Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[UtahTexan]

On 8/16/2016 at 11:19 AM, Calm said:

Talk about not letting the facts get in the way.  How eager were you to be in on the passing around of it among the exmormons that you didn't care enough to check the facts about its source?

You were a member of Fairmormon and you don't know how we treat videos from conferences, that it is a part of how we pay for them?  Did you even bother to check?  Notice it wasn't the Fairmormon youtube channel?  

Would you appreciate people treating your premium service with the same lack of respect?

This

[TheSkepticChristian]

15 hours 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. 

You wrote "If they are in error, by all means point that out." 

I am not a linguist or a historian, I know nothing about old English. Do you have peer-reviewed articles published in  serious academic journals? Has the evidence been analyzed by skeptical linguists and historians?    

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

   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,

If that is true, and if there is no other reasonable explanation, and if it is not the result of patternicity, that will compel me to believe in the Book of Mormon. What would happen to faith? 

Edited August 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You wrote "If they are in error, by all means point that out." 

I am not a linguist or a historian, I know nothing about old English. Do you have peer-reviewed articles published in  serious academic journals? Has the evidence been analyzed by skeptical linguists and historians?    

If that is true, and if there is no other reasonable explanation, and if it is not the result of patternicity, that will compel me to believe in the Book of Mormon. What would happen to faith? 

This is all cutting-edge, Skeptic.  Carmack and Skousen have their PhDs and have published their conclusions in great detail with plenty of documentation.  It will take time (as it always does) for the academic community to respond, if at all.  If there is a real debate, I look forward to following it.

As to whether such data compel belief, that is always a personal matter.  Belief can be based on both inspiration or logic, or both.  It does not have to be either-or.  For me, this new early Modern English twist presents a quandary rather than a conclusion.  It seems more like a puzzle or riddle to be solved rather than an arrow in the quiver of anti- or pro-Mormon debate.

[TheSkepticChristian]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is all cutting-edge, Skeptic.  Carmack and Skousen have their PhDs and have published their conclusions in great detail with plenty of documentation.  

but we can say the same thing about Jason Lisle (PhD in astrophysics) and Kurt Wise (PhD in geology), both are young earth creationists. Wise and Lisle "have published their conclusions in great detail with plenty of documentation" in the Answers in Genesis Journal. In other words, PhDs don't mean much. 

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 It will take time (as it always does) for the academic community to respond, if at all.  If there is a real debate, I look forward to following it.

it must take time, we can't quickly jump to conclusions.  I hope the academic community analyzes the work of Carmack and Skousen. 

I honestly don't feel qualified to make a judgment myself. I am not even an amateur on that subject. 

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 It seems more like a puzzle or riddle to be solved rather than an arrow in the quiver of anti- or pro-Mormon debate.

True!  

Edited August 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but we can say the same thing about Jason Lisle (PhD in astrophysics) and Kurt Wise (PhD in geology), both are young earth creationists. Wise and Lisle "have published their conclusions in great detail with plenty of documentation" in the Answers in Genesis Journal. In other words, PhDs don't mean much. ......................................

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

Actually, a PhD in a hard science means a great deal.  That does not guarantee that a kook with a PhD will not occasionally show up, but it does mean that a great deal of effort has been expended in gaining the professional and academic qualifications.  And they should be respected for that effort, unless clearly shown to be out of line.  In the case of young earth creationists, one must bear in mind that a doctorate in physics provides no expertise in biblical Hebrew or exegesis.  Thus, since Genesis is not a science text, one must understand it according to its own era, literary genre, and linguistic principles.  The Creation Story, for example, nowhere indicates that it takes place in 24-hour days, and there are many PhDs in physics who are evangelicals who also believe that the Creation took place over a period of billions of years.  There are some rational evangelical Christians out there, despite what you may think.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

one must bear in mind that a doctorate in physics provides no expertise in biblical Hebrew or exegesis.  

but Jason Lisle published "scientific" "evidence" that our universe is only thousands of years old in the Answers in Genesis Journal. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

.  The Creation Story, for example, nowhere indicates that it takes place in 24-hour days

I don't know a lot of Hebrew scholars that believe day is a period of time. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but Jason Lisle published "scientific" "evidence" that our universe is only thousands of years old in the Answers in Genesis Journal. 

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

A prime example of confirmation bias.  Lisle began with a need to find the result he needed, rather than allowing the facts of tell him what he should conclude.  His ignorance of the Bible was his first problem, and it remains a problem for many rigid evangelicals.

[Scott Lloyd]

On August 18, 2016 at 3:13 PM, cinepro said:

Lennon might have been a hypocritical ignoramus when it came to social, moral and economic issues, but you're revealing your own ignorance if you think there is anything about song writing that you know (and he didn't) that would put you in a position to judge anything he ever did from an artistic standpoint.

"All You Need Is Love" was meant to be a worldwide anthem (and was premiered in a worldwide broadcast "music video" which included contributions from 19 nations), and so it had to be easily understood in any culture and language, and it couldn't focus one particular religion or outlook.  So the simplicity and universality are intentional, even if that leads to an oversimplified message that ultimately lacks substance. 

Indeed, for those of you who aren't impressed, find the best songwriter among you, and have him write a "Beatles"-like song.  And if any of you can write a song that is like the Beatles in quality, then you are justified in saying that you don't think it's a great song.

But if you can't make one like it, you are under derision if you don't admit that it's still a great song.

I do believe Cinepro is channeling Doctrine and Covenants 67 here. 

[hope_for_things]

On 8/19/2016 at 11:55 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

That you are afraid to ask me questions about prophets and prophecy indicates not only your lack of knowledge in that subject-matter, but a deep fear that I might just be correct in my replies -- showing up your shallow notions for what they are.

I'm not afraid to ask questions about what you think about prophets, and I'm not afraid to share my opinions about it.  But it sounds like you think my thoughts are shallow already, so it seems like you'd be unwilling to engage in a dialogue that has us both on equal standing.  That would put me at a disadvantage, and wouldn't facilitate a mutual exchange of ideas.  

On 8/19/2016 at 11:55 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

That you think a mechanical reading of a previous translation from a stone surface indicates "tight" translation, indicates further that you don't understand anything connected with translation, and have likely never done any.  If shallow assumptions are your stock in trade, then it is no surprise that you feel fear to expose your ignorance in asking questions about prophets and prophecy.  Academics have been discussing that subject-matter extensively now for centuries and you talk as though they have concluded nothing from all that effort.

I've read enough primary sources articles and books about the BoM translation debate to at least have an intelligent conversation about it.  I'm no expert or historian.  Your condescending attitude in this message unfortunately reinforces my earlier impression where I questioned your use of the word "accuracy" to describe beliefs about prophets.  You saying that I don't understand anything about translation because I compared reading words on a seer stone to the tight translation model is hyperbole and exaggeration.

Lastly, I question the bolded statement above.  Are you saying that the debate is over about BoM translation?  Who are these academics that have concluded how the BoM worked, and what have they concluded?  I was under the impression that there is still a very healthy debate and disagreement on these issues.  I attended a session at Sunstone this year on the BoM and its origins, a panel with four differing views on the matter and it was very interesting. Brant Gardiner represented the more conservative perspective, but I think if they could have had one more person, a Royal Skousen to represent an even further conservative position, that would have been a nice addition.  This panel showed the great diversity on this subject matter, so I find it curious that you claim there have been some significant and concrete conclusions that academics have reached.  

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 2:31 AM, Bernard Gui said:

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

here is a sampling:

Joseph Smith "translated" the book of Mormon.  It doesn't seem like he did more than dictate what was told him/shown him, and by and large the plates were not in play during the dictation process.

The priesthood ban came by revelation

"The leaders aren't perfect, sure...but everything they say is from God" type of stuff.

anti-intellectualism is needed because revelation trumps everything, and somehow comes in direct response to the thinking of the day

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not afraid to ask questions about what you think about prophets, and I'm not afraid to share my opinions about it.  But it sounds like you think my thoughts are shallow already, so it seems like you'd be unwilling to engage in a dialogue that has us both on equal standing.  That would put me at a disadvantage, and wouldn't facilitate a mutual exchange of ideas.  

I've read enough primary sources articles and books about the BoM translation debate to at least have an intelligent conversation about it.  I'm no expert or historian.  Your condescending attitude in this message unfortunately reinforces my earlier impression where I questioned your use of the word "accuracy" to describe beliefs about prophets.  You saying that I don't understand anything about translation because I compared reading words on a seer stone to the tight translation model is hyperbole and exaggeration.

Lastly, I question the bolded statement above.  Are you saying that the debate is over about BoM translation?  Who are these academics that have concluded how the BoM worked, and what have they concluded?  I was under the impression that there is still a very healthy debate and disagreement on these issues.  I attended a session at Sunstone this year on the BoM and its origins, a panel with four differing views on the matter and it was very interesting. Brant Gardiner represented the more conservative perspective, but I think if they could have had one more person, a Royal Skousen to represent an even further conservative position, that would have been a nice addition.  This panel showed the great diversity on this subject matter, so I find it curious that you claim there have been some significant and concrete conclusions that academics have reached.  

On the contrary, I was speaking about prophets and prophecy, the subject-matter which you are afraid to address.  I can see that you like to dance around a subject while never coming to grips with it as a substantive matter -- the exact opposite of scholarship.  That is the readiest indication of fear.

As to the translation debate, of course it is a very open inquiry, but you have yet to say anything substantive about it as well.  You have only meaningless excuses to make in order to hide your lack of familiarity with these subjects.  That, together with your inability to track what is being said, tells everyone that you couldn't care less about advancing knowledge on any of these subjects.  A little sincerity might have helped you a great deal.

It is now clear also, that your challenges are made merely for the sake of making a challenge, and not for eliciting hard information.  Rather pointless, don't you think?.

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the contrary, I was speaking about prophets and prophecy, the subject-matter which you are afraid to address.  I can see that you like to dance around a subject while never coming to grips with it as a substantive matter -- the exact opposite of scholarship.  That is the readiest indication of fear.

As to the translation debate, of course it is a very open inquiry, but you have yet to say anything substantive about it as well.  You have only meaningless excuses to make in order to hide your lack of familiarity with these subjects.  That, together with your inability to track what is being said, tells everyone that you couldn't care less about advancing knowledge on any of these subjects.  A little sincerity might have helped you a great deal.

It is now clear also, that your challenges are made merely for the sake of making a challenge, and not for eliciting hard information.  Rather pointless, don't you think?.

Ugh...  I'll let you have the last word because we're just on different wavelengths here, and I'm pushing buttons that you are responding to, and you are doing the same for me, and its not productive to continue.  

Edited August 22, 2016 by hope_for_things

[TheSkepticChristian]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A prime example of confirmation bias.  Lisle began with a need to find the result he needed, rather than allowing the facts of tell him what he should conclude. 

so how can we know it is not the same with Carmack and Skousen?

Like I said, I am not even an amateur, and I don't have the time to do extensive research on that subject.   

That is why I was asking for academic peer-reviewed papers. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/22/2016 at 3:00 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

so how can we know it is not the same with Carmack and Skousen?

Like I said, I am not even an amateur, and I don't have the time to do extensive research on that subject.   

That is why I was asking for academic peer-reviewed papers. 

If you haven't time for Skousen & Carmack, then you won't have time for any hypothetical peer-reviewed papers or books, and you would likely understand neither in any case.  Which is why I recommend that you seek insight in some other way(s).  But, of course, it is your choice, Skeptic.  The crucial question is Do you really want to make progress in studying and thinking about such issues -- inspiration, science, or the like.  You will not learn about such subjects through osmosis.  Instead, you will have to make some actual  effort.

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 8/23/2016 at 10:08 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

If you haven't time for Skousen & Carmack, then you won't have time for any hypothetical peer-reviewed papers or books, and you would likely understand neither in any case.  Which is why I recommend that you seek insight in some other way(s).  But, of course, it is your choice, Skeptic.  The crucial question is Do you really want to make progress in studying and thinking about such issues -- inspiration, science, or the like.  You will not learn about such subjects through osmosis.  Instead, you will have to make some actual  effort.

I definitely would have time to read a academic paper on that topic, if it is ever published. 

Edited August 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian