Jump to content

Book of Abraham Evidence?


Cold Steel

Recommended Posts

I can understand where you are coming James; at least I think I can. But you must understand james that there are two sides to this issue. For example, the defenders of the bofa have put up a good agrument...not just for the BofA but also for the rest of the pearl of great price. And their points are rather strong.

They're not proving strong or persuasive to the number of people who read them and then use them specifically as the reason why they leave the Church. You need to google the exit stories of people who leave the LDS Church. Among the most frequently mentioned reasons why they leave are the failure of FARMS and the other apologists in their eyes to defend the BoM and the BofA. In fact, these exiting LDS say FARMS' arguments convinced them of just the opposite. Many say they were active, TBMs who went to FARMS for amunition with which to shoot down critics, only to find, to their horror, that the FARMS arguments are a bunch of, in their words, "Whooey."

You see James, I have a difficult time in assuming that Joseph made it all up:the bofm, book of moses, book of abraham and his many revelations. And I find Uncle Dale's idea hard to see clear. Joseph the dupe, going with good ol' sidney about the book of mormon for the whole 100 yards, losing his own children through mob violence etc. It just doesn't make sense....common sense.

I'm not sure you have common sense on your side. Let's say that this afternoon, a guy down the street from you knocks at your door and says, "Neighbor, I've got the greatest news. God came to me and told me none of the existing churches are true and that I'm to restore God's Only True Church. And he gave me some golden plates I've translated and it's a story about some Hebrews who left Jerusalem 600 years before Christ and they came to America." You ask, "Could I see these golden plates?" He says, "No because an angel took them back. You're just supposed to believe me. Anyway, because I've restored God's Only True Church, you're supposed to give me 10% of your annual income and God told me to marry your wife while you're still married to her. Oh, and by the way, God also told me to take your 14 year-old daughter as a wife, too."

"Wait, a minute," you say. "You're copying my religion, I'm LDS. Joseph Smith did all the stuff you're claiming."

"Even your church," responds your neighbor, "says a living prophet's word trumps dead prophets' words. Smith is dead. I'm alive. Fork over your tithing, your wife, and your daughter. God says you're supposed to give them to me."

So you say, "Well, you must be right. It's only common sense that you'd make these claims. It's only common sense that god would give you golden plates to translate and then take them back so no one can verify your story. It's only common sense that God would command you to take money from me. It's only common sense that God would command you to ask for my wife and daughter and it's only common sense that I would hand them over."

Well, it may be common sense to you, but to me such blind obedience in the face of common sense is how people get defrauded.

Besides, Joseph Smith's not the only guy to claim all this. If you believe his claims on the basis of common sense, how about the claims of the others? Please point your browser to

http://www.strangite.org/

Let's see:

Claim to be the head of God's Only True Church, just like Joseph Smith. Check.

Claim to have translated metallic plates, just like Joseph Smith. Check.

Claim to have God-authorized polygamy, just like Joseph Smith. Check.

Claim to have sacred temple ceremonies, just like Joseph Smith. Check.

Claim to the name, The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, just like Joseph Smith except for the hyphen. Check

Claim that Strang was persecuted to his death, just like Joseph Smith. Check.

And the website even plays the hymn "The Spirit of God like a Fire is Burning."

As far as I can see, these are identical claims. Based on your discussion of common sense, my guess is that common sense is going to leave you with no choice but to accept Strang's claims with equal validity to the identical claims from Smith.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

Yes I have heard those arguments also. I know that people have went to farms for answers and claimed betrayal. We must have been on the same exmo boards.

But I have to ask these people what exactly are they looking for? Are they looking for definite proof? They will not find it. There is no proof, no definitive evidence. However, there have been people here who have made a case for the bofa. It is definitive? No. Is your case definitive? No. But I have to say that you prepackage it up pretty well and when you post you sound like an authority who certainly buys into his own propositions. And here we have the problem. Your propositions are just that Propositions. Nothing more. As far as people, well, maybe they have lost sight of the bible...and what it says about learned men. Yes, James many will be lead away by learned men. Yes, james, reason will perhaps win over faith. This is a prediction or warning in the scriptures about this and even the pope has warned the catholics about the threat of relativism that is now in the world.

And yes, you will lead people out of the lds church. No question about it. You put your take on it like an expert. But still...they are propositions and nothing more. And I am not saying that this is what you want to do...but it will happen.

The difference with your comparison with the bobm is quite stark. You see, the bofm has survived. It is still here. Many have tried to disprove it but they can't. Of course, again we come to propositions as facts. But critics have very little conclusive facts to give the book of mormon a knock out punch. But they still have propositions galore. Regardless, the bofm still stands tall in the saddle. But yes, the propositions do lead people away...and this will be the case for some time.

In fact as you know the bofm predicts such a happening in 1 nephi. Not so much about propositions but about what will take place when the saints will feel an iron yoke around their necks. "And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into capitivity." Many are being brought down...that is a fact to be sure. And yes, the lds church will be a small church (see 1 nephi 14:12)...the bofm predicts that also. (Strange, isn't? If joseph smith had a huge ego and if JS wrote the bofm, why write that the church of the lamb will be small? Why not huge? My own ego would tell me to write 'huge'.) And such a prediction as in 1 nephi is certainly no incentive to join the lds church or 'Smith's' church. But this neither here nor there.

Your mentioning of the strangites is weak point...they are a spent force...gone with the wind so to speak with small pockets here or there. But the lds church is not weak...there are still many strong and committed members throughout the world.

And to those TBM's searching for answers from learned men and women? Search for answers in prayer...remember the spirit that you felt when you joined or when you attended meetings. Think common sense...but learned men cannot give you answers to that which is founded on faith. Well anyway that is my take on it from a common guy who is himself struggling with his own spirit of relativism.

In this post I referred to 1 nephi but I now believe that I made a mistake. It doesn't refer to that which I thought it did. However, my other comments to James I will leave as is.

I think that this thread is again a no winner. But I marvel at the 'writings' of Joseph Smith as it pertains to the pearl of great price and the book of mormon. I am sure that he would be surprised that we are still debating 'his' works. I just have to admire the man, who was named Joseph Smith. And this is what makes the lds church so compelling...one man leaving such a mark on religious life...Yes, this poor young farmer/money digger would never have believed it, unless of course he was truly a prophet. :P

Link to comment

James I do not object to someone proving they can demonstrate the same kind of evidence for works of fiction that FARMS feels they have for the Book of Mormon. This would allow me to have more information they thing about. I would love to see Signature Books undertake the task in a book of new essays.

Link to comment
I'm mystified that Juliann missed them completely
I don't think she did though she can correct me if I'm wrong. She stated that the quote she posted was a "summation". From your list, many of the objections are similar to other works (author isn't who it's claimed to be, not quoted, etc.), including some in the Bible so since the essential difference is the AoA not being in the Aprocrypha, it appears this is your overall reason for rejection. Whether it is or not, it appears that way from your presentation.
Link to comment
Okay, normally I would just ignore J.C.M's comments because they are slightly inflamatory, and I tend to not respond to well to that. But I just wanted to state some things.

I've read both Eragon and the Book of Mormon (being a Mormon I would have of course  :P )  and I just wanted to state my opinion on your whole comparision between the two. First of all, Eragon is a fantasy book written for the amusement of others and sold for profit, and as such the two shouldn't be compared in the first place. Then there was the whole "Paolini made up languages and Smith didn't even try" thing. Eragon is a FANTASY BOOK, of course it's going to have made up languages. And Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from reformed Egyptian to English (for those of you that believe such) and therefore, wouldn't it make sense for it to not be in a foreign language?

P.S: Again I'm recommending you remove your e-mail address from your posts, you're going to get spamed by someone eventually.

Actually, Gohan, you've hit the central issue. The LDS Challenge is this: "Critics are wrong that the BoM is just made up, just fiction. Smith was so uneducated he couldn't possible make up the BoM as a work of fiction and could only have written it if it were true. In fact, we challenge you to find someone with Smith's lack of education who has made up such a fiction. If you do, it'll prove Smith could have made up the BoM. If you can't, it'll prove the BoM is true."

In a previous post, an LDS apologist issued this classic LDS challenge. As a critic, I took up the challenge and found Christopher Paolini who is completely homeschooled and who, at age 15 wrote Eragon, a work of fiction with some complexity, certainly enough to become a bestseller. I believe it demonstrates that someone with Smith's limited education and young age can, indeed, make up a novel good enough to get published. After all, Paolini did; so Smith could have, too.

Of course, you're right that Eragon is fiction and the BoM is proported to be "true." But I, as a critic, didn't make up the rules for the LDS Challenge which require that the person found write a made-up novel. Otherwise the challenge falls apart.

P.S. thank you for the kind warning about my email address, but you might be surprised to find that to date, not one person has flammed me (I keep hoping), but several have written to thank me for my posts, to compliment me on them and to encourage me to keep on truckin'. I've even had a few people make public posts here at FAIR in which they either thank me for my posts or compliment me on them. Not "tons" of posts and emails, mind you, but more than just a few.

This mirrors my experience in the real world where, when some LDS co-workers find I'm an atheist exmormon, they take me aside to confide in me their doubts and problems with the Church and its doctrine.

Incidentally, I post with my real name and my real email address because I'm comfortable with who I am and the position I've taken. I use my full name because the name "James Miller" may well be even more common than "Joseph Smith" and I get mistaken for a lot of other James Millers. Where I work, there are four other James Millers just in my building alone.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

Link to comment

Okay, I can understand were you were coming from. My only issue with what you said is that I know a great many home schooled children, some of whom are extremely intelligent (and, on a completely random note, I've been working on writing my own book for some time). I only posted that little bit about your e-mail because I made the mistake of posting my e-mail address on a board, and am now some weird e-mails, which include several offers for free Viagara....

Link to comment
why_me: Your mentioning of the strangites is weak point...they are a spent force...gone with the wind so to speak with small pockets here or there. But the lds church is not weak...there are still many strong and committed members throughout the world.

Ah, Why_me, you know as well as I do that numbers don't make truth. If they did, the Catholic Church would have to be God's Only True Church. And, it's interesting that you'd bring up how the BoM has survived criticism because so has the little Strangite group. Just like the BoM, the Strangites are still with us. If the fact that the BoM is still here is a proof of its truth, wouldn't the fact that the Strangites are still here be a proof of their truth? I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

Link to comment
I'm not sure how you missed from the beginning that I was a critic. Just as apologists defend the faith, critics criticize the faith.

I suppose critics come in all flavors. It's unusual, though, to take the position that regardless of what's proffered, it will not be accepted. Most will admit to some predisposition for or against certain ideas and attempt logical arguments. Like a dog chasing a car, the dog knows it's at opposition to the car; however, it has taken no thought as to what will happen if it catches the car. Since in most cases the car simply outruns the dog, little is accomplished on the dog's part except some misguided sense of accomplishment.

Many here are predisposed towards the LDS position. The topics would be rather boring if we all put up barriers or didn't bother to craft well our positions.

Cold Steel

Link to comment
Okay, I can understand were you were coming from. My only issue with what you said is that I know a great many home schooled children, some of whom are extremely intelligent (and, on a completely random note, I've been working on writing my own book for some time). I only posted that little bit about your e-mail because I made the mistake of posting my e-mail address on a board, and am now some weird e-mails, which include several offers for free Viagara....

Boy, I hear you on the ads for Viagra. I even use Viagra and I'm gettin' sick of the spam which clutters up my email.

About the homeschooled children. I have two concerns. One is that I'm not convinced that most mothers are qualified to homeschool their children so I'm not entirely sure these kids are getting a fair shake. The second concern is that many of the homeschooled children with whom I'm personally acquainted seem to have suffered from lack of exposure to the social aspects of school and seem to have been cheated out of a lot of fun, enjoyment and learning which comes from others.

P.S. I'm fascinated to hear you do some writing. As a published author myself, I'm very interest in other writers. I would be delighted to have you contact me by email to tell me what you're working on. For twenty years now, I've had many dozens of my dull, boring nonfiction articles on finance and banking published in equally dull, boring banking and accounting journals. But now I'm trying to get my fiction stuff published and it's not as easy as I would have thought. So I'd be interested in your experience.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

Link to comment
I only posted that little bit about your e-mail because I made the mistake of posting my e-mail address on a board, and am now some weird e-mails, which include several offers for free Viagara....

This could just be a cyber-myth, but I've heard that e-mail addresses are collected by automated programs that search for text that looks like an email address. You can fool them by typing out your address without the tell-tale email signs, like so:

millerjames at cox dot net

Link to comment
Joseph Smith had received a total of 2-2.5 months of scattered formal grade school education by the time the Book of Mormon appeared.

Thomas Edison had 3 months of formal schooling. What's your point?

The first draft of Eragon took Paolini a year to write....he Book of Mormon was dictated in just over two months.

Indeed. Most writers are good at....well....writing. So what do they do when they have an idea for a novel? They start writing it pretty soon after they've pinned down the basic plot. Some writers don't even have a complete picture of what the plot is going to be, and they just let the characters take shape and drive the story as they write it.

But JS was not good at writing. He was good at storytelling. And whereas Eragon and other typical writers begin the process of writing relatively soon after the initial idea for a story, JS did--or couldn't--do that. We know that the story of the plates was in Joseph's head LONG before he began dictating it. He was telling stories to his family about BoM people's years before he obtained the plates (supposedly). He was denied access to the plates for years, each year being told to come back to Cumorah (supposedly). While the actual, physical dictation of the BoM only took a few months, the formulation of the story, the religious rhetoric it contains, the main characters, exotic sounding names, etc. were formulated over several years.

(I know someone will completely misunderstand this post and mistakenly think I'm claiming JS had the entire text for the BoM memorized verbatim. That is NOT what I'm claiming at all. Just so we're clear on that.)

Link to comment
Cold Steel: I suppose critics come in all flavors. It's unusual, though, to take the position that regardless of what's proffered, it will not be accepted.

Interesting. That's along the lines of what I was thinking about people who reject what I present.

However, don't give up heart, my friend. I'm far more interested in what the actual truth is than in being a critic, though that's more fun than you can believe. There are reputable ancient Near Eastern texts out there whose authenticity is pretty much proved and you suggested some in one of your posts -- the Law of Hammurabi, for example. I'm also fascinated about the insights about ancient Israel you can get from some of the letters from the Amarna archives. I give you my pledge that if you use reputable texts with which to parallel the BofA, I won't reject them out of hand even if I may not find the parallels valid. But you have to be prepared to defend your sources so you have to chose them carefully.

For example, I think the Apocalypse of Abraham might well be an appropriate source in a discussion of Jewish folklore and legends, but I suggest that it's not a defendable source for a discussion of scripture and doctrine.

I understand that what I'm about to write is heresy in this forum and unsolicited, to boot, but I offer this suggestion to you for what it's worth because I think you deserve to know this since I perceive that you actually care about the quality of your arguments. And remember that free advice is often worth exactly what you pay for it.

You might want to try reading outside of the LDS apologists circles for your sources.

Think about it. We critics are free to use anti-Mormon stuff and really sturdy, reputable sources in peer-reviewed journals and books by non-LDS professional scholars who really know their stuff and are trained and experienced in critical evalutation of sources and arguments. In contrast, you apologists seem to be limiting yourselves to just LDs apologist stuff designed (in my humble opinion) for the lay LDS readership and not at all intended to stand up to professional scholars outside the LDS world[1]. That's not fair for you guys. That's why I suggest that you go for the sturdy non-LDS stuff, too, just like some of us critics do.

C'mon, level the playing field by improving the quality of your sources by finding them in peer-reviewed jounals and non-LDS academic books.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

Footnote

[1] In defense of the apologists, I think it would be wrong for them to write over the heads of the lay LDS membership for whom the articles and books are written.

Link to comment
I know someone will completely misunderstand this post and mistakenly think I'm claiming JS had the entire text for the BoM memorized verbatim. That is NOT what I'm claiming at all.

Why don't you be specific about exactly what you are claiming then. What did he have constructed pre-dictation and was this all memorized or instead written down somewhere?

Link to comment
Joseph Smith had received a total of 2-2.5 months of scattered formal grade school education by the time the Book of Mormon appeared.

Thomas Edison had 3 months of formal schooling. What's your point?

Well, my principal point was that James Clifford Miller's suggestion that Christopher Paolini and Joseph Smith were roughly equally uneducated is patently false.

Edison isn't exactly a good parallel either, though that's a separate point. With Edison, we're not talking about sudden and unexpected literary education or ability, but a kind of practical craftsman's gift that was manifested over a lifetime -- which, particularly in his era, was never, ever, taught at universities or in schools but was far more likely to be developed while working with farm equipment, in a blacksmith's shop, or maintaining carriages. Philo Farnsworth, the inventor of television, came up with his basic idea while plowing a field; the plowing itself gave him the idea.

But JS was not good at writing.  He was good at storytelling.

Evidence, please? (And, please, don't give me the passage from his mother's biography of him where she portrays him describing the Nephites to his family. That comes nowhere near demonstrating that he had any unusual gift for spinning narrative tales.)

We know that the story of the plates was in Joseph's head LONG before he began dictating it.

Evidence, please?

He was telling stories to his family about BoM people's years before he obtained the plates.

Dang. I just knew that you were going to press that one into service. Too bad that it doesn't actually say anything of the sort. It says that he told his family about the way the Nephites dressed and their modes of transportation -- neither of which is described in the Book of Mormon. It says nothing whatever about the complex plot of the Book of Mormon, even though you want us to believe that Joseph was an exceptionally talented teller of tales.

While the actual, physical dictation of the BoM only took a few months, the formulation of the story, the religious rhetoric it contains, the main characters, exotic sounding names, etc. were formulated over several years.

Evidence, please?

Incidentally, have you ever dictated or written approximately 5000 words of new prose for publication in a single work every day for a period of somewhat more than two months? I haven't. I haven't even come close. (And I've kept meticulous records of my writing output for the past several years.)

Link to comment

JCM: "There are reputable ancient Near Eastern texts out there whose authenticity is pretty much proved and you suggested some in one of your posts -- the Law of Hammurabi, for example. I'm also fascinated about the insights about ancient Israel you can get from some of the letters from the Amarna archives. I give you my pledge that if you use reputable texts with which to parallel the BofA, I won't reject them out of hand even if I may not find the parallels valid. But you have to be prepared to defend your sources so you have to chose them carefully."

I would be much more impressed were you actually to review the evidences proffered. For example, your comparing the BOM to a fantasy novel shows me that you are failing to see what Latter-day Saints the world over see -- and that is what's being conveyed. The same thing is true with your glossing over the Arabian Lehi trail. It was evident to me that you've never carefully examined the work of the Nephi Project and other explorative groups.

Regarding the BoA and the Apocalypse of Abraham, you see no merit in similarities because the latter isn't canonical. The fact that a farmer in the early 1800s can pop off a piece that fits comfortably with any ancient source is significant. How could Joseph Smith do it?

Your methods of argument are like Korihor's. They can be leveled against all religions and philosophies because they're only meant to counter -- not to arrive at the truth. Most of the critics here realize that much. Until you can sit down and read King Benjamin's discourse and come away aknowledging the wisdom, sincerity and integrity of the writer, I'm afraid you'll be little more than a naysayer.

It's one thing to breeze over a few chapters looking for errors. It's quite another to actually read the text and absorb what's being conveyed.

Cold Steel

Link to comment
I'm also fascinated about the insights about ancient Israel you can get from some of the letters from the Amarna archives.

Then perhaps you could actually quote them.

But you have to be prepared to defend your sources so you have to chose them carefully.

Where are yours?

For example, I think the Apocalypse of Abraham might well be an appropriate source in a discussion of Jewish folklore and legends, but I suggest that it's not a defendable source for a discussion of scripture and doctrine.

Source?

You might want to try reading outside of the LDS apologists circles for your sources.

You mean like using actual, honest to goodness quotes from texts and scholars? You know...the kind that are in books and juried journals? The only one not going outside of apologetic circles is you.

C'mon, level the playing field by improving the quality of your sources by finding them in peer-reviewed jounals and non-LDS academic books.

If only that meant you would provide us with some. :P

Meanwhile, we can all debate James' apologetic version of real life.

Link to comment
Calmoriah: How nice of you to join in. And yes, these are pretty much my unlearned and humble criticisms of the Apocalypse. You summarized them so well, I'm mystified that Juliann missed them completely.

All you ever give is unlearned criticism. How in the world could anyone miss it? Still waiting for some evidence beyond the confines of your mind.

Link to comment

Did Joseph Smith make it up on the spot in his head? To my knowledge nobody saw him with a pre-existent manuscript other than metalic plates which was obscurred from sight via a covering. So to me if he had no manuscript he must have had a manuscript committed to memory. This was my idea I raised for the sake of discussion of how complecated being a fraud would have been for Joseph Smith & not an idea I attributed to James.

With the Book of Mormon it has carefully worked out names, poetical forms, geographic features, place names, religious teachings, wars & battles,ect To me it's to carefully worked out to have been done in his head only during the time while purportedly translating.

And if their was a pre-existent manuscript you have to be sneaky while dictating it to scribes, or you would get caught.

With the Book of Abraham I would have to see that the case for modern sources is better than the case for ancient sources.

Link to comment

Hello Jim,

There are reputable ancient Near Eastern texts out there whose authenticity is pretty much proved and you suggested some in one of your posts

First of all, your view of authentic sources vs. forgeries is very problematic. Again, simply because a source does not present the past does not mean that it fails to present a past. The standard you suggest would disqualify virtually every Near Eastern text, including all biblical books, for comparative purpose.

However, since you were wondering about parallels with Mesopotamian texts, the Book of Abraham features a number of incredible links.

Enuma Elish, for example, presents a story of a divine council of deities. Like every other divine council myth from the ancient Near East that I can think of, Enuma Elish follows the same pattern witnessed in the council story featured in the BofA:

First a crisis would occur. Second, the head God of the Council would ask for solutions. Third the head God would call for volunteers to resolve the crisis. Finally, the head God would commission a Savior.

In Enuma Elish, this pattern explained for the Babylonians how Marduk rose to a position of prominence in the Council, since Marduk retained his Father

Link to comment
You can test the Book of Abraham by logic & reason. But after you are certiain as I am it's has intellectual support you should ask God.

I have yet to see this vast repository of intellectual support you claim. I see a few small plausabilities.

Let's look at the Book of Mormon. Nobody can tell me Joseph Smith was able to make up such a complex book without citing from a pre-existent manuscript or plates.

Uhh, yes we can. I don't know how he made it up, but he did.

An example is Chiasmus whether ancient, or modern unless you see such poetry in your head you would get confused if you tried to do it on the spot. The book is filled with things like that. The Book of Abraham is no different.

Riiiight. And, as I've seen demonstrated, you can pull nearly any book off the shelf, randomly turn to a page and find a chiasm. Not the best of evidence.

One thing I was thinking about the other day. Joseph Smith was supposed to have possibly borrowed from a number of sources in producing the Book of Mormon, or Book of Abraham. Don't the critics have the ability to find a genius like Joseph Smith. Let's put a stack of these sources in front of them & let them become familiar with the content. Then let's find some scribes give him a hat & a stone & let them duplicate what Joseph Smith did on either book without getting confused. I have no doubt the person would quit out of unfinished embarrassment. Although somebody of Mark Hoffman's talent could produce a Book of Abraham. But using paper notes & mental notes are two different things.

We don't really know how JS wrote the BoM. We don't really need to know how he did it to know it is still a fraud. See my David Blane example above, please.

Ummm... Dale, I think I'll do the favor of letting you know how you're making yourself look here. You're telling us that you're not sure how he did it or how it happened, but it's still a fraud. I would like to point out that your example is based on false logic. Your point of view (as it seems) is coming from a proof oriented perspective as an almost secular type of argument, yet at the same time you cannot provide anything proving the contrary to the BOA or BOM. Essentially, you're bearing us your testimony that the Book of Mormon is not true. It's a religious stance, based on faith, somewhat like our stance. But at the same time you contradict yourself by saying we do not need proof to know it's a fraud. I think ANY critic needs proof and examples, or else he/she has no business being a critic.

Link to comment

Uhh..guys, even though I disagree with him, James is only stating his honest opinion on the matter, and we shouldn't insult him because of what he thinks. If we do so, we become just as bad as those in the great and spacious building that mocked the beilevers

Link to comment
Uhh..guys, even though I disagree with him, James is only stating his honest opinion on the matter, and we shouldn't insult him because of what he thinks. If we do so, we become just as bad as those in the great and spacious building that mocked the beilevers

The problem with James' arguments or "honest opinions" is that he presents them in an academic manner, but at the same time his content and point of view is very UNacademic. This also includes the misrepresentations of quotes from other board members, which I've seen repeatedly. In any case, I believe many of the people responding to his criticism are simply stating "their" honest opinions. cool.gif

Link to comment

The problem with James' arguments or "honest opinions" is that he presents them in an academic manner, but at the same time his content and point of view is very UNacademic. This also includes the misrepresentations of quotes from other board members, which I've seen repeatedly. In any case, I believe many of the people responding to his criticism are simply stating "their" honest opinions. cool.gif

Be that as it may, I stated a while ago that if I ever felt a poster was being unfairly treated, I would defend them, no matter what their opinion.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...