Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Lemmie]

Special pleading doesn't work, MG. Once again you expect everyone else to do all the work and you can duck and dodge their answers.
Quit being so lazy. Do some homework or just admit that you aren't serious.

Hey Mak,

This kind of stuff doesn't really help the conversation.

You were doing pretty well there for a while. Reminds me of a presidential candidate...

Regards,
MG

On the contrary. His kind of 'stuff' helps the conversation considerably. Your refusal to respond and your attempt to deflect, on the other hand, do not.

[Guest]

In his introduction does Skousen offer an explanation for why excerpts of the King James Version of the Bible have been copied and pasted into a canon that was supposedly written a thousand years earlier?

Also, i don't understand why you bolded some of it, please explain the point you are making?

I have explained this point before. The religious culture at the time of Joseph Smith spoke the King James Version in all their devotions. In preaching and more so in prayers. When and if you heard a man preach at the time you would be hearing, thee, thine, thou, shalt, etc. That is what was in the heart of young Joseph. God gave the translation in the seated religious language of the day. And the same text like Isaiah from the Book of Mormon would not need to vary from the King James Version for the same reason. God did not happen to think: 'oh, my, I ought to correct the King James Translations to prove to people ignorant of any need for it what's up about that later, lest in due time the Book of Mormon be considered an imposition.' Which would be more wise among a people who have most nearly the entire Bible memorized? Which people would be best served? The present believers or the generation of faithless scholarship?

[_Lemmie]

Just assuming [Jenkins is prejudiced and/or biased]...doesn't get us anywhere.

MG: No?

I think it would be important to factor that in.

Mak: Why did you put a fake phrase in the parentheses?

MG: Is that not what you're saying, in essence?

Does it not matter if Jenkins was/is either biased and/or prejudiced?

Regards,
MG

Above is an object lesson in number 8 of the intellectual dishonesty list posted earlier:

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.

[_Lemmie]

The fact is, we can be fairly certain that Jenkins is biased and/or prejudiced. He will probably not be willing...or even able...to tell/explain those biases/prejudices to you.

On what are you basing this? Earlier you stated this about Jenkins' Book of Mormon writings:

...followed each 'back and forth' while it was going on. It was over on Patheos wasn't it? Don't ask me to remember much of what I read.

All I see is a pretty clear admittance of your prejudice and biases.

Jenkins addressed the issue of bias extremely clearly in his responses to Hamblin last summer. You should refresh your memory if you want to continue down this line of thought.

[_mentalgymnast]

Your dishonesty grows with every thread.

So, do we look at Jenkins as being unbiased or biased? Do we know for a fact that a person is being intellectually honest if they have biases that even they may not fully realize?

Oh yeah, that's what we were talking about.

Is it possible that all of us believe ourselves to be intellectually honest while others may not be? Are biases/prejudices players in the unconscious decisions and operations of our minds as we engage in looking at 'our' world and others in it?

And yes, I have biases. You have biases. You have prejudices as do I. Are you intellectually honest? How do you know? You have biases and prejudices under girding those thoughts/feelings that express themselves as your 'intellect'...don't you? Are you able to be completely intellectually honest as a result?

If you or anyone else here are biased in one way or the other does that affect intellectual honesty? Is it sometimes out of the reach of our awareness? Are any of us completely 'honest'?

I think it might be useful to not cast stones. It might be productive to give others the benefit of a doubt. It may, although it is prabably distasteful to some here, to follow the words found in Matt. 7:1-5.

I find it more useful to engage in the conversation without looking for perceived issues of honesty and/or integrity on the part of others on this board. In fact, I tend to look at others doing the best they can with what they have and simply engage with the subject at hand without getting all wrapped up in 'ulterior motives' and/or 'evil intent'.

Isn't that what we ought to expect from one another?

by the way, if you haven't noticed, when some posters start doing all this name calling and labeling it sidetracks and/or deflects the argument and/or point that another might be trying to make.

Interesting.

In the past, and even now, there are some posters on this board that I am somehow able to simply converse with...without all this other 'stuff' going on as a sideshow.

Again, if there is anyone here who is not biased and/or prejudiced and doesn't think that this affects their 'intellectual honesty' (that is, if you're even aware of it) raise your hand.

Any chance of throwing out all the psychoanalysis and judgment? Lazy, lying, dishonest...we don't need to bully or name call others here. We are adults. Sure, we each may make errors in judgment at times. But do we have to spend all of our time making THAT the focus of conversation?

I have NO IDEA whether or not one individual over another here on this board is more or less honest, trustworthy, truthful, industrious,...and the list goes on...over any other. I don't think about that as I'm simply engaged in a conversation. There are some here that need to take a chill pill and not take each other so seriously to the point that thoughts can't be expressed, etc.

That is a form of thought policing.

Regards,
MG

[_spotlight]

There are some here that need to take a chill pill and not take each other so seriously to the point that thoughts can't be expressed, etc.

Any chance of throwing out all the psychoanalysis and judgment?

So much for consistency.

[_malkie]

Hi MG.

Given that everyone has biases (not apparently in dispute), why do you need to point out that Jenkins in particular has biases?

In any case, because biases are universal, I don't think that their mere existence is worth mentioning unless you can demonstrate that a specific person's biases have materially degraded their arguments.

Do you think that nay of Jenkins' arguments, for example, can be dismissed as the product of bias?

AFAICS Jenkins approached his criticism of LDS scriptures in the same way as he would the scriptures of any other religion - he asked for verifiable evidence that would satisfy any disinterested trained historian. I don't see any bias at play there.


PS: We came back from St George this year by way of Corpus Christi, and so didn't have the opportunity to stop for a chat with you. Perhaps next year.

[_Maksutov]

Your dishonesty grows with every thread.

So, do we look at Jenkins as being unbiased or biased? Do we know for a fact that a person is being intellectually honest if they have biases that even they may not fully realize?

Oh yeah, that's what we were talking about.

Is it possible that all of us believe ourselves to be intellectually honest while others may not be? Are biases/prejudices players in the unconscious decisions and operations of our minds as we engage in looking at 'our' world and others in it?

And yes, I have biases. You have biases. You have prejudices as do I. Are you intellectually honest? How do you know? You have biases and prejudices under girding those thoughts/feelings that express themselves as your 'intellect'...don't you? Are you able to be completely intellectually honest as a result?

If you or anyone else here are biased in one way or the other does that affect intellectual honesty? Is it sometimes out of the reach of our awareness? Are any of us completely 'honest'?

I think it might be useful to not cast stones. It might be productive to give others the benefit of a doubt. It may, although it is prabably distasteful to some here, to follow the words found in Matt. 7:1-5.

I find it more useful to engage in the conversation without looking for perceived issues of honesty and/or integrity on the part of others on this board. In fact, I tend to look at others doing the best they can with what they have and simply engage with the subject at hand without getting all wrapped up in 'ulterior motives' and/or 'evil intent'.

Isn't that what we ought to expect from one another?

by the way, if you haven't noticed, when some posters start doing all this name calling and labeling it sidetracks and/or deflects the argument and/or point that another might be trying to make.

Interesting.

In the past, and even now, there are some posters on this board that I am somehow able to simply converse with...without all this other 'stuff' going on as a sideshow.

Again, if there is anyone here who is not biased and/or prejudiced and doesn't think that this affects their 'intellectual honesty' (that is, if you're even aware of it) raise your hand.

Any chance of throwing out all the psychoanalysis and judgment? Lazy, lying, dishonest...we don't need to bully or name call others here. We are adults. Sure, we each may make errors in judgment at times. But do we have to spend all of our time making THAT the focus of conversation?

I have NO IDEA whether or not one individual over another here on this board is more or less honest, trustworthy, truthful, industrious,...and the list goes on...over any other. I don't think about that as I'm simply engaged in a conversation. There are some here that need to take a chill pill and not take each other so seriously to the point that thoughts can't be expressed, etc.

That is a form of thought policing.

Regards,
MG

I have an idea about one individual being less honest. You. You edited my words to change them. You evade questions. You rewrite the histories of threads. You use special pleading. You compulsively try to drag every conversation into some ploy to promote Mormonism. You never deal with the difficult issues. Your refusal to read things recommended to you comes across as contemptuous, dismissive and lazy and lacking in integrity.

You can whine all you want about thought policing, but nobody is stopping you from posting. Unfortunately for you, you can't stop us from pointing out your intellectual dishonesty and laziness again and again. Whine. Blame. Be the victim. Call everyone else psycho. Talk trash about the board. Anything and everything you can throw out to try to distract us from the fact that you have nothing but your own bluffing and diversions, your own refusal to study the issues, provide facts, consider alternatives to your ridiculous FARMS/FAIR apologetics that aren't accepted anywhere but at church owned institutions...because they're self serving propaganda, not scholarship. Jenkins has biases but not Hamblin?

[_mentalgymnast]

I have an idea about one individual being less honest. You.

What I said in my last post is where I stand.

You can have the last word Mak.

I trust that you believe you are acting with integrity and honesty.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi MG.

Given that everyone has biases (not apparently in dispute), why do you need to point out that Jenkins in particular has biases?

Hi malkie .

Because Mak had brought up the conversation between him and Hamblin. I'm sure that Hamblin also has his own prejudices and/or biases.

In any case, because biases are universal, I don't think that their mere existence is worth mentioning unless you can demonstrate that a specific person's biases have materially degraded their arguments.

That's where things get difficult, granted.

Do you think that nay of Jenkins' arguments, for example, can be dismissed as the product of bias?

Like I said earlier, I read the interchange between Jenkins and Hamblin on Patheos during the time it was going on. Also, as I said, asking me to remember the details at this point...I haven't gone back and re-looked at it since I followed it at that time...would be an exercise in futility. But since we are all biased...and may not be fully aware of how those biases affect our concious responses/intellect...even among the best and brightest of us... it would be very difficult to look at another and determine whether or not they are acting without bias/prejudice. In what is said or left unsaid, etc.

AFAICS Jenkins approached his criticism of LDS scriptures in the same way as he would the scriptures of any other religion - he asked for verifiable evidence that would satisfy any disinterested trained historian. I don't see any bias at play there.

I suppose we'd have to go back and read/look at the whole interchange again in detail. All I was saying is that I don't think we can underestimate the effect that biases/prejudices may play as we communicate with each other. Especially when it comes to religion and politics.

PS: We came back from St George this year by way of Corpus Christi, and so didn't have the opportunity to stop for a chat with you. Perhaps next year.

Life here in Happy Valley gets a bit boring at times. If you stop by that would shake things up a bit.

Regards,
MG