Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[Guest]

That's irrelevant in light of the fact that my conclusion is the only logical conclusion.

Mak,

Are you sure you really want to start saying that your conclusion is the only logical one given your admitted ignorance of the KEP?

Besides, I can think of all too many "only logical conclusions" about the facsimiles, about Joseph Smith's polygamy, about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc. And they all involve you leaving the church.

The point is that there is rarely "only one logical conclusion." Especially when someone is a complete neophyte on the KEP. So do yourself a favor and quit with the "only logical conclusion" BS.

[_Kevin Graham]

I already explained the bottom line. In order for Kevin's claim to even break even with the evidence in favor of homoioteleuton, Kevin needs to show that Smith had a reason to want the text copied on the same sheet of paper. Kevin cannot show that, nor can anyone else. No such reason exists.

And as I already explained, in order for Mak's claim to even break even with the evidence in favor of dictation, Mak needs to show that Smith had a reason to want a hybrid production of a dictated and copied text. Mak cannot show that, nor can anyone else. No such reason exists.

Bottom line, I operate from the assumption that the manuscript was intended as a dictated text, and this makes his argument for homoioteleuton highly unlikely. I based this on a number of evidences that have never been addressed, and Mak is not interested in addressing them until some unknown future point in time. In the meantime, we must all bow down and indulge our resident Grad student by agreeing with every assertion he makes, or else we're all unprofessional, disrespectful, subjective, etc.

Wow. The BYU professors were never this arrogant.

[_Kevin Graham]

Are you sure you really want to start saying that your conclusion is the only logical one given your admitted ignorance of the KEP?

Unfortunately, I think he does.

[_Kevin Graham]

Alright, all work and no play makes Kevin a dull boy.

I'm going to go catch that new Stallone film. I hear Brent Metcalfe beats Mickey Rourke into the ground in one scene.

[Guest]

Mak,

Are you sure you really want to start saying that your conclusion is the only logical one given your admitted ignorance of the KEP?

No other logical conclusion has been offered. When Kevin was offered the opportunity to explain why his conclusion was logical, he refused. He could only beg the question.

Additionally, I'm only ignorant about the portions to which I haven't had access. Regarding Abr 1:1-3, no one has been able to even engage my evidence to this point, so don't waste both our time with these weak attempts to marginalize.

Besides, I can think of all too many "only logical conclusions" about the facsimiles, about Joseph Smith's polygamy, about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc. And they all involve you leaving the church.

I've said this numerous times, but you don't know the first thing about my faith, so please don't make ignorant assumptions.

The point is that there is rarely "only one logical conclusion."

Which makes it all the more surprising when that is the case but people refuse to recognize it.

Especially when someone is a complete neophyte on the KEP. So do yourself a favor and quit with the "only logical conclusion" b***s***.

If I'm so wet behind the ears then explain to me why it is logical to think that Joseph Smith instructed Williams to copy the same text out twice on the same sheet of paper.

[_dblagent007]

Mak,

Are you sure you really want to start saying that your conclusion is the only logical one given your admitted ignorance of the KEP?

Besides, I can think of all too many "only logical conclusions" about the facsimiles, about Joseph Smith's polygamy, about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc. And they all involve you leaving the church.

The point is that there is rarely "only one logical conclusion." Especially when someone is a complete neophyte on the KEP. So do yourself a favor and quit with the "only logical conclusion" b***s***.

Yeah, no doubt. I find it amusing that he keeps asserting that such and such argument violates the Law of Parsimony. Really? Has he read anything on FARMS or FAIR? It's a virtual museum of arguments that violate the Law of Parsimony.

[_maklelan]

He doesn't even know what the word "transcribe" means for crying out loud. I could have pummeled him on this point but I was nice about it. I would have let it slide, but the meaning of that word was crucial to the debate.

In the field of textual criticism, "transcribe" means to copy a text. It is used in its broader sense of "copying something in written form" only when explicitly qualified. I didn't think I needed to justify my use of the word here, but if you're still in doubt, search for the words "transcribe" and "transcription" in these texts and see how it is used:

http://books.google.com/books?id=U1UfMy ... &q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nPVHbS ... &q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=DW7q7q ... &q&f=false

[_maklelan]

Yeah, no doubt. I find it amusing that he keeps asserting that such and such argument violates the Law of Parsimony. Really? Has he read anything on FARMS or FAIR? It's a virtual museum of arguments that violate the Law of Parsimony.

How does this bear on the legitimacy of my argument here?

[_Aristotle Smith]

Mak,

Are you sure you really want to start saying that your conclusion is the only logical one given your admitted ignorance of the KEP?

No other logical conclusion has been offered. When Kevin was offered the opportunity to explain why his conclusion was logical, he refused. He could only beg the question.

No, he said that no matter what theory you go with there are going to be some illogical aspects of that theory. Are you seriously proceeding under the assumption that everything that happened with the KEP is going to have a logical conclusion?

Additionally, I'm only ignorant about the portions to which I haven't had access. Regarding Abr 1:1-3, no one has been able to even engage my evidence to this point, so don't waste both our time with these weak attempts to marginalize.

I'm sure if you talk to the church leaders they will give you access to whatever you need. I mean no one else has ever had problems getting access to this stuff (Ha Ha).

Besides, I can think of all too many "only logical conclusions" about the facsimiles, about Joseph Smith's polygamy, about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc. And they all involve you leaving the church.

I've said this numerous times, but you don't know the first thing about my faith, so please don't make ignorant assumptions.

Since you have admitted you are ignorant about the KEP but are willing to make grand pronouncements about them, I feel perfectly fine in making conclusions about your faith given my equal ignorance. But in any case, they are the "only logical conclusions" so I don't need to know anything about your faith. See how easy it is to brush off other people's concerns by making grand and sweeping accusations?

The point is that there is rarely "only one logical conclusion."

Which makes it all the more surprising when that is the case but people refuse to recognize it.

See first point.

Especially when someone is a complete neophyte on the KEP. So do yourself a favor and quit with the "only logical conclusion" b***s***.

If I'm so wet behind the ears then explain to me why it is logical to think that Joseph Smith instructed Williams to copy the same text out twice on the same sheet of paper.

Could you please explain to me what is logical about pretending to translate Egyptian when you can't? We are already dealing with an illogical situation, so expecting certain parts of it to be absolutely logical is absurd.

Can you please explain to me why it is logical for Joseph Smith to be humping teenagers? Can you explain to me why it is logical for Joseph Smith to be marrying other mens wives? There is no logical reason, but it happened. Now what are you going to do? There is no theory that is going to be perfectly logical when dealing with Joseph Smith. So, you look at ALL the facts and go with the theory that makes best sense about ALL the facts. But, you seem content to play the expert card on a very narrow range of data and whine when people don't pay you the proper respect.

[_maklelan]

No, he said that no matter what theory you go with there are going to be some illogical aspects of that theory.

And that's a false statement. You cannot build a text-critical argument on the premise that load-bearing assertions don't have to make sense. That does not fly in the academy. As I said to Chris Smith previously, "it doesn't have to make sense" is not a phrase you will read in a respectable academic publication.

Are you seriously proceeding under the assumption that everything that happened with the KEP is going to have a logical conclusion?

Absolutely. I suggest you stop pretending that Kevin is the one who gets to dictate how scholarship does and does not work.

I'm sure if you talk to the church leaders they will give you access to whatever you need. I mean no one else has ever had problems getting access to this stuff (Ha Ha).

I'll go to the church when I feel I'm committed enough to the project to make it worth my time.

Since you have admitted you are ignorant about the KEP but are willing to make grand pronouncements about them, I feel perfectly fine in making conclusions about your faith given my equal ignorance.

As I stated previously, my ignorance ends where my access to the manuscripts begins, and in the case of this homoioteleuton and Abr 1:1-3, I've shown quite clearly that I understand it quite well.

But in any case, they are the "only logical conclusions" so I don't need to know anything about your faith. See how easy it is to brush off other people's concerns by making grand and sweeping accusations?

You cannot point to a single grand or sweeping accusation in my argument. You can only point to sound conclusions built on logic and legitimate text-critical principles.

See first point.

See response to first point.

Could you please explain to me what is logical about pretending to translate Egyptian when you can't? We are already dealing with an illogical situation, so expecting certain parts of it to be absolutely logical is absurd.

My theory does not suppose that Joseph Smith translated Egyptian. I've had to state numerous times that I'm approaching this from a purely academic point of view. Your charge here is a fallacy.

Can you please explain to me why it is logical for Joseph Smith to be humping teenagers? Can you explain to me why it is logical for Joseph Smith to be marrying other mens wives? There is no logical reason, but it happened. Now what are you going to do? There is no theory that is going to be perfectly logical when dealing with Joseph Smith. So, you look at ALL the facts and go with the theory that makes best sense about ALL the facts. But, you seem content to play the expert card on a very narrow range of data and whine when people don't pay you the proper respect.

Not a word of this has any bearing whatsoever on my argument.