DiscussMormonism.com

As a teenager I loved Neal A. Maxwell's talks. He had such a facility with language, I thought, and his words were so profound to me. But as I got older I realized that his language was deliberately ornamental, with embellishes and flourishes where none was needed. Take the following paragraph, for example:

We must look carefully, therefore, not only at life’s large defining moments but also at the seemingly small moments. Even small acts and brief conversations count, if only incrementally, in the constant shaping of souls, in the strategic swirl of people and principles and tactical situations. What will we bring to all of those moments small and large? Will we do what we can to make our presence count as a needed constant in such fleeting moments, even in micro ways? Do you and I not sometimes say appreciatively of individuals who have helped us, “They were there when we needed them”? Will we reciprocate?

This is a messy way of saying "What we do and say matters in our spiritual development, whether it appears small or large."

I was reminded of Maxwell--and one of our more pretentiously verbose posters here--when I ran across this quote from Dickens's "David Copperfield":

Mr. Micawber had a relish in this formal piling up of words, which, however ludicrously displayed in his case, was, I must say, not at all peculiar to him. I have observed it, in the course of my life, in numbers of men. It seems to me to be a general rule. In the taking of legal oaths, for instance, deponents seem to enjoy themselves mightily when they come to several good words in succession, for the expression of one idea; as, that they utterly detest, abominate, and abjure, or so forth; and the old anathemas were made relishing on the same principle. We talk about the tyranny of words, but we like to tyrannize over them too; we are fond of having a large superfluous establishment of words to wait upon us on great occasions; we think it looks important, and sounds well. As we are not particular about the meaning of our liveries on state occasions, if they be but fine and numerous enough, so, the meaning or necessity of our words is a secondary consideration, if there be but a great parade of them. And as individuals get into trouble by making too great a show of liveries, or as slaves when they are too numerous rise against their masters, so I think I could mention a nation that has got into many great difficulties, and will get into many greater, from maintaining too large a retinue of words.

There is nothing impressive in multiplying words, particularly adjectives. It just makes people look ridiculous.

Go back and read Dr. Peterson's rambling. It is just like that, except all of it is talking about himself, how important he is, where he is traveling to, which important people he will be meeting with, and how you don't compare to him in any insignificant way.

I am currently reading Nibley's 1968 Improvement Era articles on the newly rediscovered and reacquired Joseph Smith papyri. I remember in high school and college hearing about this incredibly smart and well educated man that was defending the Church against scholastic attacks and the comfort it gave me knowing that we had people on our side like that. It wasn't important that I had never read anything he wrote, nor was it even necessary, just knowing he was there put aside any doubts I may have had. Without reading "No Ma'am That's Not History" I knew it was a devastating response to Brodie's evil book. "hey a really smart guy has responded so we must be okay."

Back to the Nibley 1968 Era Articles. I am currently about halfway through the third installment of the 1st article, which was published in Mar 68, and I have yet to see any commentary on what Nibley thinks are on the newly rediscovered papyri. Instead he has been attacking Rev Spaulding's 1912 pamphlet which published the opinion of 8 Egyptologist on the meaning of the 3 facsimiles. So far his argument's against Spaulding consists of:

1. You can't trust what scholars say because they don't know everything. (The irony here is palpable- The Church is using an scholar to tell people not to trust what scholars say and even more so Nibley frequently quotes an unbiased outside observer R.C. Webb PhD from articles in 1913 Era's to support this attack on authority- Webb it turns out was not a PhD nor unbiased, rather he was a hack writer hired by the Church to pose as such.)
2. He spends most of the February and March articles attacking Spaulding's motives and methodology. Basically he is saying that Spaulding did this because he wanted to destroy the Church and he poisoned the well with the scholars by sending them not only the facsimiles but Joseph Smith interpretations of them.

So I am well into March and instead of finding a scholarly analysis of what is on the newly rediscovered papyri, all I have seen so far is page after page of personal attacks against the authors of an article published more than 50 years ago.

Word.

just me wrote:Word.

Exactly!

Some people think in prose, others in poetry and that's how our thinking spills out onto the paper.

I couldn't think in bullet points if I tried. And I have.

I've long since given myself over to verbosity. Besides, words are lovely little things and when used properly conjure powerful images that convey so much more than scrawled letters on a page.

Don't even get me started on the ideas that dance 'round inside my head, all vying for attention like playful children. Picking just one is a Sophie's choice I can never seem to make. Instead I tend to line them up, squeeze them into the space, and shout "Hold still!", a frustrated school marm trying to find a linear logic in each unruly but precious thought.

If my writing seems chaotic and drives you to distraction, breathe deep and then exhaling, release the need to corral the frenzied flurry of youthful movement as it prances across the page. Ignore it's overly dramatic dress and it's seemingly inessential steps.

Close your eyes instead.

And try to hear the music to which they sway.

For a second there Bob, I actually thought you were comparing Droopy to Dickens.

Just Me: You are awesome!

mercyngrace wrote:Some people think in prose, others in poetry and that's how our thinking spills out onto the paper.

Please don't compare yourself to Droopy. Your prose is very good and bereft of the cheap ornamentation of Droopy's.

Bob Loblaw wrote:

mercyngrace wrote:Some people think in prose, others in poetry and that's how our thinking spills out onto the paper.

Please don't compare yourself to Droopy. Your prose is very good and bereft of the cheap ornamentation of Droopy's.

I knew to whom you were referring from the outset, Bob. I just meant to imply based upon my own experience, that perhaps, his writing sounds like poetry to him.

mercyngrace wrote:I knew to whom you were referring from the outset, Bob. I just meant to infer based upon my own experience, that perhaps, his writing sounds like poetry to him.

Undoubtedly it does. That doesn't mean he's a good writer.