Interpreter apologists wrestle with Nephi’s transoceanic vessel

[Shulem]

I don't think your discussion of the text itself is like Scooby-Doo. I think your preoccupation with confirming that Joseph Smith was a bad guy is.

Yeah, so far I have not contributed to your Book of Mormon scholarship project. It is true. I am not obliged to, and I am not disallowed from critiquing what you have done because I am not contributing to your project.

I don't always chalk up everything as a story. I sometimes discuss those Book of Mormon in those terms, yes. Like you, I am fascinated by the way the Book of Mormon is written, and how the author has constructed the narrator and perspective. Those are interesting and important literary questions.

If you don't want to provide real fact material content backed with citations and analysis then that is your choice. You can continue to find fault with me and attempt to derail the thread but I won't fall for that. You are making things personal and attacking posters for telling what they believe is the truth.

Continue if you like but don't expect me to respond to your non-academic responses and jabbering of nonrelated text from foreign countries. If you got something of value to say about the Book of Mormon in context with the OP and can demonstrate something of value then by all means do so. But pointing out how awful I am in my passion to unravel things is not helpful. Go away.

[Shulem]

Uh-huh. So 'help' as used by you always means 'help by others from outside Lehi's party'.

Maybe try to make it more explicit when normal English words have to be understood in a special sense in interpreting what you write on an open thread on a discussion board?

Note how he calls to mind the OP to work to his advantage in finding fault with someone else who is actually talking about the OP. That is why I complained about his lack of being concrete and being overly abstract.

[Kishkumen]

If you don't want to provide real fact material content backed with citations and analysis then that is your choice. You can continue to find fault with me and attempt to derail the thread but I won't fall for that. You are making things personal and attacking posters for telling what they believe is the truth.

Are you for real here? You attack LDS people personally all the time, and you do so for telling what they believe is the truth. Talk about a lack of self awareness.

Continue if you like but don't expect me to respond to your non-academic responses and jabbering of nonrelated text from foreign countries. If you got something of value to say about the Book of Mormon in context with the opening post and can demonstrate something of value then by all means do so. But pointing out how awful I am in my passion to unravel things is not helpful. Go away.

My responses to you are very much in an academic vein. In fact, you all have been complaining about my academic responses on the grounds that you find them difficult to understand. This is hilarious.

But, really, practically nothing that unfolds here does so according to academic standards. I would say that the only poster I know who approaches academic standards in thought and form is Symmachus. Most of us, even the academics among us, are engaged in an informal discussion.

What I am taking issue with is your apparent self delusion that you are passionate about unraveling things. That would only be true if by "unravel things" you really mean to say, "confirm your bias against Joseph Smith in which you assume he was a con man and set out to conform your results to that assumption."

If I think your methodology and hermeneutical framework are flawed, I will certainly share my opinion on those topics, whether you like it or not.

[Shulem]

If you don't want to provide real fact material content backed with citations and analysis then that is your choice. You can continue to find fault with me and attempt to derail the thread but I won't fall for that. You are making things personal and attacking posters for telling what they believe is the truth.

Are you for real here? You attack LDS people personally all the time, and you do so for telling what they believe is the truth. Talk about a lack of self awareness.

I attack LDS people personally (THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD). True, there have been some tiffs recently with members too, I admit that. But I am free to slam and attack leaders of the Church on this board because that is what is required to expose those bastards for what they really are.

Just stop with your idiocy, Kish. Just stop. The drama is not helping. But isn't that what you like most? Drama as opposed to genuine Book of Mormon scholarship. I think so.

What's your horoscope sign? That might help explain some things. Maybe.

[Chap]

You know, it really helps for one to interpret what is said in a conversation in the context of what has already been said in the conversation. "Others," in the discussion of the Lehi party's shipbuilding, was always referring to people outside of the Lehite party.

Uh-huh. So 'help' as used by you always means 'help by others from outside Lehi's party'.

Maybe try to make it more explicit when normal English words have to be understood in a special sense in interpreting what you write on an open thread on a discussion board?

Note how he calls to mind the opening post to work to his advantage in finding fault with someone else who is actually talking about the opening post. That is why I complained about his lack of being concrete and being overly abstract.

So far as I can see, in this multi-page post one has to go back ten pages to find people talking about the role of possible help from outside Lehi's group. So that's 'context'. Right.

[Kishkumen]

I attack LDS people personally (THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD). True, there have been some tiffs recently with members too, I admit that. But I am free to slam and attack leaders of the Church on this board because that is what is required to expose those bastards for what they really are.

Just stop with your idiocy, Kish. Just stop. The drama is not helping. But isn't that what you like most? Drama as opposed to genuine Book of Mormon scholarship. I think so.

What's your horoscope sign? That might help explain some things. Maybe.

If I think your methodology and hermeneutical framework are flawed, I will certainly share my opinion on those topics, whether you like it or not.

[Kishkumen]

So far as I can see, in this multi-page post one has to go back ten pages to find people talking about the role of possible help from outside Lehi's group. So that's 'context'. Right.

Yep. It is definitely. I am surprised you would think otherwise.

[Shulem]

What I am taking issue with is your apparent self delusion that you are passionate about unraveling things. That would only be true if by "unravel things" you really mean to say, "confirm your bias against Joseph Smith in which you assume he was a con man and set out to conform your results to that assumption."

Listen up, punk. We are done talking about me. I'm done talking about me, do you get that?

Return to the OP and address that in whatever academic format you choose. Then, posters can decide if they want to respond to your what-ever-you-call-it academics.

[Shulem]

If I think your methodology and hermeneutical framework are flawed, I will certainly share my opinion on those topics, whether you like it or not.

I don't give a flying fig what you think. You don't know jack about the Book of Mormon.

[Kishkumen]

Listen up, punk. We are done talking about me. I'm done talking about me, do you get that?

Return to the opening post and address that in whatever academic format you choose. Then, posters can decide if they want to respond to your what-ever-you-call-it academics.

No one is stopping you from pursuing your mission to confirm your biases against Joseph Smith by reading the Book of Mormon in a flawed, two-dimensional way in which you assume what should be there without reference to any other similar literature, and then point out when that stuff is not there. For some inscrutable reason, this includes condemning Joseph Smith for translation choices that do not match the English of the King James translation closely. This reminds me of Vergil's "mistake" of constructing a simile around the image of a Roman magistrate calming a crowd in an epic poem that was set in the Late Bronze Age.

His embarrassment lives to this day.