Has a non LDS scholar ever justified any parts of the Book of Mormon?

[_Dr. Shades]

Also, "spell-checkers" don't tell the difference between "gal" and "gall".

No, but you should be able to.

[_ludwigm]

Also, "spell-checkers" don't tell the difference between "gal" and "gall".

No, but you should be able to.

Yyyyyesss.

Moreover, I am able to make a difference of porn, and pron - as an abbreviation of pronounciation, widely used by answers.com, for example.

Without tricking with BBCode (as I did above two times), one can not write _p_r_o_n_ - it will become _p_o_r_n_.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

Don't you guys get it?

Obsidian laced clubs are the same as swords made in the image of the steel hilted sword of Laban.

Tapirs are horses.

We still haven't found the Elephant bones, and there may be 20 different Hill Cumorahs.

Not to mention all those cureloms and cummoms.

Ye of little faith!

If only you were white and delightsome, by which I mean pure enough, (not 'white' like honkies and such) (Negroes are OK as of 1978)), to understand.

[_beanboots]

Skip down a few paragraphs until you get to the part about Felix Mynhardt.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD

[Ahoody]

by the way, the parody of me is cute and all, but frankly childish and contributing nothing to truth, fact, or good.

It has nothing to do with cute, truth or facts. Just humor... lighten up.

Also, "spell-checkers" don't tell the difference between "gal" and "gall".
I use a spell-checker every post FYI. I don't actually misspell, save some unique words which have other common spellings whether right or wrong. See how "petty" you people are?

Spell checker assumes that you know what you are trying to say. In your case, that may be a misplaced assumption.

As Blixa stated, gal is never gall and gall is never gal.

I don't think it's petty to expect you to learn better English if you want to have discussions on this board. Often we can figure out what you mean, but not always.

You have the internet to help you. A vast and remarkable resource. It's not our fault if you don't take advantage of it.

Not to mention the fact that people have tried to actually teach him. One of his characteristic problems, and one which often leads to mockery here, is the mistaken use of quotation marks for emphasis. When this was pointed out to him, he said he was "thinking outside of the box" and using them in a unique way that was creative. It's not unique, it's a common mistake, such a common one that there is a blog devoted to the hilarity of this particular punctuation fetish: The Blog of Unnecessary Quotations.

I give up on him and then I eventually end up seeing something simple like "gal" vs. "gall" and try to help a little again.

I wish he could see that part of the reaction he draws here is because of his convoluted and problematic writing.

But, you know, I have actual students to attend to, so carry on!

[_Flaming Meaux]

It so happens that there are Mormons who are scientists and have a different view than the established view expressed by many secular scientists. And their views are often dismissed not on the merits of their arguments, but because of their faith. It is also generally true that they are subjected to criticisms by people, typically a Mormon critic, who at the same time possess no degrees or knowledge of the area other than they are Mormon critics.

I'm not going to dignify the majority of your DCPesque rant with a response.

That said, I would agree with you that I would find it troubling if a scientist that had a different view from the established view was criticized and dismissed purely because of their faith instead of the merits of their arguments, though I'd except the cases where the only basis for the scientist's different view is their faith. If there were little to no evidence supporting a particular view (and more than that, if indeed there was substantial evidence against that particular view), I think it merits criticism (at least as a matter of science) that the only reason why a particular scientist were to accept that particular view as a scientific matter was because they took it as an article of faith. I don't think holding the belief itself necessarily warrants criticism, but the making of unsubstantiated scientific claims on the basis of that belief should be.

The more evidence there is for a particular alternative view (and the less evidence against), the more troubling it would be, in my view, for a proponent of that alternative view to be dismissed simply because they happened to have some sort of religious belief.

From a Mormon perspective (since my discussion of the general example of a belief in God--the example you brought up, BTW--was apparently not sufficiently Mormony for you), I'd say a lot of claims regarding the Book of Mormon fall into the above. That a scientist believes the Book of Mormon is not problematic (in the sense that they get comfort or divine guidance out of it), but if that scientist starts making testable claims about pre-Columbian America--where the only basis for the claim is the scientist's religious belief--I don't think that criticism as a matter of science from the scientific community is unwarranted. I don't think it is the hallmark of good science, either, that the scientist nonetheless holds to a particular hypothesis after it has been nearly conclusively disproved (instead just reframing the hypothesis as something that still has a slighly larger chance of not being proven false, e.g., the Book of Mormon has an increasingly limited geographic scope, involves an increasingly shrinking population, must have occurred on some part of land that now can't be tested because it sunk under the ocean at the crucifixion, etc.).

[_malkie]

by the way, the parody of me is cute and all, but frankly childish and contributing nothing to truth, fact, or good.

Also, "spell-checkers" don't tell the difference between "gal" and "gall".
I use a spell-checker every post FYI. I don't actually misspell, save some unique words which have other common spellings whether right or wrong. See how "petty" you people are?

You're welcome!
Yep, I am a bit childish at times, aren't you? I mean, I'd hate to think that you are completely serious about everything you post here.
by the way, spell checkers and grammar checkers should be used for guidance only - they are generally not smart enough to be regarded as authoritative, and depend on the smarts of the user to look beyond their limitations.

[_Bazooka]

by the way, the parody of me is cute and all, but frankly childish and contributing nothing to truth, fact, or good.

Also, "spell-checkers" don't tell the difference between "gal" and "gall".
I use a spell-checker every post FYI. I don't actually misspell, save some unique words which have other common spellings whether right or wrong. See how "petty" you people are?

You're welcome!
Yep, I am a bit childish at times, aren't you? I mean, I'd hate to think that you are completely serious about everything you post here.
by the way, spell checkers and grammar checkers should be used for guidance only - they are generally not smart enough to be regarded as authoritative, and depend on the smarts of the user to look beyond their limitations.

In terms of parodying ldsfaqs, sounds like you nailed it!

[_malkie]

Absolutely, a significant portion of the "original research" was first discovered by Non-LDS, and then LDS saw how it relates to the Book of Mormon.

For example, some 95% of the claims the Book of Mormon made relation to the sciences had no evidence at all when it was written; however, today some 75% of the claims of the Book of Mormon have been validated by the sciences, most first researched and discovered by NON-LDS.

The Book of Mormon is being proven true by the sciences, not false, contrary to anti-mormon wishful thinking.

One would think that you would provide some evidence for this, instead of just assertions.

I think that there is, or used to be, a website somewhere that uses these figures. Perhaps, if s/he used that website, ldsfaqs would be willing to cite it?

[_malkie]

by the way, the parody of me is cute and all, but frankly childish and contributing nothing to truth, fact, or good.

Also, "spell-checkers" don't tell the difference between "gal" and "gall".
I use a spell-checker every post FYI. I don't actually misspell, save some unique words which have other common spellings whether right or wrong. See how "petty" you people are?

You're welcome!
Yep, I am a bit childish at times, aren't you? I mean, I'd hate to think that you are completely serious about everything you post here.
by the way, spell checkers and grammar checkers should be used for guidance only - they are generally not smart enough to be regarded as authoritative, and depend on the smarts of the user to look beyond their limitations.

In terms of parodying ldsfaqs, sounds like you nailed it!

I can do funny voices too, but that would almost certainly be too "petty".