Brant Gardner Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Using the eye witness accounts as my guide. I have no apologies to make.Using the term in its academic sense, I believe you are correct. The eye witness accounts have sufficient variations and distance from the actual event of translating (which only Joseph really saw) that basing an apologetic on those accounts alone would be incredibly difficult--or naive.If I could add to Dr. Peterson's request that you tell us which eye witness accounts, might I also request that you tell us why you selected those particular ones and excluded the others? This is a topic I really am interested in, so I would love to have you explain how you have discerned which are the ones that provide the best information about the translation methodology.
apologize Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 However, having been very carefully through his arguments in the one paper (not included in any of the volumes on the text of the Book of Mormon) where he specifically lays out the argument you are talking about, I disagree with him--on the basis of evidence. Can you say why Skousen would deny that evidence. I doubt it outweighs the bulk, however, perhaps he missed it. What is it? Notwithstanding this one disagreement with Skousen, I cannot disagree with much in his textual analysis. The whole is simply brilliant.Almost a "change."
apologize Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 ...your humble servant...O my master...now, in your slightly less aggressive language...What a piece of work you are...Is your life a daily round of ignorant demands and condemnations directed at everybody around you?Ram, I tried nice.There's a reluctance on your part to state where you stand. No doubt my coming here was unexpected for us both. I am happy to have your position, both personally, and for which ever instution or body you represent.
Daniel Peterson Posted September 4, 2009 Author Posted September 4, 2009 Ram, I tried nice.And now back to your regular programming, right?There's a reluctance on your part to state where you stand.That's correct.I've never taken a definite position on this matter. Neither publicly nor privately. And I'm not inclined to do so now, either. Which is why your demands that I "change" my "position" and "apologize" for my "position" were so absurd.No doubt my coming here was unexpected for us both.Not really. All sorts of odd folks show up here. Nothing surprises me.I am happy to have your position, both perosonally, and for which ever instution or body you represent.But, of course, you don't have my "position" on this matter. And, on this issue, I represent nobody.Still, I hope you're happy.
Brant Gardner Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Can you say why Skousen would deny that evidence. I doubt it outweighs the bulk, however, perhaps he missed it. What is it? You doubt it "outweighs the bulk." I really an curious about the data you have analyzed on this topic. What do you believe constitutes "the bulk"? What might you use to convince me that I have made a mistake in the way I see the evidence?As for Skousen's opinion of my argument, I haven't published all of it yet. When he wrote his paper, I hadn't published any of it. I cannot say how he will react when I finally get this material out. I am terrible at mind reading (my wife says she has empirical evidence of this assertion).As for laying it out here, I have learned that boards are simply not the places for such detailed argumentation. You will have to wait. Almost a "change."I'm not quite sure what you mean. I have changed my opinions on quite a number of topics about the Book of Mormon (not about the divinity of the text itself, but of several other aspects of the text). In the last 15 years I suspect the number of things in the Book of Mormon about which I have had a change of opinion probably number in the hundreds. All have come from more careful reading of the text and wider reading in other LDS scholars' work as well as multiple secular sources.
apologize Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 I've never taken a definite position on this matter. What are friends for? (Don't worry Royal, it will be worth the cause.)
Daniel Peterson Posted September 4, 2009 Author Posted September 4, 2009 What are friends for? (Don't worry Royal, it will be worth the cause.)Royal has never asked me to take a position on this matter, and I've never felt any need to do so. Why should I? It's not something on which I write or publish.Scholarship is a matter of evidence and argument, not of amassing coalitions and organizing cheer leaders. I'm content to let things sort themselves out in the process of academic give-and-take. On the whole, it's a congenial process, in which scholars work toward consensus, where possible. Your fixation on demands and condemnations and apologies is foreign to the enterprise.
Nemesis Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Ok i've had enough. Your time here is done.
Confidential Informant Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Ok i've had enough. Your time here is done.Like we didn't see this one coming.C.I.
Nemesis Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Like we didn't see this one coming.C.I.Are you implying I'm predictable?Nemesis
Confidential Informant Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Are you implying I'm predictable?NemesisDepends. Would consider that good? I think predictability in law is a good thing. Mr. Apologize's bhavior was clearly beyond the line, therefore it was predictable that he'd get run. So, yes, I guess I am.C.I.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Ok i've had enough. Your time here is done.How come when some one is banned (I am assuming you band this person)that it doesn't say they are banned anymore?
Nemesis Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 How come when some one is banned (I am assuming you band this person)that it doesn't say they are banned anymore?Laziness on my part. I can quick ban from user cp it disables the account and moves it to my banned accounts in admincp. I have to log into my admin cp to ban them if I want it to move them to the banned account all together.Nemesis
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Laziness on my part. I can quick ban from user cp it disables the account and moves it to my banned accounts in admincp. I have to log into my admin cp to ban them if I want it to move them to the banned account all together.NemesisRoger roger. I guess one could say you have 2 strikes against you. One of predictability and one of laziness. Lol.
Daniel Peterson Posted September 4, 2009 Author Posted September 4, 2009 Skousen just placed his name on TWENTY YEARS OF RESEARCH"Apologize" is gone. His departure doesn't represent a big loss in my opinion, though I hasten to add (since it's canonical dogma in certain quarters that I routinely have people kicked off this board when they don't show me enough slavish deference) that I had nothing to do with his having been banned.Still, and despite the fact that he can't respond -- he never really did respond very cogently, in my judgment -- I want to respond to the item above, which I had overlooked until just now.Royal Skousen has been placing his name on the results of his research for years now. This new Yale book is merely the latest item -- though an important one -- in a long list of publications that have resulted from his project:http://mi.byu.edu/authors/?authorID=57And I've been involved with publishing virtually all of them. So it was particularly ridiculous to see "Apologize" -- who, so far as I know, has never done anything to assist with this two-decade-old project -- accuse me of "disregarding" the Book of Mormon and "passing by" the life-work of my good friend Royal Skousen, and demand that I itemize for him what I was going to do to advance Royal's project.
gmormon Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 It's kind of fun reading the exchange with DCP if you understand "apologize" is actually Royal Skousen.All the Best!--ConsiglieriOk i've had enough. Your time here is done.Did you just ban Royal Skousen?
Daniel Peterson Posted September 4, 2009 Author Posted September 4, 2009 Not a chance. Royal is logical and literate.And he almost certainly doesn't know that this place exists. That's how he gets so much done.
gmormon Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Not a chance. Royal is logical and literate.And he almost certainly doesn't know that this place exists. That's how he gets so much done.But how will Bro Skousen and you continue to promote his book if you don't have him as a foul foil for your rapier humor?
Calm Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 you Mormon's have for the Book of Mormon.I wish Nemesis had delayed just a bit because I had a few questions I wanted to ask.Did apologize ever state his own position of belief?And if he is not LDS as his comment above and a few others indicate, why is the issue of tight translation so important to him?Does he believe the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Not a chance. Royal is logical and literate.And he almost certainly doesn't know that this place exists. That's how he gets so much done.I have my suspicion about the sock-puppet identity of Apologize, but it isn't Royal Skousen.
Daniel Peterson Posted September 4, 2009 Author Posted September 4, 2009 I have my suspicion about the sock-puppet identity of Apologize, but it isn't Royal Skousen.Inquiring minds -- mine, at least -- want to know!
Scott Lloyd Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 Inquiring minds -- mine, at least -- want to know!Sounds a bit like Paul O.Just a hunch.
Calm Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 Sounds a bit like Paul O.Just a hunch.But claims he's not LDS....if he's Paul O. that's a bit much.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 But claims he's not LDS....if he's Paul O. that's a bit much.Using the phrase "you Mormons" is not exactly a claim to being non-Mormon -- although it does seem to imply as much.But I readily acknowledge my mixed track record in guessing sock-puppet identities.
consiglieri Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Using the phrase "you Mormons" is not exactly a claim to being non-Mormon ? although it does seem to imply as much.But I readily acknowledge my mixed track record in guessing sock-puppet identities.Never underestimate the chameleonlike Bat-Man.All the Best!--Consiglieri
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.