Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the KJV in the Book of Mormon?

[_charity]

charity,

I'd like to know what you mean by the use of the word "sandbox" in the above. What is it that you intended to convey?

Sandboxes are where children play. When someone displays childish behaviors, such as name calling, insulting, demeaning, then a sandbox seems to be an appropriate environment.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying. Where has JAK displayed "childish behaviors such as name calling, insulting, demeaning"?

Ya know...I don't think I can stop myself from saying this, or at least I choose not to. I've noticed more than once where you've chosen to insult an adult by using a child analogy to do it. Sandboxes are also where children learn, charity. You appear to characterize children playing as "name calling" "insulting" "demeaning".

Is that what you think children's play is?

No, I think I said that name calling, insulting, etc. is chilish behavior. Children can play without that. We shouldn't see adults every name calling. I probably should have reisted the impulse and been more mature than to call those two on what they were doing. Mea culpa.

But this is what the dialogue was.

This is what JAK said to anti-shock8

"JAK wrote:

Antishock8,
This should give you some idea of what you’re dealing with in Charity.

Don’t attempt to confuse her with the facts or requirement for evidence for faith-based conclusions, she is not interested. "

"dealing with" "don't confuse her. . ."

Demeaning to say the least.

[_Bond...James Bond]

1) Using colors besides red, black and brown would be a good start. How about blue and red if you want to use colors? Those stick out much better than brown and red.

2) Here's another thought...use the quote feature. And don't build up 3 sets of quotes in red black and brown. Quote the relevant material, and then your response under it. It's not rocket science. For example JAK could respond as such:

The sky is green...

The sky is blue.

...and so is the grass.

I agree. The grass is green.

----------------
3) And here's another...don't bold and italicize words every other word. When you do one word in a paragraph it means something. When you bold several words in every sentence it doesn't mean jack squat except that you got too much time on your hands.

4) Here's another thought...don't be long winded. It doesn't work for Bob McCue or anyone else for that matter. Make your point. Don't type 10 paragraphs when 3 will suffice. And don't type 3 paragraphs when 3 sentences will suffice. Less is more...especially in this day and age when attention spans are 8 minutes and under.

5) And don't use links in every single post! When a link is directly relevant then use one...but don't use 5 links when 1 is more than most people can bother to read.

6) Semper Fi.

[_skippy the dead]

Amen, Brother Bond.

And may I expand on this:

5) And don't use links in every single post! When a link is directly relevant then use one...but don't use 5 links when 1 is more than most people can bother to read.

And if there is a link to the homepage of a site or to a lengthy article, please point out what in particular you're using to support your position.

[_Jersey Girl]

1) Using colors besides red, black and brown would be a good start. How about blue and red? Those stick out better than brown and red.

2) Here's another thought...use the quote feature. And don't build up 3 sets of quotes in red black and brown. Quote the relevant material, and then your response under it. It's not rocket science. For example:

The sky is green...

The sky is blue.

and so is the grass.

I agree. The grass is green.

----------------
3) And here's another...don't bold and italicize words every other word. When you do one word in a paragraph it means something. When you bold several words in every sentence it doesn't mean jack squat except that you got too much time on your hands.

4) Here's another thought...don't be long winded. It doesn't work for Bob McCue or anyone else for that matter. Make your point. Don't type 10 paragraphs when 3 will suffice. And don't type 3 paragraphs when 3 sentences will suffice. Less is more...especially in this day and age when attention spans are 8 minutes and under.

5) And don't use links in every single post! When a link is directly relevant then use one...but don't use 5 links when 1 is more than most people can bother to read.

6) Semper Fi.

How would you suggest using the colors blue and red to detail a lengthy dialogue/discussion? Would you combine those with black?

I disagree with what you've stated (I'm gonna cuss a little, so get your mod stun gun ready) about being "long winded". specifying a number of acceptable paragraphs, links though I do agree with your statement regarding "8 minute" paragraphs.

I am accustomed to a threaded view and know what it can do for discussions, especially those discussions that one considers topical debate. I am also accustomed to closely detailing a discussion in order to make communication and transmission of thought as clear and consistent as is possible. The building up of quotes is what I think of as "discussion".

This board (and I say this honestly) is used as a BS session where people often don't care one way or the other what goes on, what is transmitted, what if anything is learned.

I personally have participated in lengthy discussions on the "other side" of JAK, where it was not uncommon for threads to continue over a period of days and weeks. Some people welcome the possibility of examining our own thoughts, positions and learning from each other. I have gotten more free online education from JAK over the years than I ever had a right to expect.

JAK isn't a bullshitter. He is someone who prefers to use his time engaging in thought and challenges others to do the same.

I fail to see how anyone can call his posts "convoluted" when he's attempting to squeeze a thought out of another poster on this linear format. It is frustrating, at best, to try to attempt to stay on point or maintain a train of thought with another poster when having to scroll through umpteen posts in order to even locate their last reply to us. When we try to use the quote feature, it doesn't pick up multiple lines of dialogue. When someone like JAK tries to pick up multiple lines of dialogue by using color coding, then there is criticism. He is trying (as others of us do) to maintain the integrity of a dialogue on a board where this isn't the norm. Were he to post only in the CF (which is where his level of discourse belongs) he would still run into the same issue.

Do we all need to reduce ourselves to BS level in order to avoid criticism around here?

I likely have insulted folks here or the entire board. I honestly don't give a damn. I cannot express to you the compromises that even I (ignoramus that I am) have to make on this board in order to follow the linear format when a topic is of interest to me. In most cases, I simply give up. We make polls to get smilies but criticize a serious discussor for attempting to detail a dialogue. Hey, I got no problem with that.

JAK if you are reading here, look at how I used color and lines in my reply to marg on the "Christianity/Mormonism" thread initiated by GoodK. I took the first series of exchanges, reposted them in black (as we used to do Jersey Girl: marg:) and then added my new comments in blue. I drew a line between each series of exchanges in our posts and did the same throughout. See if that has the effect you want in your posts. What you could do with that, as you continue along, is blacken all previous responses and only use one color to denote the new responses. So instead of using multiple colors, you're only using black and blue. ;-)

Okay, I'm done for now. I've insulted the house and given you permission to black and blue us...how sick is that, eh?

:-D

[_Jersey Girl]

Amen, Brother Bond.

And may I expand on this:

5) And don't use links in every single post! When a link is directly relevant then use one...but don't use 5 links when 1 is more than most people can bother to read.

And if there is a link to the homepage of a site or to a lengthy article, please point out what in particular you're using to support your position.

In most cases, JAK is using the entire article to support his position.

[_Dr. Shades]

3. For those who persist in the face of undeniable evidence, there is still the question of how Joseph could have accomplished it. If you still claim he copied pages from the KJV, just how did he do it in front of witnesses without them knowing? As anti’s love to point out, Joseph had his face in a hat. That also means there was no room for pages to read from, and no light to read them if there had been.

I'd say that when Joseph didn't trot out the magic-rock-in-a-hat trick for interested parties, he had the Bible, the Spalding document, etc. spread across the desk behind the blanket strung up between himself and Oliver.

[_Bond...James Bond]

How would you suggest using the colors blue and red to detail a lengthy dialogue/discussion? Would you combine those with black?

I wouldn't use colors at all. I'd use the quote feature. But if you must use colors pick colors that are bit more distinguishable than brown, black, and red. Can I buy some blue?

I disagree with what you've stated (I'm gonna cuss a little, so get your mod stun gun ready) about being "long winded". specifying a number of acceptable paragraphs, links though I do agree with your statement regarding "8 minute" paragraphs.

I'm not giving a word limit or paragraph limit. Some things will take 5 10 whatever paragraphs. But cutting down on the amount of stuff you type when it's possible is a big help.

I am accustomed to a threaded view and know what it can do for discussions, especially those discussions that one considers topical debate. I am also accustomed to closely detailing a discussion in order to make communication and transmission of thought as clear and consistent as is possible. The building up of quotes is what I think of as "discussion".

Does anyone read that build up of quote boxes? No.....99.9% of us skip to the last line and read the new material. Give people some credit. I remember the plot of 1000 page novels. Odds are I can remember what your last couple of posts on a given subject were. And if not...I can scroll up and look at them.

I fail to see how anyone can call his posts "convoluted" when he's attempting to squeeze a thought out of another poster on this linear format. It is frustrating, at best, to try to attempt to stay on point or maintain a train of thought with another poster when having to scroll through umpteen posts in order to even locate their last reply to us. When we try to use the quote feature, it doesn't pick up multiple lines of dialogue. When someone like JAK tries to pick up multiple lines of dialogue by using color coding, then there is criticism. He is trying (as others of us do) to maintain the integrity of a dialogue on a board where this isn't the norm. Were he to post only in the CF (which is where his level of discourse belongs) he would still run into the same issue.

Again...all that quoting gets in the way of skipping to the last thing that's written.

(Question for the board: IS THERE ANYONE WHO DOESN"T ALMOST ALWAYS SKIP THE QUOTE BOXES TO THE LAST WRITTEN PART?)

Do we all need to reduce ourselves to BS level in order to avoid criticism around here?

Yeah we do...if you hadn't noticed some of us (most of us) are here to shoot the crap, get a laugh and maybe pick up a useful piece of information.

I likely have insulted folks here or the entire board. I honestly don't give a damn. I cannot express to you the compromises that even I (ignoramus that I am) have to make on this board in order to follow the linear format when a topic is of interest to me. In most cases, I simply give up. We make polls to get smilies but criticize a serious discussor for attempting to detail a dialogue. Hey, I got no problem with that.

If you want the threaded view so bad then donate 20 bucks to this board and stipulate that you want a damn threaded view.

JAK if you are reading here, look at how I used color and lines in my reply to marg on the "Christianity/Mormonism" thread initiated by GoodK. I took the first series of exchanges, reposted them in black (as we used to do Jersey Girl: marg:) and then added my new comments in blue. I drew a line between each series of exchanges in our posts and did the same throughout. See if that has the effect you want in your posts. What you could do with that, as you continue along, is blacken all previous responses and only use one color to denote the new responses. So instead of using multiple colors, you're only using black and blue. ;-)

This is good information. Another thing would be to number the beginnings of each set of dialogue. Such as:

1) JAk originally stated: The sky is blue

Bond responded: the sky is red

Jak now says: Bond stop being a knucklehead.

2) Jak originally stated: The grass is green.

[color="blue"]Bond responded: The grass is red.[/color]

Jak now says: Bond stop being a knucklehead.



You'll also notice that putting a distinct color (such as blue which is easier to discern from red or brown) between JAK's stuff can allow for two colors. But I still like the quote feature.

[_charity]

3. For those who persist in the face of undeniable evidence, there is still the question of how Joseph could have accomplished it. If you still claim he copied pages from the KJV, just how did he do it in front of witnesses without them knowing? As anti’s love to point out, Joseph had his face in a hat. That also means there was no room for pages to read from, and no light to read them if there had been.

I'd say that when Joseph didn't trot out the magic-rock-in-a-hat trick for interested parties, he had the Bible, the Spalding document, etc. spread across the desk behind the blanket strung up between himself and Oliver.

Thanks for the laugh. It has been a grim day.

[_skippy the dead]

How would you suggest using the colors blue and red to detail a lengthy dialogue/discussion? Would you combine those with black?

I disagree with what you've stated (I'm gonna cuss a little, so get your mod stun gun ready) about being "long winded". specifying a number of acceptable paragraphs, links though I do agree with your statement regarding "8 minute" paragraphs.

I am accustomed to a threaded view and know what it can do for discussions, especially those discussions that one considers topical debate. I am also accustomed to closely detailing a discussion in order to make communication and transmission of thought as clear and consistent as is possible. The building up of quotes is what I think of as "discussion".

This board (and I say this honestly) is used as a BS session where people often don't care one way or the other what goes on, what is transmitted, what if anything is learned.

I personally have participated in lengthy discussions on the "other side" of JAK, where it was not uncommon for threads to continue over a period of days and weeks. Some people welcome the possibility of examining our own thoughts, positions and learning from each other. I have gotten more free online education from JAK over the years than I ever had a right to expect.

JAK isn't a bullshitter. He is someone who prefers to use his time engaging in thought and challenges others to do the same.

I fail to see how anyone can call his posts "convoluted" when he's attempting to squeeze a thought out of another poster on this linear format. It is frustrating, at best, to try to attempt to stay on point or maintain a train of thought with another poster when having to scroll through umpteen posts in order to even locate their last reply to us. When we try to use the quote feature, it doesn't pick up multiple lines of dialogue. When someone like JAK tries to pick up multiple lines of dialogue by using color coding, then there is criticism. He is trying (as others of us do) to maintain the integrity of a dialogue on a board where this isn't the norm. Were he to post only in the CF (which is where his level of discourse belongs) he would still run into the same issue.

Do we all need to reduce ourselves to BS level in order to avoid criticism around here?

I likely have insulted folks here or the entire board. I honestly don't give a damn. I cannot express to you the compromises that even I (ignoramus that I am) have to make on this board in order to follow the linear format when a topic is of interest to me. In most cases, I simply give up. We make polls to get smilies but criticize a serious discussor for attempting to detail a dialogue. Hey, I got no problem with that.

JAK if you are reading here, look at how I used color and lines in my reply to marg on the "Christianity/Mormonism" thread initiated by GoodK. I took the first series of exchanges, reposted them in black (as we used to do Jersey Girl: marg:) and then added my new comments in blue. I drew a line between each series of exchanges in our posts and did the same throughout. See if that has the effect you want in your posts. What you could do with that, as you continue along, is blacken all previous responses and only use one color to denote the new responses. So instead of using multiple colors, you're only using black and blue. ;-)

Okay, I'm done for now. I've insulted the house and given you permission to black and blue us...how sick is that, eh?

:-D

Jersey Girl - I don't disagree with your main point. In fact, I'd like to see what JAK has to say. But after a couple of iterations, I'm personally unable to follow the conversation anymore. Using the quote box (and nesting quotes where applicable) goes a long way in "threading" a conversation so that people can follow the progression. JAK obviously goes to a lot of trouble to draft his response. Unfortunately, I find the substance gets lost in the lack of form. I suppose I wasn't terribly tactful in pointing that out initially - sorry about that.

[_why me]

charity,

I'd like to know what you mean by the use of the word "sandbox" in the above. What is it that you intended to convey?

Sandboxes are where children play. When someone displays childish behaviors, such as name calling, insulting, demeaning, then a sandbox seems to be an appropriate environment.

Depends on the parent. It is never appropriate to engage in name calling, not even in a sandbox. However, charity's defínition simply means: a place where children play and have fun.