Page 2 of 2

Re: Callister claims critics have flip-flopped on Book Of Mo

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:25 pm
by _Agosh
Dr Moore wrote:Royal Skousen, after careful study, concludes the Book of Mormon is a "creative and cultural translation" and "not literal translation." Tad, where is your commentary on Skousen's good work on this meteoric leap toward affirming CGT? "Creative and cultural translation" are just fancy apologetic-speak for "creative genius."

Isn't Skousen meaning both creative, cultural and literal. I have trouble understanding. Thank you.

Re: Callister claims critics have flip-flopped on Book Of Mo

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:14 pm
by _Gadianton
You could go on and on with the flaws in his thinking, but his article is well worth having just for the mention of the Late War. At least a few curious Saints are going to look that one up and while it might not destroy their faith, the light will go out from their testimonies just a little. It will put a worry in their minds.

Re: Callister claims critics have flip-flopped on Book Of Mo

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:38 pm
by _Dr Moore
Agosh wrote:Isn't Skousen meaning both creative, cultural and literal. I have trouble understanding. Thank you.


He isn’t saying that. He says it is not a literal translation of the plates, indeed cannot be.

Re: Callister claims critics have flip-flopped on Book Of Mo

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:49 pm
by _Equality
Let me see if I can play this apologetic game with other controversial matters.

"Critics first said crop circles were made one way, but then they hypothesized a different method for their creation; this flip-flop proves that crop circles were made by aliens."

"Skeptics first hypothesized that the magician's card trick was performed one way, but then they changed their minds and hypothesized that it was done a different way; therefore, it must have actually been magic."

The logic is unassailable!

Re: Callister claims critics have flip-flopped on Book Of Mo

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:13 am
by _Shulem
The critics flip-flopped which proves the church really is true!

:surprised:

All hail the MORON Church!

:rolleyes:

Church on Sunday for Philo Sofee!

:lol:

Re: Callister claims critics have flip-flopped on Book Of Mo

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:31 am
by _Gadianton
Equality wrote:Let me see if I can play this apologetic game with other controversial matters.

"Critics first said crop circles were made one way, but then they hypothesized a different method for their creation; this flip-flop proves that crop circles were made by aliens."

"Skeptics first hypothesized that the magician's card trick was performed one way, but then they changed their minds and hypothesized that it was done a different way; therefore, it must have actually been magic."

The logic is unassailable!


beautiful.

Re: Callister claims critics have flip-flopped on Book Of Mo

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:33 pm
by _Agosh
Dr Moore wrote:
Agosh wrote:Isn't Skousen meaning both creative, cultural and literal. I have trouble understanding. Thank you.

He isn’t saying that. He says it is not a literal translation of the plates, indeed cannot be.

I wrote Skousen an email, asking specifically about this. He replied and said that of course he accepts that there is a large amount of language that can be regarded as the result of a fairly literal translation.

Re: Callister claims critics have flip-flopped on Book Of Mo

Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:33 am
by _Dr Moore
Agosh wrote:
Dr Moore wrote:He isn’t saying that. He says it is not a literal translation of the plates, indeed cannot be.

I wrote Skousen an email, asking specifically about this. He replied and said that of course he accepts that there is a large amount of language that can be regarded as the result of a fairly literal translation.


I imagine he also reserves the right to pick and choose which is literal and which isn’t?

Re: Callister claims critics have flip-flopped on Book Of Mo

Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:23 am
by _moksha
Sometimes arguments need to be based on misstatements and strawmen when better arguments are unavailable. Elder Callister should be given some credit for his efforts at misdirection. Perhaps he received some pointers from an Early English Hasty Pudding Club Debating Spirit Society. (EEHPCDSS)

Re: Callister claims critics have flip-flopped on Book Of Mo

Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:51 am
by _Gadianton
My hunch is that Skousen has some broad impulses regarding the meaning of his discoveries, but 99.9% of his thinking is in the weeds on the nuts and bolts of the 15th century text. He probably isn't trying to be deceptive with anyone, he likely just doesn't know how to describe the big picture and probably doesn't want to spend that much time thinking about it. He probably assumes there's a neat way to wrap it all up to ensure something he's comfortable with wins out, but we can already show Kansas has gone bye-bye. Maybe he can figure out a logical way to preserve a historical Book of Mormon, but if so, it's one of many possibilities, and not necessarily the one even most compatible with traditional Mormonism if taking the really big picture into account.