Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess we have to go back to square one, Skeptic, and you need to carefully track the entire seequence.  The translation read off the stone by Joseph was previously done a couple of centuries before Joseph by a human who filtered everything.

I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that a human (someone that lived centuries before Joseph) translated some scriptures, and the stones showed the translation of that human? Did Paul (or KVJ translators) also use the translation of that same human?

or did Joseph see in the stones the work of the KJV translators? 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  You are confusing yourself by not paying close attention, also likely the reason why you don't understand other aspects of Mormon religion.

what would Jesus say? I do understand LDS doctrine as explained in Preach My Gospel and Gospel Principles manuals.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, if you are afraid of quiet isolation (such as you might find while sleeping at night), then by all means put yourself in the midst of tremendous noise and tumult and see if that is conducive to meditation and reflection.

I am not afraid, but it is true the human brain is powerful. 

 

Quote

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Several investigations have shown that the occurrence of auditory hallucinations (AH) is not restricted to neuropsychiatric patients. The aim of this study is to analyse the effect of attention and sustained silence on the emergence of AH in a nonclinical sample.

METHODS:

Sitting in a silent sound booth, 66 adults were studied under different attention demands and then where asked about their auditory perception.

RESULTS:

While performing a Hanoi Tower in silence, 10.6% of the individuals had hallucination-like perceptions (music, voices, and others). This rate decreased to 6.0% during a visual attention task, but highly increased to 36.4% during auditory attention.

CONCLUSIONS:

Auditory hallucinations may occur in a nonclinical population in a silent environment. Concomitant auditory attention increases both the quantity and the quality of those perceptions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19214839

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that a human (someone that lived centuries before Joseph) translated some scriptures, and the stones showed the translation of that human? Did Paul (or KVJ translators) also use the translation of that same human?

or did Joseph see in the stones the work of the KJV translators? 

Have you bothered to study the conclusions of Skousen & Carmack on early Modern English in the BofM?  Do you understand what that means?  Do you understand the notion that all revelation is human-filtered?  No exceptions.  I thought that we had been over all this already.  Have you had a relapse?

27 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

what would Jesus say? I do understand LDS doctrine as explained in Preach My Gospel and Gospel Principles manuals.

You might want to expand your reading a bit, and it is not clear to me that you read much Scripture.  WWJD?

27 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not afraid, but it is true the human brain is powerful. 

Are you able to sleep at night?  Do you find darkness and quiet conducive to sleep?  Or are you afraid that you might have an hallucination?

[TheSkepticChristian]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Have you bothered to study the conclusions of Skousen & Carmack on early Modern English in the BofM?  

I am not sure what any of that has to do with the fact that Moro 7 and 1 Cor 13 use the same words and  sentences. 

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought that we had been over all this already.  Have you had a relapse?

because you are not explaining. Are you saying the stones gave Joseph the translation (or interpretation) of someone else that lived centuries before? and what does "Stoic talk of "faith, truth, love, hope,"" have to do with Moroni 7? 

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Do you understand the notion that all revelation is human-filtered?  No exceptions.

It makes sense, and that makes revelation and our church unfalsifiable. .  

Please don't avoid my question again, is "all revelation is human-filtered? No exceptions." official church doctrine? 

Edited August 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Bernard Gui]

On August 18, 2016 at 8:27 AM, mfbukowski said:

Bernard

I mean what other country would elect a concert pianist President?

Richard Nixon? Oh..... You mean Paderewski. I would vote for Condoleezza Rice in a heartbeat.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not sure what any of that has to do with the fact that Moro 7 and 1 Cor 13 use the same words and  sentences. 

because you are not explaining. Are you saying the stones gave Joseph the translation (or interpretation) of someone else that lived centuries before? and the "Stoic talk of "faith, truth, love, hope,"" has nothing to do with Moroni 7, that seems to me patternicity. 

You are either putting me on, or are suffering from short term memory loss, Skeptic,  Either way, your not being able to track an ordinary discussion on this board indicates a willful disregard for everything said thus far, or a learning disability.  If it is the latter, I cannot help you.

5 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It makes sense, and that makes revelation not falsifiable.  

Of course it does not, and indicates yet again that you have had no training in logic.

5 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Please don't avoid my question again, is "all revelation is human-filtered? No exceptions." official church doctrine? 

Do you reject it as false doctrine?  I was using logic.  God gave you a brain.  Are you willing to use it?

[Bernard Gui]

On August 18, 2016 at 7:38 AM, stemelbow said:

I just said, It looks like I misunderstood.  Sorry for that. 

What are some "flat earth ideas" the Church should give up?

[Bernard Gui]

On August 18, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Buckeye said:

. In the long term, most all of us go the celestial kingdom. Doing the right thing gets the church there sooner. Maybe we beat "the world," maybe "they" beat us. Doesn't matter. In the end we're unified in Christ.

How do you square this with D&C 76? Is this one of those doctrines the Church should change to conform with the world?

 109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;

 110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;

 111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared;

 112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

[Error]

Edited August 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[TheSkepticChristian]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are either putting me on, or are suffering from short term memory loss, Skeptic,  Either way, your not being able to track an ordinary discussion on this board indicates a willful disregard for everything said thus far, or a learning disability.  If it is the latter, I cannot help you.

or a third possibility is that you are not explaining very well, you are not clear enough, can you give be more details please? 

You said, "Remember, those "exact words and sentences" you are quoting are in English. The Book of Mormon was engraved in Egyptian. Thus, whatever translating was done had to go through a human filter -- likely a filter very familiar with those exact English words and sentences, and likely to reuse them -- especially if they were given directly to him from the LED screen of a solid state device. After all, neither Joseph nor (most likely) his predecessor in "translation" actually knew ancient Egyptian." "How the initial translation was done into early Modern English centuries before Joseph, I have no clear idea."

Just because Book of Mormon has 16 century (or earlier) English doesn't mean someone else centuries ago did it. I read  in "the 19th century it was not uncommon for translations of ancient secular works (such a Greek drama, Latin poetry, Norse epics) to use an antiquated form of English, for the purpose of emphasizing the antiquity of the original"   So please give me evidence that the Modern English translation was done centuries before Joseph. I still need more context please. 

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course it does not, and indicates yet again that you have had no training in logic.

Just personals attacks? If "all revelation is human-filtered" you will say mistakes are human misinterpretation, not God.   

It is clear our church is unfalsifiable. 

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Do you reject it as false doctrine?  I was using logic.  God gave you a brain.  Are you willing to use it?

I am not making any claims, I am just asking you. 

I am starting to suspect you have nothing. 

 

 

[Charlotte]

I signed up to participate on this board several years ago, but ended up spending what time I allotted for Internet on other boards and blogs. 

After Patrick Mason's talk I logged in here for the first time in years. I could (and maybe should) just log out and say nothing. But sometimes it's good to know how occasional visitors perceive things. 

Is this thread representative of what goes on here?

I thought Mason's talk bodes well for the church, but after reading here, I'm discouraged.

[Charlotte]

I won't be able to check in again until Monday, BTW.

I was specifically interested in a conversation about Mason's suggestion that the church needs to do concrete things to recompense for years of patriarchal discourse that hurts women. I agree, but would not say that individual men I know in the church, including my husband, have set out to hurt anyone. 

Anyway, was hoping for a discussion, but after ten pages of scrolling, wasn't sure anythjng was happening. 

[Tacenda]

54 minutes ago, Charlotte said:

I signed up to participate on this board several years ago, but ended up spending what time I allotted for Internet on other boards and blogs. 

After Patrick Mason's talk I logged in here for the first time in years. I could (and maybe should) just log out and say nothing. But sometimes it's good to know how occasional visitors perceive things. 

Is this thread representative of what goes on here?

I thought Mason's talk bodes well for the church, but after reading here, I'm discouraged.

It boded well for me, of course I'm a struggling LDS in trying to keep the faith and stay in the boat as far as activity. I love what he had to say, and think it would retain or even bring back a few people to the church if the leaders looked at things in this way. 

Don't know if it's possible for my full belief in the church being what it states it is, but it might prove to be a community that I could live with. And a community that could live with me.

I hope you stick around Charlotte!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Charlotte said:

I won't be able to check in again until Monday, BTW.

I was specifically interested in a conversation about Mason's suggestion that the church needs to do concrete things to recompense for years of patriarchal discourse that hurts women. I agree, but would not say that individual men I know in the church, including my husband, have set out to hurt anyone. 

Anyway, was hoping for a discussion, but after ten pages of scrolling, wasn't sure anythjng was happening. 

Imo, but perhaps I am making excuses for my own behavoiur, it is an unusual case.  It is rare that copyright infringement cases involving people on the board turn up.

There are Grant Hardy and Ally Isom's threads which might be seen as more typical,  the transcript for Hardy isn't out yet though.   A few posters have done some transcribing so there is that to work with.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Calm

[juliann]

59 minutes ago, Charlotte said:

I signed up to participate on this board several years ago, but ended up spending what time I allotted for Internet on other boards and blogs. 

After Patrick Mason's talk I logged in here for the first time in years. I could (and maybe should) just log out and say nothing. But sometimes it's good to know how occasional visitors perceive things. 

Is this thread representative of what goes on here?

I thought Mason's talk bodes well for the church, but after reading here, I'm discouraged.

It looks like Nemesis  is stepping in to reduce the negativity that has overtaken the board. I've been on message boards for decades now and when there are too many posters whose only goal is to pick apart the Church the believing Mormons leave. You are not alone in what you perceive. That said...

I am very excited about his talk. Be sure to read Hardy and Isom as well. (Hardy's transcript hasn't been posted yet last I looked.) Hardy made the distinction between polemics and true discussion. It is a position that we need here. I am very encouraged that it is apologetic organizations who are taking a public stand against polemics and the toxic environment it creates within Mormonism. Hopefully, others will follow.

[Nevo]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am very encouraged that it is apologetic organizations who are taking a public stand against polemics and the toxic environment it creates within Mormonism. Hopefully, others will follow.

Which apologetic organizations are doing this? The Maxwell Institute did this and was roundly criticized for it by many at FairMormon.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Charlotte said:

I signed up to participate on this board several years ago, but ended up spending what time I allotted for Internet on other boards and blogs. 

After Patrick Mason's talk I logged in here for the first time in years. I could (and maybe should) just log out and say nothing. But sometimes it's good to know how occasional visitors perceive things. 

Is this thread representative of what goes on here?

I thought Mason's talk bodes well for the church, but after reading here, I'm discouraged.

Don't be discouraged by the frank and robust exchange of ideas and opinions. It's a discussion board, after all, and there is a wide range of contributors. That's what makes it worthwhile. I have participated from its beginning. I have learned many new things, reaffirmed my testimony, shared knowledge and experiences, and found ways I can defend my faith more effectively. It's a great place, but it is will be what you make it.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Which apologetic organizations are doing this? The Maxwell Institute did this and was roundly criticized for it by many at FairMormon.

I don't know what you mean by "many" unless you are talking about the individuals involved in the firings, which was an unfortunate situation all the way around. That may never heal. But it has nothing to do with FM.

FM works with MI, they have a table at our conference and we make sure that we post each other's stuff on FB pages and such.. Blair at MI was the one who recommended Mason as a speaker this year, so you can thank MI for that.   

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Charlotte said:

I signed up to participate on this board several years ago, but ended up spending what time I allotted for Internet on other boards and blogs. 

After Patrick Mason's talk I logged in here for the first time in years. I could (and maybe should) just log out and say nothing. But sometimes it's good to know how occasional visitors perceive things. 

Is this thread representative of what goes on here?

I thought Mason's talk bodes well for the church, but after reading here, I'm discouraged.

Welcome Charlotte, I am one of the boards resigned members and love to find different perspectives of different gospel principles that i grew up with.  If you have questions or want to discuss something more extensively, all you have to do is post away.  Best to you. Lots. of levels of faith here so don't stay mum

Jeanne

Edited August 20, 2016 by Jeanne

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I don't know what you mean by "many" unless you are talking about the individuals involved in the firings, which was an unfortunate situation all the way around. That may never heal. But it has nothing to do with FM.

FM works with MI, they have a table at our conference and we make sure that we post each other's stuff on FB pages and such.. Blair at MI was the one who recommended Mason as a speaker this year, so you can thank MI for that.   

I'm glad to hear that Mason's talk was well received at the conference and that FM and MI are working together.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Nevo

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

 

Not cool to publish spotty recollections of private exchanges, Nevo.   Especially since you don't mention those who objected to such characterizations. I can only imagine what every organization's backlists contain in our contentious Mormon world. There are a lot of voices and a lot of opinions and every org has to work with good and wonderful people who are going to clash at times.  Again, personal grievances, which no one is going to deny exist, do not determine the course of FM. Not even those who are irked expect that. And I'm sorry you didn't have a positive experience, that was a hurtful time for some people.

Edited August 20, 2016 by juliann

[Nevo]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

Not cool to publish spotty recollections of private exchanges, Nevo.   Especially since you don't mention those who objected to such characterizations. 

I didn't see anyone object to such characterizations. That's why I left. Anyway, I'll edit my post to remove references to private conversations.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

or a third possibility is that you are not explaining very well, you are not clear enough, can you give be more details please? 

You said, "Remember, those "exact words and sentences" you are quoting are in English. The Book of Mormon was engraved in Egyptian. Thus, whatever translating was done had to go through a human filter -- likely a filter very familiar with those exact English words and sentences, and likely to reuse them -- especially if they were given directly to him from the LED screen of a solid state device. After all, neither Joseph nor (most likely) his predecessor in "translation" actually knew ancient Egyptian." "How the initial translation was done into early Modern English centuries before Joseph, I have no clear idea."

Just because Book of Mormon has 16 century (or earlier) English doesn't mean someone else centuries ago did it. I read  in "the 19th century it was not uncommon for translations of ancient secular works (such a Greek drama, Latin poetry, Norse epics) to use an antiquated form of English, for the purpose of emphasizing the antiquity of the original"   So please give me evidence that the Modern English translation was done centuries before Joseph. I still need more context please. 

I suggest that you read the summary by Stan Carmack which I provided at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67765-the-state-of-the-evidence/?page=30#comment-1209653442 , and the list of publications on the same page of that thread.   It was not possible for anyone to use these extinct modes of grammar and expression in Joseph's time.  They were extinct and unavailable.  This is an exercise in fact and logic, Skeptic.

13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

.......................... If "all revelation is human-filtered" you will say mistakes are human misinterpretation, not God.   

It is clear our church is unfalsifiable. 

False.  Your claim is false.  A real skeptic would know why, and it has to do with the full panoply of scientific and logical modes of inquiry.  You appear to have no academic background whatsoever.

13 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not making any claims, I am just asking you. 

I am starting to suspect you have nothing. 

You constantly make claims, even if they are poorly thought out and false.  When I answer you with substantive argument and with sources to consult, you do not understand what I have said (claiming that I am unclear) and consistently refuse to consult the sources.  I can't do  your work for you, Skeptic.  You need to man up and shoulder your share of the intellectual burden.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suggest that you read the summary by Stan Carmack which I provided at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67765-the-state-of-the-evidence/?page=30#comment-1209653442 , and the list of publications on the same page of that thread.   It was not possible for anyone to use these extinct modes of grammar and expression in Joseph's time.  They were extinct and unavailable.  This is an exercise in fact and logic, Skeptic.

Very interesting! I will study all of that,I promise to follow the evidence and be open minded. If the evidence is good enough that will cause me to regain a strong testimony. 

However, please be careful with "it was not possible". I used to say the same thing about Nahom and the Arabian evidence, but I now realize that Math can explain the Arabian evidence. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  Your claim is false.  A real skeptic would know why, and it has to do with the full panoply of scientific and logical modes of inquiry.  You appear to have no academic background whatsoever.

Many scholars, philosophers, and scientists say religion is not falsifiable. I admit I am not a scientist yet, but I hope to become one in the future and create artificial intelligence. 

On 8/19/2016 at 10:31 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

  No one saw Joseph ever use a Bible during the process

what about your academic background? Didn't you know eyewitnesses are not very reliable? let alone 200 year old accounts. 

Many people saw that David Copperfield made the statue of Liberty disappear.  I know Joseph Smith was not a professional illusionist, but that doesn't mean he wasn't capable of performing cool tricks. My point is that eyewitnesses are not very reliable. 

 

Edited August 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

or 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

...............................................

Many scholars, philosophers, and scientists say religion is not falsifiable. ................................

.........................................................................

Correct, but only because most of those religions claim supernaturalism -- which is automatically outside the scope of science.  Since the Mormon religion is based on a claim of natural law throughout the universe (multiverse), along with a God who obeys natural law and who was a human, that means that all LDS claims are subject to scientific inquiry.