DiscussMormonism.com

I hope they don't skip over the part where he dodged the draft in WWII by running off and working for the railroad (draft exempt position) and then as soon as the war was over he jumped right back into his cushy church position that his last name and family connections bought him. GBH was belonged ...

I haven’t read systematically on this topic, but... m "...but... I'm going to give my opinion on it anyway..." Having seen several blogs and re-shares of other articles from Peterson this seems to be his modus operandi. His recent DN.com article on the narrative of Zosimus was similar flu...

I'm sure some people who have left the Church are like that, but I'm also sure that a lot are like my daughter who has gone inactive but who is gradually taking steps that might lead her back to activity. In that case, we ought to be able to see the level of activity rising again. Are we? A good te...

I always find it interesting to compare these sorts of claims to early scripture dictated by Joseph with no claim of ancient origin. D&C 9, April 1829. Right at the start of the reboot of the translation/dictation process. The Early Modern English syntax is right there in the first verse: "...

While I'm certainly no linguist…I’m going to wager a guess and suggest that based on my belief that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon…that a study into New England, upstate New York linguistics in the early 1800’s would find the use of the auxiliary verb 'did' to express the affirmative past te...

For some reason the previous post won't show all the included sections.

Trying again:

1,2,4,7,13,18,19,20,22,27,29,38,42,43,45,46,50,56,58,59,63,64,65,68,76,84,87,88,89,93,98,101,107,110,119,121,124,130,131,133,134

Did that work?

The blogger (almost) has 1930s church on their side. In 1930 James E. Talmage (under the direction of President Grant) edited the D&C down into a version of the current and relevant doctrinal sections of the D&C. This was the edition used for a lot of translations. I have a copy on my booksh...

1. Book of Mormon contains English grammar popular in 1500's Old English but not in Joseph's time. 2. Old English KJV style was mimicked by Late War and other books to pretend like they seemed like scripture. 3. There is no apologetic theory that makes sense of this other than the theory that someo...

Lucy Harris wrote:This is a cool tool.

The Johnson brothers probably used it in their study.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... at%3B%2Cc0

That's awesome! I love it.

So "did go" starts picking up a pace from early 1800s

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... go%3B%2Cc0

Wow, this is exciting. Instead of Ole Joe using 1800 literature he was using 1500 literature. That is 300 years closer to the 600BC to 400AD timeframe. Hip hip hurray another great score for the team. Doesn't it just show he was using the King James version of the Bible to spin his fanfic? Apparent...