Off Topic Comments from Book of Mormon Authorship Thread

[_harmony]

It was an attempt, however obliquely, to get you back on the subject of the thread.

Jersey, do you want me to move all these off-topic comments, mine included?

Will you also be removing Danna's misleading suggestion that I have commented on the Criddle paper and the Spalding/Rigdon authorship theory in the same fashion as LOAP and Jeff Lindsay have?

From what I saw, your comment on the MAD thread is related to the Jockers study, in your normal oblique fashion. You compared the study's findings to a hypothetical finding about who wrote the Hobbit, using 3 authors that had nothing to do with the Hobbit, implying that the authors that were studied in the Jockers' study had nothing to do with the writing of the Book of Mormon and that the real author (whether you believe that to be Joseph or God isn't clear) wasn't part of the study, therefore the study is as invalid as a study of the Hobbit would be that used only the three authors you mentioned.

That's a legitimate comment for Danna to bring here, relative to the subject of this thread. You commented on the study with the Hobbit comment.

blip

blip

blip

[_Daniel Peterson]

From what I saw, your comment on the MAD thread is related to the Jockers study, in your normal oblique fashion.

I was explicating a point made by someone else.

That's a legitimate comment for Danna to bring here, relative to the subject of this thread.

It's misleading.

You commented on the study with the Hobbit comment.

I've made no comment of my own on the Criddle paper.

I don't care whether you remove all of the supposedly irrelevant comments from this thread. I do find it amusing, though, that Danna's misleading remark about me will be allowed to stand while my response to it will apparently be removed.

[_harmony]

I don't care whether you remove all of the supposedly irrelevant comments from this thread. I do find it amusing, though, that Danna's misleading remark about me will be allowed to stand while my response to it will apparently be removed.

Was that sound I just heard the sound that Daniel makes when he jumps to a conclusion? Yes, I believe it is. The mods will decide what stays and what is moved, so your amusement at this time is misplaced. However, I believe I just stated my understanding of how your MAD/Hobbit comment is germane to this thread, your denials notwithstanding. It is a further manifestation of Lindsey's remarks, however obliquely you think you worded it. Unless you're saying that Lindsey's remarks are not germane to the thread either?

You're about to trip on that slip.

[_Daniel Peterson]

However, I believe I just stated my understanding of how your MAD/Hobbit comment is germane to this thread, your denials notwithstanding. It is a further manifestation of Lindsey's remarks, however obliquely you think you worded it. Unless you're saying that Lindsey's remarks are not germane to the thread either?

You're about to trip on that slip.

I said nothing about whether or not Jeff Lindsay's remarks are germane to this thread. That's not the issue. As I've pointed out, I was simply illustrating or explicating a point raised by another poster, which is pretty much Dr. Lindsay's point, in the context of a discussion with that other poster. This isn't an original contribution of mine, and wasn't presented as such.

I've made no points of my own relevant to either the Criddle study or the broader Spalding/Rigdon authorship theory. This has been by conscious and deliberate choice. You criticize me for not having made such points, which seems to vindicate my claim that I've made no such points, and yet you also seem to criticize me for having made such points. It would be nice if you were to make up your mind regarding this all-important issue.

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . I would imagine that Professor Noel Reynolds, my BYU and Maxwell Institute colleague and friend, will be reasonably pleased[.]

Ahh, Noel Reynolds. My old deacon's quorum advisor and scoutmaster.

How is he nowadays?

[_NorthboundZax]

I said nothing about whether or not Jeff Lindsay's remarks are germane to this thread. That's not the issue. As I've pointed out, I was simply illustrating or explicating a point raised by another poster, which is pretty much Dr. Lindsay's point, in the context of a discussion with that other poster. This isn't an original contribution of mine, and wasn't presented as such.

It's hard to see how the Hobbit remark can be taken in any other way than a personal endorsement of Lindsay's position. I had missed those remarks the first time, so I will have to take back my earlier comment about the possible euphemism (I am sure it does happen on occasion - just not this one).

If you really wanted to, it would be really easy to distance yourself from Lindsay's position by noting that the Hobbit defense is untenable rather than simply maintaining that you are being misrepresented by what is the most straightforward reading of your comments.

[_Jersey Girl]

harmony and other moderators,

I've looked through the last 3 pages of this thread and I say let it stand as it is. I trust that those who have contributed heavily to the topic are well able to bring it back to topic.

Editing for Daniel. I need to let you know that I object to the following:

That is an interesting observation, Daniel. Perhaps it has some basis
in fact.

Jersey Girl strenuously disagrees with you and me on that perception.

And I object for the following reasons. It could not have escaped your attention that on this board, I refrain from talking about you or for you. I, infact, address you directly. I would appreciate your not referencing me, unless you are referencing a specific quote of mine, on a thread where I am obviously present. Nothing in my response to your assertion could be construed as "strenous". If you feel otherwise, quote me directly when characterizing my comments.

This is what I stated:

I am not one who thinks that the question of Book of Mormon authorship has now been definitively resolved and I challenge you to quote any post on this thread by any participant who has expressed that view.

A challenge for one to support their assertion with evidence, does not constitute strenous disagreement, Daniel. Let's strive for accuracy here.

[_Danna]

It was an attempt, however obliquely, to get you back on the subject of the thread.

Jersey, do you want me to move all these off-topic comments, mine included?

Will you also be removing Danna's misleading suggestion that I have commented on the Criddle paper and the Spalding/Rigdon authorship theory in the same fashion as LOAP and Jeff Lindsay have?

Or is there some rule here that I'm obliged to let such insinuations pass without correction?

Please advise.

I have edited my original post to remove your name and I apologise if I gave the impression that you had made a substantive comment on Jockers et al.

You did make a passing comment indicating agreement with LoaP's assessment and contributing an analogy of your own in support of his position, which is why I had placed you in the haystack (along with the other strawman makers).

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you really wanted to, it would be really easy to distance yourself from Lindsay's position by noting that the Hobbit defense is untenable rather than simply maintaining that you are being misrepresented by what is the most straightforward reading of your comments.

I have no desire to distance myself from Dr. Lindsay's position.

I simply note that Dr. Lindsay and I are distinct individuals, and that, while Dr. Lindsay has made original comments on this topic, I have quite purposefully not done so.

[_Sethbag]

Arg, it would be really great if we didn't let this thread become just the latest thread that started out about something interesting, and devolved into some kind of attack on DCP. Just say no.