that he would have expressed things differently. Quite a few examples are provided in support of this claim, along with additional matching examples found in early modern texts.<\/p>\n The purpose of this paper is to increase understanding of Book of Mormon grammar and to dispel some commonly held misunderstandings. It is time to go beyond earlier, unstudied views of the Book of Mormon\u2019s nonstandard grammar\u2014to improve on opinions that have been based on limited preparation, inadequate comparative study, and hasty analysis. In this paper, which is based on extensive preparation and work, I will show how various aspects of the Book of Mormon\u2019s nonstandard grammatical usage support the view that Joseph Smith dictated a revealed text in 1829.<\/p>\n Among researchers who believe that the Book of Mormon was the result of revelation, the position of most has been that the original grammar of the Book of Mormon supports the view that Joseph Smith\u2019s dictation in 1829 was the result of revealed ideas, not revealed words. Yet my careful study of the issue leads me to believe that it is precisely the opposite.<\/p>\n Many have believed that Joseph was the one responsible for the bad grammar3<\/a> of the original text, since there is<\/em> plenty of bad grammar from the perspective of a prescriptive standard of American English usage in 1829, when he dictated the language. But it turns out that quite a few types of grammar\u2014just as in the broader category of syntax\u2014support the view that the Book of Mormon, as dictated, came to Joseph Smith as revealed words. \u00a0(49-50)<\/p>\n The perspective offered in this paper is that several types of Book of Mormon nonstandard grammar should be viewed as early modern grammar. This perspective is based on the grammar itself and the broader domain of syntactic evidence. There are at least three distinct reasons to look to the early modern period for analogs or syntactic matches:<\/p>\n In short, the personal relative pronoun usage of the Book of Mormon Because the Book of Mormon has a large amount of archaic syntax, there are many combinations of archaic syntax that aren\u2019t found in either the King James Bible or pseudobiblical texts. Consequently, such combined linguistic evidence argues against Joseph Smith being the one who worded the text. \u00a0(52)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The work of Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack on apparent Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is, to me, intensely interesting. \u00a0And the direction in which their research has led them has been, to me, quite a surprise.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/a>\n
\nshows a pattern that occurred in the development of English during the
\nsecond half of the 1500s and the first decade of the 1600s, just before and
\nduring Shakespeare\u2019s time. \u00a0(52)<\/p>\n<\/a>