That is a good question. When one is defending something, does one actually have to believe what one offers in defense?
WEll, I do believe that a lot of the LDS Apologists do believe what they are actually defending. However, I do kind of wonder about some of the LDS Apologists of the Book of Abraham, such as John Gee. For example, John Gee has been claiming that the Book of Breathings papyri text that Jospeh Smith had, had nothing to do with the translation for the Book of Abraham. John Gee has been proclaiming that Joseph Smith tranlsated the Book of Abraham from some other papyri that Joseph Smith had, that is now missing. However, virtually All of the Evidence points to the Book of Abraham having been translated from the Book of Breathings papyri text that Joseph Smith had. Here is a hyperlink to one of my Posts about the source of the Book of Abraham on one of the Threads here: Please Click here:
wenglund wrote:Did anyone bother to ask Pahoran what he meant by "greater 'freedom of speech'"?
Or, is that something that your own biases may have prevented you from considering in your haste to unwittingly commit the fundamental attribution error? ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Are you like this in real life too?
Having a simple conversation with you must be a blast! "now when you said you loved dinner last night, what did you really mean? Did you mean that you loved it in a romantic way? When you said dinner, did you mean an early dinner, or a late dinner? And was it really a dinner or was it more of a snack? Were there 3 courses? Did you love every course, or just some of them?"
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
That is a good question. When one is defending something, does one actually have to believe what one offers in defense?
WEll, I do believe that a lot of the LDS Apologists do believe what they are actually defending. However, I do kind of wonder about some of the LDS Apologists of the Book of Abraham, such as John Gee. For example, John Gee claims that the Book of Breathings papyri text that Jospeh Smith had, had nothing to do with the translation for the Book of Abraham. John Gee has been proclaiming that Joseph Smith tranlsated the Book of Abraham from some other papyri that Joseph Smith had, that is now missing. However, virtually All of the Evidence points to the Book of Abraham having been translated from the Book of Breathings papyri text that Joseph Smith had. Here is a hyperlink to one of my Posts about the source of the Book of Abraham on one of the Threads here: Please Click here:
I found John Gee's stuff really disappointing.
I read Ritner's article about Gee's work and then asked about it on what was then FAIR. In response, Dr. Peterson gave me a list of articles I should read. I read them and then responded that these were the very articles Ritner had cited in his article as examples of Gee's shoddy scholarship. So, I asked again for a response. What I got was a discussion of how Ritner's tone was inappropriate.
wenglund wrote:Did anyone bother to ask Pahoran what he meant by "greater 'freedom of speech'"?
Or, is that something that your own biases may have prevented you from considering in your haste to unwittingly commit the fundamental attribution error? ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
keene wrote:I actually ponder Pahoran's reasons for saying that.
I've never been on MAD, and don't intend to go there to ask just one question. I have seen Pahoran on this board before, I was hoping he'd see my ponder and respond in kind.
wenglund wrote:Did anyone bother to ask Pahoran what he meant by "greater 'freedom of speech'"?
Or, is that something that your own biases may have prevented you from considering in your haste to unwittingly commit the fundamental attribution error? ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
What could he possibly mean, Wade? There is no way on earth you could possibly finagle the definition to make Pahoran look good. (Why you would even want to is another good question.) Chalk up another loss for you, my friend.
I read Ritner's article about Gee's work and then asked about it on what was then FAIR. In response, Dr. Peterson gave me a list of articles I should read. I read them and then responded that these were the very articles Ritner had cited in his article as examples of Gee's shoddy scholarship. So, I asked again for a response. What I got was a discussion of how Ritner's tone was inappropriate.
Dr. Daniel C. Peterson is a huge fan of John Gee, who proclaims that John Gee is such a Great Scholar and an excellent Book of Abraham Apologist. Daniel C. Peterson gets very defensive at people who attack the Book of Abraham Apologetic junk that John Gee has come up with. Kevin Graham has pointed out the Book of Abraham Apologetic junk that John Gee has come up with on one of the Posts of his on this Thread at the "FAIR"/MA&D Board. Here is the hyperlink to it:
Please Click Here.
However, I don't believe that Daniel C. Peterson doesn't really care about it. Daniel C. Peterson still wants the LDS People to keep on believing (just like John Gee does) that the Book of Abraham translation has nothing to do with the Book of Breathings papyri text that Joseph Smith had, even though that virtuall All of the Evidence points that the translation for the Book of Abraham has come from the Book of Breathings text.
AS for Dr. Robert Ritner, I have seen him on the Book of Abraham video, and I find him to be a very credible Scholar who virtually knows exactly what he is talking about. I have also read most of his Article on the Book of Abraham, and him refuting a lot of the Book of Abraham Apologetic stuff that LDS Apologists have come up with. I will trust what Dr. Robert Ritner tells me anyday over what the Book of Abraham LDS Apologist John Gee tell me. Dr. Robert Ritner is a Great Person with a lot of credible knowledge.
wenglund wrote:Did anyone bother to ask Pahoran what he meant by "greater 'freedom of speech'"?
Or, is that something that your own biases may have prevented you from considering in your haste to unwittingly commit the fundamental attribution error? ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Are you like this in real life too?
Having a simple conversation with you must be a blast! "now when you said you loved dinner last night, what did you really mean? Did you mean that you loved it in a romantic way? When you said dinner, did you mean an early dinner, or a late dinner? And was it really a dinner or was it more of a snack? Were there 3 courses? Did you love every course, or just some of them?"
wenglund wrote:Did anyone bother to ask Pahoran what he meant by "greater 'freedom of speech'"?
Or, is that something that your own biases may have prevented you from considering in your haste to unwittingly commit the fundamental attribution error? ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
What was all that bovine fecal matter that you were talking about in your "whoops my bad" thread, better known as "sorry about that"? I thought you were going to post here in a more civil manner. Instead you just continue to post ad homs.
Exactly why I scoffed at your little plea for forgiveness. That's exactly what it was, little, meaningless, and as full of hot air as your assumptions about people on this board.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Speaking of "confirmation bias", I see some people not only didn't consider alternatives that may disconfirm their establised perceptions, but they are highly resistant to having the consideration somewhat imposed on them in the form of a benign query. Fascinating!