Zelph, the White Lamanite

[juliann]

I just want to know what apologists think.. how they make sense of this incident...

That was answered two days ago. Short of an attempt to understand by Addictio, I have seen nothing from critic apologists but evasion and contempt when anyone does try to tackle the topic.

juliann Posted: Jan 18 2005, 11:22 AM

Centinarian

Group: Admin

Posts: 2,488

Member No.: 6

Joined: 26-November 03

(Addictio @ Jan 17 2005, 11:36 PM)

Finally, if we conclude that JS did in fact claim to have received the Zelph information by revelation, beastie's question about where the "white" bit of information came from is quite interesting. I expect there are better and perhaps more systematic explanations on the apologetic side than have been offered here thus far. I have in mind here arguments, for example, about the nature of revelation. Seems to me these arguments work better if this particular revelation is construed along the lines of "inspiration" rather than, e.g., "open vision." 

I agree. I am sure that everyone would agree that JS had a revelation. But what "revelation" is and what the details were is murkier. That is where the investigation needs to begin but Beastie et.al., cannot seem to arrive at attributing the right words to the right people so I don't see much hope.

[Calm]

I think Juliann's third or fourth post on this thread summed it up quite nicely in a quote she provided (this was highlighted in red by Juliann):

We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others.

A vision occurred for JS (ie. inspiration/revelation), but what statements originated from the vision and what statements belonged to the discussion that took place with it and where these latter statements originated is something that cannot be determined.

It appears to me that people are trying to use as a map to get to a certain destination a list of names that haven't been connected with a particular place yet, it's just known they are all in the same general area.

[Benjamin McGuire]

TD writes:

Yes one's opinion IS the issue for me. Do you believe he did or didn't receive revelation/divine inspiration?

I believe he received divine inspiration. I believe that there was some divine inspiration in dealing with Zelph.

if you think/belief JS received divine inspiration concerning Zelph. How do you make sense of it. If someone was taking the discussions and came upon this story what would you say to them?

How does one make sense of anything that they believe is received by revelation. I receive divine inpsiration myself from time to time.

The issue here though isn't really about this at all. There simply isn't enough actual data to really discuss the issue. Consider the following scenario -

Joseph receives what he feels is a flash of divine revelation in which the name of the individual in question is revealed to be Zelph (but nothing else is revealed). This conceptually may be a parallel to the issues around the name mahonrimoriancumer. Joseph then speculates that perhaps Zelph was a white Lamanite. Those around him then report both the divine inspiration and the non-divine speculation - without distinguishing between the two (perhaps they were unable to distinguish themselves).

The LDS faith has never used this incident (whatever it entails) as the basis of a doctrinal position. The discussion of Zelph has generally always been about being critical - whether it is criticism of the LGT, or critical of Joseph as a prophet. How would I explain this incident to a member or an investigator? Probably in much the same way as I mention above. But why would an investigator come into contact with this story? Through anti-mormon literature? Most members don't know most of the little narratives and interesting pieces of history that occur in the volumes of written literature which have been produced by the members of the early LDS church. What makes this incident special is simply that it is viewed as useful to the critics - largely because of its proposed impact on the LGT.

Ben

[Confidential Informant]

They are not reporting hearsay, which would make them secondhand or secondary sources. The following is from a standard historical primer:

Somewhat off-topic but for clarifications sake: Yes, they are reporting "hearsay" even though they were eyewitnesses. From a legal perspective, "Hearsay" is any out of court statement from a third party introduced at trial as proof of the veracity of the charged.

For example, let's say you've got a man on trial for embezzlement. At trial one of the witnesses said, "He told he he'd kill me and my family if I squealed."

Is this hearsay? The first reaction is to say "yes." But in actuality, no it's not. Why? Because the person is on trial for embezzlement, not for making terroristic threats. Therefore, this statement is admissible at trial because it tends to show the state-of-mind of the witness and it's not offered as proof of the charge because the suspect is on trial for embezzlement, not murder or attempted murder, etc.

However, same example above but the witnesses says, "He told me he embezzled that money." Is this hearsay? Yes, it is. Why? Because it's an out of court statment offered at trail to establish the truth of the charges. However, in this case, this bit of hearsay is also admissible because it represents a confession. The rules of evidence consider confessions to be highly reliable. (Of course, you always run the risk that the witness is simply making the confession up, but that's a risk in almost any endeavor such as law or history).

At law, hearsay can actually be very tricky (even very good attorneys and very experienced judges get confused and end up suppressing statements that need not be suppressed.

That being said, I think the legal hearsay rules can be applied to historical analysys, at times with great effect. Unlike law, it wouldn't require that the statements be left out of the work, but it might provide a basic framework for assessing the reliability of third party statements.

C.I.

[Confidential Informant]

“Transparency ... is why FAIR says it is an apologetic organization rather than claiming we search for truth, openness and the American way.”

Again, a bit off topic but since Dan had made such great hay out of this quote and what he thinks it means (and also the quote from KUER) I just wanted to address it.

I can't speak for Juliann, and maybe she just chose her wording poorly, etc., but you trot this out like it's proof that FAIR isn't interested in truth. That's not true at all. FAIR is very much interested in getting to the truth, but let's face it, on most of the issues we debate, there no way of knowing what the "truth" of the matter is.

I am curios to know on what issues Dan thinks FAIR has been less-than-truthful. To my knowledge, FAIR deals with the same materials as Dan and all other critics, the only difference is that we sometimes interpret -- and legitimately so -- those materials differently. Does reaching a legitimate, but differing, conclusion disqualify FAIR from seeking "truth"?

Take the DNA debate. Murphy/Southerton and crew took "truthful" source materials, applied it a certain way, and then drew a conclusion critical to the Church. FARMS/FAIR took that same material, applied in a different (and what we believe is a more "truthful" way) and arrived at completely different conclusion -- one which even Murphy recognized as legitimate. We we not "truthful" in our conclusion? Was our explanation not every bit as "plausible" as theirs? I think it was, yes.

So again, I'm curious as to where you think FAIR (or FARMS for that matter) has been less than truthful.

C.I.

[beastie]

I want to make sure I understand what Juliann and cal seem to be saying. Correct me if needed.

Revelation is somewhat vague and ambigious, and may not contain details, but rather a general notion. Due to this fact, the recipient may sometimes add details that were not necessarily part of the actual revelation, but a result of the recipient's own thoughts and ideas.

If this is correct so far, does the recipient realize that he/she has added details to the revelation that did not originate with God, but rather his/her own mind?

[juliann]

Again, a bit off topic but since Dan had made such great hay out of this quote and what he thinks it means (and also the quote from KUER) I just wanted to address it.

I can't speak for Juliann, and maybe she just chose her wording poorly, etc., but you trot this out like it's proof that FAIR isn't interested in truth.

[juliann]

I want to make sure I understand what Juliann and cal seem to be saying. Correct me if needed.

We have already responded....and you could not possibly have missed Ben's comments. This is why many of us see you as trolling...no matter how many times you are answered you simply come up with a another way to ask the same question....while being completely nonresponsive to what is asked of you.

[beastie]

Juliann,

Honestly. You have accused me of misrepresenting your statements so many times that I wanted to be cautious and make sure that I understood you correctly. There is just no way for you not to be rude, is there?

I will go ahead and assume that my interpretation is correct since if Juliann could have attacked me for misunderstanding, I have no doubt she would have.

So is there a fundamental difference between the process of a cannonized revelation and a noncannonized one? When does the difference occur? At the point of reception? If so, does not the prophet recognize the difference between a detailed revelation and a vague revelation to which he has added his own ideas?

What I am trying to understand is how believers can hold this particular viewpoint regarding the nature of revelation and not, to borrow Dan's phrase, deconstruct Mormonism altogether. Take, for example, the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. Perhaps God conveyed a generic, vague "take care of your body" statement, and JS added extra details that originated from his own thoughts and previous experiences. How would you, or JS, ever know? So why does a believer with this attitude towards revelation feel bound to any revelation? Or do you view it as a show of obedience and faith, even if the revelation isn't entirely originating from God, and the details - which are often the most important part - are from the man, not God?

Maybe JS even added details to the revelation that resulted in the BoM. Perhaps all God transmitted was "Jesus is the Christ, to all nations" and JS added all the details that resulted in a supposed actual history. Maybe the earlier renditions of the First Vision were correct, and the First Vision was a generic "visit", with simply an overwhelming sense of God and forgiveness, and JS added in the details himself.

Isn't this view - that the recipient of revelations, even the prophet himself, can add details that didn't originate from God - a slippery slope?

[Addictio]

Reading about JS makes me think that the concept and experience of "revelation" varies a great deal from person to person. JS as revelator was also fairly unique in Church history, to put it mildly. How many visions/ theophanies did he report having, for example?

Anyway, this leads me to think that from either a naturalistic or spiritual/religious standpoint, I'd be most inclined to try to understand the Zelph episode in terms of JS's life-history, past religious experience and personality, rather than as an instance of a general type of revelation. I mean, for example, how would we ever know how similar the subjective content or structure of two different "visions" by two different people might be? Does a "vision" experience increase or diminish the subjectivity or ambiguity of a revealed message? Others have noted the same problems.

Finally, even taking into account Ben's comments about how much we don't know, I think that from either of the two standpoints I mentioned, naturalistic or spiritual/religious, I would see this as a highly contextualized and functional event, presented for the purpose of encouraging and inspiring the troops who are marching into enemy territory. I've heard devout believers make similar observations, btw, about how the act of revealing appeared to serve an important and immediate social purpose. In that connection, one of the ways in which JS was rather distinctive as an LDS leader was in his "oracular" manner of delivery. Like Jesus and Wittgenstein (ahem) he often spoke forth, pronounced, while impressed others took note, or notes. There's something what, mantic, in that kind of highly individual, declaratory, extemporizing style. I imagine this as a low-key, even solemn, but definitely oracular event. I'd have liked to be there to see it. Hmm, I could have told them to boil their water, heh? And then, as distancing sophist, escaped the mounting danger.

[TELSTAR409]

Beastie:  I will go ahead and assume that my interpretation is correct since if Juliann could have attacked me for misunderstanding, I have no doubt she would have.

Terrie: Is that how these boards work then? Ok... then you'll be all right with the fact that I have decided to go ahead and assume that the popular opinion of you is correct and that you're a troll who's just looking to cause a disruption.

[TELSTAR409]

Cal:  A vision occurred for JS (ie. inspiration/revelation), but what statements originated from the vision and what statements belonged to the discussion that took place with it and where these latter statements originated is something that cannot be determined.

It appears to me that people are trying to use as a map to get to a certain destination a list of names that haven't been connected with a particular place yet, it's just known they are all in the same general area.

Terrie: That was an excellent way of describing this entire discussion. LOL How many times does one question have to be answered before the answer sinks in.... and how much historical worth do these people assume that an OPINION has on whether or not JS actually received a vision and what it actually said?

If I thought my opinion was going to weigh in as definitive evidence I'd be mailing out statements to the entire country that *I* was a prophet and that all people should mail their income tax return checks to me. ;-)

[Dr. Shades]

It's been stated that the answer has been given, but for the life of me I can't seem to find it. Please help:

Zelph according to Chapel Mormons: Joseph Smith received an authentic revelation from God regarding the identity and circumstances of the human remains in front of him.

Zelph according to critics of Mormonism: Joseph Smith just made the whole thing up.

Zelph according to Internet Mormons: ??

The Chapel Mormons' and the critics' position on Zelph is clear-cut, but I can't figure out what the Internet Mormons' position on Zelph is, even after all these pages.

Will someone please fill in the blanks for me, simply and straightforwardly? Zelph according to Internet Mormons: ______________________________.

[truth dancer]

Hi Telestar...

LOL How many times does one question have to be answered before the answer sinks in.... and how much historical worth do these people assume that an OPINION has on whether or not JS actually received a vision and what it actually said?

Since I was the one asking for opinion I'l respond to this...

(I'm not sure if you intended to have a nasty tone with this post or not... )

I do not in any way think opinion has to do with historical truth. I was not looking for historical truth. I personally don't believe in revelation (God, a being communicating to humans) and divine intervention so some "historical truth" regarding God speaking to humans is NOT in my mindset.

If I thought my opinion was going to weigh in as definitive evidence ....

I'm not sure where this is coming from. I don't see anything I have written that indicated my wish to understand one's opinion indicated I thought one's opinion is equal to "definitive evidence." Again, I don't think there would be evidence for God speaking to a man or intervening in human affairs.

Whenever I see things that I don't understand I am curious how others understand them. Personally I think it is good to try to understand others and how they make sense of the world. It helps me to grow and develop and broadens my understanding.

I'm sorry if you felt it took me a long time for the "answer" to sink in. It just seemed to me, the answer wasn't really being addressed due to getting stuck in some details.

I thank Ben and Addictio for sharing their respective opinions and giving me a glimpse of how apologists view the matter.

Hope this helps...

~dancer~

[Benjamin McGuire]

beastie writes

Revelation is somewhat vague and ambigious, and may not contain details, but rather a general notion. Due to this fact, the recipient may sometimes add details that were not necessarily part of the actual revelation, but a result of the recipient's own thoughts and ideas.

Sometimes revelation may be like this. Sometimes revelation may be quite specific. The dream which Nephi and Lehi both experienced seems to be quite specific. It was also the same dream - although, as Nephi notes quite explicitly, his experience of the dream was fundamentally different from Lehi's experience. Not because the content was different, but because Lehi and Nephi are different.

Revelation may well contain details. But the issue here isn't a question of whether or not details were revealed. The issue is that once we are forced to move beyond the oracle to discuss the details of the revelation - of the necessity that the oracle does not provide any first hand account of what those details were - we have to examine the accounts because we can no longer be certain which of those details that are offered are really revelation.

This is apart from the question of whether or not the oracle adds his own views to the revelation (a fact which I think is unquestionably true - as meaning of communication in any medium comes from the receiver and not from the giver).

In this particular case, the comparison between what was revealed about Zelph and canonical scripture is completely inappropriate. One claims (usually explicitly) to be revelation. For the other, it hasn't been established how much of these statements derives from revelation. And furthermore, while Juliann discusses the fact that there can be different kinds of revelation, your objectives (whatever they are) lead you to present all revelation as being the same (particularly in a qualitative fashion). You write:

So is there a fundamental difference between the process of a cannonized revelation and a noncannonized one? When does the difference occur? At the point of reception? If so, does not the prophet recognize the difference between a detailed revelation and a vague revelation to which he has added his own ideas?

Canonization of course is a process - and isn't a way of fundamentally examining the differences between revelations. Additionally, the LDS church has canonized non-revelations. So the only fundamental distinction between a cannonized revelation and a non-canonized revelation that can be discussed in general terms is that canonized revelation has gone through the process of canonization - and thus is viewed differently by the body of the church as a response to that canonization. Any other distinction would seem to me to be largely irrellevant without first examining the questions of what kinds of revelations are being offered as examples.

These discussions become more problematic for me because of course you don't believe in revelation, and you don't have personal experience to draw from. On the other hand, if we reduce the notion of revelation to one of communication, we see things in a completely different light. Communication is successful when you manage to convey your intent to someone else through a medium (oral communication, written communication, visual communication, etc.). Of course, language (written and spoken) and art are ambiguous. If we take a text or a piece of art or another form of communication and expose many people to it, we are going to have many different interpretations and meanings formed. If we pay attention to nuances, we would likely have about as many interpretations (assuming that communication has some degree of complexity) as there are individuals experiencing it. Plurality of meaning demonstrates the fact that meaning is created by audience working to understand the communicator. We usually succeed at communicating - mostly because we understand fairly well how our audience is going to respond to a particular communication. When we are wrong, miscommunication occurs.

When we take this backwards onto the notion of revelation, revelation is revealed to individuals. Perfection of the message is not the issue - as the author of that revelation is not the one creating meaning. Furthermore, if the revelation is a visual experience (think Nephi and Lehi again here), the oracle has to interpret the vision - and his interpretation will reflect the meaning which he derives from the vision (which is not the only possible meaning which can be derived from such a vision - as evidenced again by Nephi and Lehi).

Again, going back to Zelph, the question has many facets. What details were revealed to Joseph, and how many of the details which we have either were speculations by Joseph or were speculations by those Joseph was with that Joseph considered possible.

The problem with Zelph is that until these questions are answered, the application of the Zelph account to a discussion on what revelation is, is going to be so limited as to be of no use. We cannot tell from the evidence itself what the specific revelation was. No amount of analysis seems capable of doing so without some additional evidence (preferrably a holograph of the oracle).

Ben

[beastie]

QUOTE 

Beastie:  I will go ahead and assume that my interpretation is correct since if Juliann could have attacked me for misunderstanding, I have no doubt she would have.

Terrie: Is that how these boards work then? Ok... then you'll be all right with the fact that I have decided to go ahead and assume that the popular opinion of you is correct and that you're a troll who's just looking to cause a disruption.

No, the way this board obviously works is that Juliann posts rudely and makes unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty while chastizing others for being uncharitable. She accuses me of trolling on the very thread she declares has no interest and purpose but continues to disrupt with her rudeness and unsubstantiated accusations. Then when I try to make sure that I'm not putting words in her mouth, and specifically ask her if my assumption is correct, she finds it an occasion to be rude again and not answer. Then certain LDS jump in to defend her behavior, while seemingly oblivious to the posts that immediately proceeded their own. To be blunt, telestar, the fact that you find reason to fault me for saying I will assume my statement was correct after I just asked her to verify that it was and she rudely refused to do so testifies that you are nothing more than a blind partisan, jumping in to cheer on the team and taunt the opponent. A board jingoist.

In the couple months I've been here it's obvious that is the way this board works.

[beastie]

Ben,

I will respond more fully to your post later when I have more time.

I do want to quickly address one point -

The issue is that once we are forced to move beyond the oracle to discuss the details of the revelation - of the necessity that the oracle does not provide any first hand account of what those details were - we have to examine the accounts because we can no longer be certain which of those details that are offered are really revelation

This has been brought up repeatedly, and a corresponding question gone unanswered. Six of seven contemporary accounts by friendly witnesses all agree on a couple of points that I have stressed here. What are you suggesting happened? That they made up these details on their own? The possibility of them all making up these same details is beyond believable coincidence. They must have colluded to add these details on their own. Why? Or perhaps you mean that JS explained to them which part of his statements were revelation and which were his own additional details not originating from revelation, and they subsequently ignored that distinction? All of them? Why? And if you are saying that JS possibly made all these statements without differentiating between those received by revelation and those of his own creation, then we are back at square one.

BTW, as a believer, I did receive "revelation". The fact that I do not believe it has supernatural origins does not mean I don't understand what you are talking about. However, as a believer, I also had to believe that the clarity of revelation that prophets received, esp JS, had to be of a different quality and level of detail than what I received, otherwise it would have been difficult for me to accept what they said as authoritative in some way. I knew how uncertain I felt about the details of "revelation" afterward, and how I knew I wasn't clear on what ideas were my own and which came from God. So I understand what you are talking about, I just don't understand why someone who thinks that is the nature of revelation with prophets, as well, views their statements as authoritative.

[Benjamin McGuire]

beastie writes:

This has been brought up repeatedly, and a corresponding question gone unanswered. Six of seven contemporary accounts by friendly witnesses all agree on a couple of points that I have stressed here. What are you suggesting happened? That they made up these details on their own? The possibility of them all making up these same details is beyond believable coincidence. They must have colluded to add these details on their own. Why? Or perhaps you mean that JS explained to them which part of his statements were revelation and which were his own additional details not originating from revelation, and they subsequently ignored that distinction? All of them? Why? And if you are saying that JS possibly made all these statements without differentiating between those received by revelation and those of his own creation, then we are back at square one.

I have never suggested that these details were made up "on their own". What I am suggesting is that these details may be speculations of an individual (the oracle) or the group that was present - but not details of the revelation. If you want to call this group speculation "collusion", feel free. On the other hand, Joseph may well have been speculating or providing his interpretation of a "vision" or any number of other possible explanations.

On the other hand, what you seem to be doing is to be examining this issue with a single focus, completely discounting any other possible explanation without ever providing any real rationale for this decision. In fact, in these comments here, you suggest that anything apart from your own interpretation of the evidence is "beyond believable".

BTW, as a believer, I did receive "revelation". The fact that I do not believe it has supernatural origins does not mean I don't understand what you are talking about.

I am not sure I agree with you.

However, as a believer, I also had to believe that the clarity of revelation that prophets received, esp JS, had to be of a different quality and level of detail than what I received, otherwise it would have been difficult for me to accept what they said as authoritative in some way.

Does this mean then that you believe that all claims of revelation are exactly the same as what your experience leads you to assume revelation is?

Ben

[Blink]

Some comments:

1. If the Devil (the man part) is in the details, then any speculation or interpretation on any particular revelation is subject to tearing it apart in order to find out what is God-given and what comes after the fact from the recipient's own mind. What part of this revelation is God-given? Is the name, Zelph, God-given or is Joseph speculating about that? Is Zelph's color God-given or is Joseph speculating about that? Which part of the First Vision is speculation or interpretation after the fact? Which part of the angel with the sword is speculation or interpretation after the fact? Which part of the BoM is really God-given and which part is Joseph's speculation or interpretation after the fact?

2. If the difference between canonized revelation and uncanonized revelation is the degree to which members are bound, then that seems a flimsy and artifical means of finding God's truth. Just because a bunch of people vote on something doesn't mean that something true or from God.

3. It sounds like what Pres Hinckley said about how revelation comes to him might be exactly the way the revelation came to Joseph Smith, also, so we can be comforted to know that our current prophet receives revelation for us. But it's not comforting to think that what we have from Joseph might simply be his speculations or interpretations of what he got, for some unknown reason. And that the heavens haven't closed at all, and never were, just that Pres Hinckley, being the quiet less flamboyant character, is not comfortable with speculating on what he receives, and Joseph, as the flamboyant character that he was, did so as a matter of course. In which case, a lot of what we think of as "God-breathed revelation" from Joseph Smith was not at all God-breathed, but was simply speculation from oracle (Joseph's), and that what we get from Pres Hinckley really is God-breathed because speculating is simply not in his character.

4. If Joseph speculated or interpreted his visions, and didn't give us those revelations straight as they came, then we're following a man, not God.

[beastie]

First, I've had a very long day, and am tired, but will do my best to respond to Ben, whose attempts to address the topic deserve attention.

I have never suggested that these details were made up "on their own".

You may not have, but this was a possible interpretation of Juliann's comments. (ie, "these guys", who knows what she meant)

What I am suggesting is that these details may be speculations of an individual (the oracle) or the group that was present - but not details of the revelation. If you want to call this group speculation "collusion", feel free. On the other hand, Joseph may well have been speculating or providing his interpretation of a "vision" or any number of other possible explanations.

This makes a difference. If JS were present when the speculations were taking place, or they were his speculations, then my question is whether or not he would know the difference between the speculations and revelation. In my experience, it is extraordinarily difficult to tell the difference between your own thoughts and revelation.

Now, if JS were present and had clarified the difference between his speculation and the revelation, my question would be why none of the witnesses noted this. That seems very odd. Surely at least a couple would find the difference significant.

On the other hand, what you seem to be doing is to be examining this issue with a single focus, completely discounting any other possible explanation without ever providing any real rationale for this decision. In fact, in these comments here, you suggest that anything apart from your own interpretation of the evidence is "beyond believable".

I don't know if you've followed this whole thread, but the majority of it was wasted on what I consider a pointless derailment. It has taken a while to GET any possible explanations from people. And when I try to make sure I understand what they're saying, I get jumped for it. The thread's productiveness may increase with your willingness to address the subject, for which I am grateful.

QUOTE

[beastie]

Finally, even taking into account Ben's comments about how much we don't know, I think that from either of the two standpoints I mentioned, naturalistic or spiritual/religious, I would see this as a highly contextualized and functional event, presented for the purpose of encouraging and inspiring the troops who are marching into enemy territory. I've heard devout believers make similar observations, btw, about how the act of revealing appeared to serve an important and immediate social purpose. In that connection, one of the ways in which JS was rather distinctive as an LDS leader was in his "oracular" manner of delivery. Like Jesus and Wittgenstein (ahem) he often spoke forth, pronounced, while impressed others took note, or notes. There's something what, mantic, in that kind of highly individual, declaratory, extemporizing style. I imagine this as a low-key, even solemn, but definitely oracular event. I'd have liked to be there to see it. Hmm, I could have told them to boil their water, heh? And then, as distancing sophist, escaped the mounting danger.

I am absolutely green with envy over your ability to make even an internet post sound like poetry. I know I've told you this before, but this turn of phrase delighted me so much I couldn't resist mentioning it again.

[juliann]

She accuses me of trolling on the very thread she declares has no interest and purpose but continues to disrupt with her rudeness and unsubstantiated accusations. Then when I try to make sure that I'm not putting words in her mouth, and specifically ask her if my assumption is correct, she finds it an occasion to be rude again and not answer.

Sort of like this response on another thread from another poster much more patient and civil than I?

Hello beastie of the one-trick pony.

Yes - there is no universal acceptance of this type of metallurgy at this time in Mesoamerica.

Yes - there is some evidence of smelting during Book of Mormon times - that you won't believe because it contradicts what you believe you believe.

Yes - we have gone over this before.

No - there is nothing new.

No - the comment has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is the mistaken assumption that superior echnology must be dominant - a misperception you seem to share.

No - I am not interested in rehashing this.

You have a reputation for trolling. Live with it or change it...but don't whine because poster after poster has had enough of your one note song.

[Dan Vogel]

CI,

I can't speak for Juliann, and maybe she just chose her wording poorly, etc., but you trot this out like it's proof that FAIR isn't interested in truth. That's not true at all. FAIR is very much interested in getting to the truth, but let's face it, on most of the issues we debate, there no way of knowing what the "truth" of the matter is.

I have no specific complaint about FAIR. My concern is what Juliann

[juliann]

I have no specific complaint about FAIR. My concern is what Juliann’s statement says about Juliann and what she thinks about FAIR and her role here on this board.

I am more curious about why you feel the need to be this deceptive. Now that we have the link it is very clear that the discussion was over truth claims. This is a discussion that we have regularly and are having again on the fundamentalism thread. You know darn well what my position is on that...that scholarship cannot determine TRUTH. FAIR cannot determine truth. YOU cannot determine truth. Only the Holy Spirit can. All we can do is present a good and convincing case for our side.

You know that and this is out and out dishonest to take that clip and represent it as if I do not believe in truth when you are the one not being truthFUL. Shame on you for stooping that low to score a point.

[Blink]

I offer an analysis of the major sources and Godfrey