The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_mentalgymnast]

If you have a problem with a concept in my post, then feel free to write a post addressing that concept.

Anyone going to come to Lemmie's defense at this point and put me in my place?

I am calling her out, people. Does she deserve it or not?

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So. What have we learned from the thread?

MG doesn't think anything in the Book of Mormon is untrue.

MG realizes Jacob 5 is an anachronism. How he squares that the above is a mystery.

MG learned a lot from other things.

MG thinks an angel did it. Or something.

MG is a hardliner who says he's a centrist because he says it.

MG can spend 20+ pages talking about feelings but can't be bothered to answer direct questions in any sort of detail probably because there's nothing there.

Zerinus know more than anyone because feelings.

Zerinus didn't know Joseph Smith attempted to sell the copyright.

Zerinus can't answer questions without resorting to an insult and a testimony.

Elder Callister has a superficial understanding of the Book of Mormon's production, at best. Most likely he believes the correlated version with some FAIRpologia sprinkled in.

Let me know if I missed anything, and thank you for helping me pass the time while working in the private sector to make other people wealthy.

- Doc

We've learned a couple more things from this thread now that it's evolved a bit:

- MG thinks God collaborated with Joseph Smith through the iStone to write the Book of Mormon allowing for anachronisms and linguistic misfires. Or something.

- MG thinks inverting the argument is a legitimate debating style.

- MG continues to successfully avoid on-topic discussion and makes every thread about himself rather than the topic because he's evolved so much and is very 'centrist'.

To the casual observer you'll note the staunch Mormon apologist hasn't successfully argued any pro-Mormon position, has thrown around some other people's wacky theories, can't talk to the critics points intelligibly, and derails various threads with rinse-and-repeat assertions that are essentially summed up as: I believe and I feel it's true.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

You show no interest in conversation with anyone, much less me.

That is patently untrue. The first part anyway. Having a conversation with you right now? Not interested.

I'm waiting to hear what Lemmie has to say in response to my post.

No sidetracks.

Thanks,
MG

If sidetracking is unacceptable to you then why are you sidetracking with me?

[_honorentheos]

Anyone going to come to Lemmie's defense at this point

Lemmie clearly said your switching positions is an example of inconsistent thinking. Your shifting position deserved more explanation than was given. Perhaps a better way to dismiss the accusation would be to demonstrate your cohesive mapping of the Ostler theories onto your earlier statements rather than playing verbal three card Monty?

[_Jersey Girl]

Let's review the evolution of our exchanges.

MG's original claim to which I inquired in blue.


MG: There is no contradiction between any of these 'cut and paste' quotes I've made during this thread. No intellectual dishonesty. Nothing disingenuous.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Thanks, however, for giving some of my thoughts expressed earlier the additional 'limelight' they deserve.

Facetious mode kicking in...

Happy Easter,
MG

Inquiry:

Jersey Girl: Explain for the class how the exchanges do not represent intellectual dishonesty, please.

MG's refusal to respond to inquiry by attempting to shift focus to Lemmie's accusation when my post was clearly in reference to his claim. Notice he displays no comprehension of what I asked of him or why when in point of fact, it was his post I copied and replied to:

MG: Nope. I don't need to. I'm not the one making the accusation.

Show how they do. Good luck.

Regards,
MG

My clarification to MG:

You're right when you say that you didn't make the accusation.

What you DID do, was make a claim. Here is your claim:

No intellectual dishonesty.

I'm asking you to explain how the exchanges that were posted were NOT intellectually dishonest.

I'm asking you to support your claim.

Once again, explain how the exchanges do not represent intellectual dishonesty, please

MG moving the goal posts in order to avoid responding to my inquiry. Note that nowhere in the series of exchanges with me or with Lemmie has MG made any request to Lemmie to prove anything at all and yet now his response to my inquiry is now contingent on Lemmie proving something he never asked her to prove to start with:

MG: As soon as Lemmie can show that anything I said was intellectually dishonest in the post being referred to (where she is making that accusation), I will be happy to make further comment. She cut and pasted some things I said and then accused me of being intellectually dishonest based on the random comments she threw together. I responded and said that I wasn't being dishonest AT ALL and that there weren't any contradictions, etc.

She needs to put up or shut up.

Enough of this nonsense. I see that she hasn't come back into the thread to actually detail specifically what in the heck she's even referring to and/or talking about.

Regards,
MG


Here's me redirecting MG back to our exchanges. Watch how he continues to try to wiggle out of it the position he's in.


Jersey Girl: My request to you has nothing to do with Lemmie's accusation.

My request to you has to do with you supporting your own claim.

And you can't or won't even do that.

You can't even explain your own words.


His attempt to shut down communication with me (because he's unable to meet the original request) by now announcing that he's calling Lemmie out. That's right folks, now it's official!

MG: Then I have no interest in conversation with you right now.

Lemmie has constructed a false narrative. I am calling her out.

No sidetracks. I am waiting to hear from her.

Regards,
MG


He claims he wants no sidetracking when what he really means is he'll continue to obfuscate, avoid, dodge, move the goal posts, and side track because he thinks he can wear me down by doing that. Wonder how well that worked for other posters in the past? I dunno...take a guess.

Jersey Girl: You're shifting focus from the question that was asked of you.

You show no interest in conversation with anyone, much less me.

Escalate a little more. Whatever it takes to avoid answering the question. You just go ahead and do it, k?

Oh look! He was interested in conversing with me right up until it got hard. He's hanging onto those goal posts now like his life depends on it.

MG: That is patently untrue. The first part anyway. Having a conversation with you right now? Not interested.

I'm waiting to hear what Lemmie has to say in response to my post.

No sidetracks.

Thanks,
MG

Yet another question has come up to which he will predictably fail to respond:

Jersey Girl: If sidetracking is unacceptable to you then why are you sidetracking with me?

I dunno folks, looks like this guy really means business now. I mean he's now placing conditions on which posts he'll reply to and making them contingent on the replies he gets (or doesn't get) from others.

Wow!

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't think so. I do think, however, that I deserve a response from Lemmie.

Regards,
MG

And I think I deserve a response from you. One that's on point and all. What do you think the chances are of either of us getting what we think we deserve?

[_Jersey Girl]

Anyone going to come to Lemmie's defense at this point and put me in my place?

Are you saying that you need assistance to avoid answering the question that I posed to you? Boy, this could take longer than we thought huh?

[_Jersey Girl]

You're "calling me out"? Please. If you have a problem with a concept in my post, then feel free to write a post addressing that concept.

Yes, I am calling you out as being intellectually dishonest and would go as far as to call you a liar by creating a false narrative and passing it off as you did and attacking my good name.

Your avoidance of my request can be seen for what it is.

How many times have you done this and gotten away with it in times past?

As I said a few weeks ago, silly me.

Check my sig line.

The burden of proof is on you, lady, to back up your concluding comment in the post being questioned. The onus is not on me to prove and/or show you anything at this point.

The game/jig is up.

Own up. Put up...or shut up.

Regards,
MG

Oh my. How strident! How impressive! Man, it's a real show down now!

Your good name?

Her avoidance of your request? Hey, MY request (and your avoidance) came before your request to her. I believe that puts me first in line.

What about you?

[_Jersey Girl]

I think mentalgymnast doesn't quite understand that people are referring to his intellectual dishonesty based on how he approaches a debate--as usual he is presenting himself as a martyr for his religious beliefs but his dishonesty and disingenuousness are entirely separate from that.

For example, he started this 25 page thread with this...

I go with Elder Callister, and here's why. It's actually kind of simple. I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God. Operating under this premise/assumption when I'm listening to Elder Callister's recap of the five humanistic arguments that have sort of worn thin in regards to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, I am OPEN to seeing God's hand in it...

It's really that simple...isn't it?

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that would demonstrate that Joseph and/or others whipped up this book.

But in the middle of the thread, when asked to explain, after a lot of deflecting, he posts this...

Many of us believe that the Book of Mormon translation was not just ancient or just modern, but that it is a mix of both. That Joseph's world is in in the ancient and the ancient is in his. The Book of Mormon is a composite of both the ancient and the modern and whatever comes in between. Including possible modifications in order to fit the actual message and/or doctrines that are being taught.

Even though Chap pointed out that his allusions to Ostler's theory were not in agreement with his initial position, he never did actually say anything about it, other than it's been a long time since he read it and he doesn't really remember! He did ask others, repeatedly, to read him and explain the theory to him.

And now, he is back to this:

I believe the Book of Mormon to be the result of Divine Intervention in the affairs of men and that it is an artifact from an ancient world in which God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ spoke with and directed/guided the affairs and doings of a 'branch of Israel' through prophets.

Lemmie: Stuff like this is where the conclusion of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness comes from.

Lemmie has created a false narrative. I have called her out on it and have not seen a response. She cannot show that her concluding statement has any basis in fact. I challenge her to go through this post and show where I have been intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

Regards,
MG

Get this, buddy. Her entire post was support for her conclusion. No really. Why would she go through the post and show where you've been intellectually dishonest an disingenuous when her entire post was created and intended to just that. Do you want her to post it twice or something?

You ready to answer my question yet?

[_zerinus]

Let's review the evolution of our exchanges.

MG's original claim to which I inquired in blue.

MG: There is no contradiction between any of these 'cut and paste' quotes I've made during this thread. No intellectual dishonesty. Nothing disingenuous.

<snip>

Inquiry:

Jersey Girl: Explain for the class how the exchanges do not represent intellectual dishonesty, please.

<snip>

That is a stupid question to ask. It is a very stupid question to ask. It is an insanely stupid question to ask.

If he believes that what he has posted is NOT intellectually dishonest, and you think that it IS, the burden is on you to shown him WHY IT IS, not on him to show you WHY IT IS NOT. If you think that what he has posted is intellectually dishonest, you first explain to him why you think it is, and then he will be able to counter it by explaining to you why it isn't. That is the way it works, not the other way.