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

[_Gunnar]

Personally, I don't think that MG recognizes his own intellectual dishonesty, because he is dishonest even with himself. Thus he is naturally going to take offense at anyone claiming or implying that he is. Unfortunately for him, his own words and argumentative style are the greatest evidence of his own intellectual dishonesty, and backfire effect blinds him to that reality. As far as I am concerned, his intellectual dishonesty glares as brightly as a neon light display from his own words and attempts at obfuscation, and he just can't or won't see it. I like Chap's observation of likening his arguments to trying to use division by zero to prove a faulty mathematical claim. I have long likened religious and pseudo-scientific arguments to "division by zero logic" myself. I doubt that any amount of factual evidence and rational argument is ever going to convince MG of his own intellectual dishonesty, so I won't even try to argue with him about it.

[_I have a question]

Personally, I don't think that MG recognizes his own intellectual dishonesty, because he is dishonest even with himself. Thus he is naturally going to take offense at anyone claiming or implying that he is. Unfortunately for him, his own words and argumentative style are the greatest evidence of his own intellectual dishonesty, and backfire effect blinds him to that reality. As far as I am concerned, his intellectual dishonesty glares as brightly as a neon light display from his own words and attempts at obfuscation, and he just can't or won't see it. I like Chap's observation of likening his arguments to trying to use division by zero to prove a faulty mathematical claim. I have long likened religious and pseudo-scientific arguments to "division by zero logic" myself. I doubt that any amount of factual evidence and rational argument is ever going to convince MG of his own intellectual dishonesty, so I won't even try to argue with him about it.

Well said.

When "we don't know exactly how, but God did it" is to be accepted as the sole support for the Book of Mormon as being God-Given, yet "we don't know exactly how, but Joseph did it" isn't to be accepted at all as support for it being 'Man-Made', you know you are in a pointless discussion with an intellectually dishonest person.

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

[_Gunnar]

Thanks, IHAQ! Yet, his chosen screen name suggests that on some level, perhaps subconscious, he does have some glimmering of awareness that his conclusions depend on extreme, perhaps even dishonest, mental contortions for their support.

[_mentalgymnast]

Mental Gymnast are not only impervious to reason and fact, but are also devoid of shame. When they're embarrassed they literally don't feel anything other than a deep sense to keep throwing ____ at the wall hoping something sticks. No apologies. Maybe a vague statement about any factual information presented. It's just dull, redundant, and incessant fanboy theory after fanboy theory.

You, of course, are free to say that. Saying it doesn't make it true, however. By having caught you 'making stuff' up...again...and making an unrighteous judgement you are caught in lie. You may be correct in saying that I will at times throw stuff against the wall to see if it sticks. NOTHING wrong with doing that. But to say that I am impervious to reason and fact is just a full on lie and misrepresentation of the facts/truth. Also, if I ever said something that was embarrassing, I would/should feel just as you should now.

Ashamed.

But I doubt that you do. I believe that you don't feel any sense of guilt/shame when you misrepresent the truth and/or twist it because you may not feel any sense of accountability to a higher power other than your almighty/righteous self.

I do feel a sense of accountability to rely on and tell the truth as I know it.

The fact that I might refer to information from both apologetic sites and now and then non-apologetic sites in order to try and provide balance to what others might link to is not a sin.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Personally, I don't think that MG recognizes his own intellectual dishonesty, because he is dishonest even with himself. Thus he is naturally going to take offense at anyone claiming or implying that he is. Unfortunately for him, his own words and argumentative style are the greatest evidence of his own intellectual dishonesty, and backfire effect blinds him to that reality. As far as I am concerned, his intellectual dishonesty glares as brightly as a neon light display from his own words and attempts at obfuscation, and he just can't or won't see it. I like Chap's observation of likening his arguments to trying to use division by zero to prove a faulty mathematical claim. I have long likened religious and pseudo-scientific arguments to "division by zero logic" myself. I doubt that any amount of factual evidence and rational argument is ever going to convince MG of his own intellectual dishonesty, so I won't even try to argue with him about it.

Probably a good idea, because you wouldn't get very far. Apparently you didn't like my response to honor in this thread?

There was absolutely nothing intellectually dishonest in that response. I think that there is, in all likelihood, and inherent tendency on your part to respond to something that you 'just can't fathom how a person could say or think that' with the automatic response of intellectual dishonesty.

I could easily call you out on being intellectually dishonest...but I don't know you from the person that lives on such and such a street across town. And I haven't read much of what you've written or expressed as your OWN beliefs, etc. So I don't know what to think about you. I know I've never had a conversation with you that I can remember.

I express my views and beliefs quite often on this board. Possibly as much if not more than many/most of the other posters. I, of course, am going to be susceptible to claims of intellectual dishonesty and the sort when my opinions are colluding with the dogmatic beliefs of folks like you (?) who are heavily invested in their own set of beliefs and/or lack thereof.

Would you like to point out an example of intellectual dishonesty...on my part...in this thread, for example? There are a whole lot of pages to choose from.

Say...something like and/or comparable the flagrant use of false narrative that we saw from Lemmie earlier?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

When "we don't know exactly how, but God did it" is to be accepted as the sole support for the Book of Mormon as being God-Given, yet "we don't know exactly how, but Joseph did it" isn't to be accepted at all as support for it being 'Man-Made', you know you are in a pointless discussion with an intellectually dishonest person.

Are you being intellectually honest when you are unwilling to accept the 'hand of God' in the production of the Book of Mormon because you believe that the Book of Mormon doesn't meet your predefined requirements for being such? I am open to the possibility of the Book of Mormon being soley the result of a man. But I am also open to the possibility of the Book of Mormon being the product of God and man.

Are you?

by the way, I underlined the flagrant 'making stuff up' phrase in your response. There is a nasty habit of that around here. See my sig line.

You never responded...at least I don't think you did...to my post the other day where I caught you in an other example of 'making stuff up'. Your non-response (after at least a couple of times requesting you to do so) seems, at least to me, acknowledgement that you were 'guilty as charged'.

Regards,
MG

[_spotlight]

Would you like to point out an example of intellectual dishonesty...on my part...in this thread, for example?

Yes. You start with the conclusion,

I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God.

then you shoehorn the evidence to fit into your concluded world. That is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
It is also an example of being dogmatic.

Someone that looks first at the evidence before arriving at the conclusion as to what it evinces is being neither dogmatic nor intellectually dishonest.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Just more running around hyperventilating, and not addressing anything of substance with substance. Gotcha. Carry on carrying the Church's water 'centrist'.

- Doc

[Guest]

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

I do my best to adhere to these traits of intellectual honesty.

IHAQ, I'm at a disadvantage here because...as I mentioned to Gunnar...I'm under the microscope. YOU AREN"T...as are also most of the other posters here. You could be as intellectually dishonest as the stars are to the sky and we wouldn't really be able to discern it. Except for the fact that it is becoming more and more obvious to me.

My thinking...especially from what I've encountered recently...is that there are those in these parts that are intellectually dishonest because of the fact that they are accountable to no one besides themselves. And that's kind of a groovy way to live, isn't it?

No one to be accountable to. Kind of a nice gig, wouldn't you say?

As I mentioned to Jersey the other day (who says that she is a 'believer'), I would be happy...and will be happy...to meet her at the 'throne of God' to compare notes one day. I would do the same standing next to you.

Oh, yeah, but you know THAT'S never gonna happen...

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Would you like to point out an example of intellectual dishonesty...on my part...in this thread, for example?

Yes. You start with the conclusion,

I've made a choice to believe in a creator/God.

then you shoehorn the evidence to fit into your concluded world. That is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
It is also an example of being dogmatic.

Someone that looks first at the evidence before arriving at the conclusion as to what it evinces is being neither dogmatic nor intellectually dishonest.

But I have. So have you...or so you say. You are unwilling to look at the possibility of a creator/God...at this point...so you are just as dogmatic and set in your ways as the religionist. You will never change. What does that make you?

I really think this whole thing we're going round and round with...intellectual dishonesty...side tracks us from being able to express our views without feeling hindered by those that believe differently. You'll notice that I'm not continually making accusations of intellectual dishonesty to those that are agnostic/atheists...even though I may have my reason(s) to do so (but they might be unwarranted because I've never met you in person and don't really KNOW you). I simply, on this board and only reading your words, accept the possibility that you are being intellectually honest with what you have as your reservoir of experience/knowledge.

Again, recently, my experience is causing me to question just how honest others are around here. Some folks anyway. It's been showing up more and more as I'm on the look out for people 'making stuff up' in one way/form or another.

I REALLY believe, however, that it's a dangerous game to play when you dogmatically believe...as you seem to...that you KNOW the truth, no holds barred. And come hell or high water, you just aren't going to change.

Of course you have ALL the evidence on your side, right?

Regards,
MG