Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

Yes, once again your apologetic BS failed to make any impression on anyone.

That wasn't my intent.

Good evening,
MG

[_grindael]

Yes, once again your apologetic BS failed to make any impression on anyone.

That wasn't my intent.

Good evening,
MG

Of course not.

[Guest]

So, after the convolutions and contortions that we've been through...again...thanks guys!!...it appears to me that one can realistically/logically take the point of view that the Book of Mormon is in a number of ways unique among the world 'scriptures'.

Fascinating. How does mg come up with these nonsensical 'observations'??

...the fact that there don't seem to be any books that we can refer to that act as scholarly introspection/support to help folks along the way

A fact only in evidence to you, mg. There were plenty of book references offered that you (factually) ignored.

I started an OP. I then had a question that I believed to have importance/merit. I then saw massive deflection/accusation occur that took us away from a simple answer to a simple question.

I think that my question has been answered...sort of. Like IHAQ, said...there are no answers to my simple request...at least that he could come up with. Nothing specific anyway.

We had the mg mid-thread summing up/lying, and now the mg almost-post-thread summing up/more lying. There was a lot of information given in this thread, but mg defines that as "nothing specific anyway."

Apparently enough to answer your question, however. So which is it, no answers? or question answered? or just not the answer you wanted?

And because the lying irritates me so much, IHAQ did NOT say there are no answers to your request. He gave you an answer, as did many others:

No. I don't think there's anything I can point to that would cause you to consider that.
Now what?

Have you read Grant Palmer, a man along the lines of Givens who reaches a different conclusion about the Book of Mormon?

If you don't like the answers, say so. To sum up saying another poster concluded there were no answers given, ('crickets') is disingenuous at best.

[_Themis]

So, after the convolutions and contortions that we've been through...again...thanks guys!!...it appears to me that one can realistically/logically take the point of view that the Book of Mormon is in a number of ways unique among the world 'scriptures'.

Oh look MG is declaring some kind of victory again. I am still missing where the Book of Mormon is unique in any meaningful way. Is this really all you have while you ignore all the evidence telling us it is fiction?

[_I have a question]

I'm embarrassed at myself.

I cannot believe I fell for it, again.
Shame on me.

To coin a phrase MG....welcome to ignore.

[_mentalgymnast]

...welcome to ignore.

I appreciated your participation on this thread. It helped me resolve the question(s) I had. Without you, I don't know that this would have happened.

Sorry to see you go.

Best wishes,
MG

[_I have a question]

Ten Signs of Intellectual Honesty

I can never post this too much…

When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.




1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

-Mike Gene

https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010 ... honesty-2/

[_pashaman]

...welcome to ignore.

I appreciated your participation on this thread. It helped me resolve the question(s) I had. Without you, I don't know that this would have happened.

Sorry to see you go.

Best wishes,
MG

This HAS to be one of the most mentally retarded threads I have ever read. MG HAS to know that this doesn't make him nor his side look good in the least, right? I mean, anybody lurking here looking for answers would be completely dumbstruck right now, and not in the way MG would hope. He HAS to know this, right? I'm really not sure why I subjected myself to reading through this entire thread. I guess I was hoping at some point MG would just "get it". You know? Like, the light bulb would come on? I think BrotherJake had the best argument. I was sure this would lead to some humility and convincing on the part of MG, or maybe a hint of honesty? Simple answer to a silly question: Mormons are super enthusiastic about writing a lot of stuff about their precious Book of Mormon. They hold it in high regard. In such high regard, in fact, that the Church's own university refuses to fund anymore serious scholarship on the subject. Perhaps they've done enough? If that's the case, then maybe some younger made-up religions (redundant, I know) will have a chance to catch up in their scholarship with regards to their own revered works?

[_Themis]

Simple answer to a silly question: Mormons are super enthusiastic about writing a lot of stuff about their precious Book of Mormon. They hold it in high regard.

One of the reason for this may be due to how obvious the Book of Mormon is fiction to everyone else that they feel the need to defend it. You don't see this with most other sacred writing since they don't make claims so easily disproven. Even some of the crazy writings of Hubbard cannot really be proven incorrect. They are too subjective, while the Book of Mormon makes some very objective claims about reality that are obviously incorrect.

[_canpakes]

MG, I am wondering if you can clarify something.

It seems that you are trying to advance a particular conclusion about the Book of Mormon based on other books that are not written about the Book of Mormon.

Is this correct?

ETA: alternately, are trying to advance a particular conclusion about the Book of Mormon based on other books that have not been written and that would not be about the Book of Mormon?