Dr. Shades wrote:Linguistically, what's the difference between a "caractor" and a "character?"
If ELYSAB was a real character usurping my discovery BECAUSE he got close lately, but no cigar, he would not be as he is, a caracter who really does not exist. Got it? I bet it is crapping the heck out of him. DANG!
Several posters on this board, including Trevor, Dr. Shades, Blixa, and Dr. Peterson, are among my real-life friends.
Trevor has been a friend since shortly after my mission, and I count him as one of the best friends I have ever had. When I reembraced my faith and decided I needed to return to the Church, Trevor is one of the first people I told. Trevor seemed far less surprised by the return of my faith than I was. And to say that he was, and is, supportive would be dramatic understatement. We talk a great deal, as we did last night, discussing--very positively--Hugh Nibley , who has had a significant influence on us both, and how Mormonism follows patterns of religion from the ancient world.
Dr. Shades has been a friend since high school. He, like me, was a very devout kid, and a thinker. We met through one of my best friends from growing up and used to talk a lot about religion, history, and how hot that other friend's sister was....
I've been privileged to be very close to Blixa, who is both brilliant and kind-hearted. She has been supportive and remained a good friend through my reembrace of Mormonism and return to the Church, even though her own experience of Mormondom has been much less positive.
Dr. Peterson I've known nearly as long as I've known Trevor. We used to run into each other and have long and satisfying conversations a lot at the BYU Bookstore. When we later encountered each other again on the boards, we were frequently at loggerheads, since I was then a nonbeliever and disliked his style of posting. But a few years ago while I was still a nonbeliever (an atheist) we ran into each other at the BYU library He was quite friendly to me despite my having gone after him a great deal on the boards, and we had a great conversation. Shortly thereafter I posted my impression on one of the boards (probably FAIR) that Dr. Peterson was someone who emphasizes the most generous and expansive aspects of Mormonism, affirming the truth in other faiths, fully accepting science, and holding out a near-universalist hope that God's mercy will ultimately embrace perhaps everyone. My experience with him since has only strengthened this view, and it is one that can be confirmed for anyone who listens to his recent Mormon Stories podcasts. In some ways, these friends of mine are very different from one another, even within the set of nonbelievers. Blixa and Shades, for instance, are respectively Marxist and libertarian, a much poorer fit, in my opinion, than Mormon and Evangelical. And these friends have each had their own, very different path of engagement with Mormonism.
But I wonder what would happen if all these friends of mine met one another in person? Knowing them as I do, I picture some very interesting conversation and friendly interaction. Trevor and Dan, for instance, in person each the very picture of pleasantness, share common interests in antiquity, friends among Dr. Peterson's colleagues, interest in Mormon history and scripture, and a great deal else.
If politics makes strange bed fellows, might it not be that the Internet debate over Mormon apologetics and criticism make strange enemies, setting at enmity people who share common friends and would get along fine, and in some cases exceptionally well, in other contexts? Unless I am an extremely poor judge of character and of my own friends, it does just that.
Don
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic." - Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011
onandagus wrote:In some ways, these friends of mine are very different from one another, even within the set of nonbelievers. Blixa and Shades, for instance, are respectively Marxist and libertarian, a much poorer fit, in my opinion, than Mormon and Evangelical. And these friends have each had their own, very different path of engagement with Mormonism. Don
Blixa is a Marxist? I never seen her Marxisms in her posts. This was a surprise for me. Blixa, what type of Marxist are you? Have you read Monthly Review?
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote:I don't think he cares at all and doesn't give it much thought at all. In fact, no one really gives it much thought in real life practice. Maybe on the board some people do because they are reminded of it. But in real life, very few are thinking of will and his way of posting. I really do think that very few people actually care at all.
Your moniker is so appropriate. I feel it applies to me every time I read one of your vapid posts. Then I remember that I willfully chose to waste my time on your drivel and thus ought not to feel sorry for myself for having endured it.
I just don't think that dan gives it much thought. And why would he? Most people are too concerned with life to give Will's posting style much thought or for that matter, anyone's posting style.
For example, I believe that most people on the forum are good people and their aggressive internet persona is not who they are in real life. I am sure that it is the same with Will. But why would I be thinking about Polygamy Porter's posting style or anyone else's posting style?
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Blixa wrote: I hear ya, Kish. I think it was either Pokatator or Malkie who first noted this by now common response.
Well, comrade, I don't see where I could have been wrong. Don has given us a glimpse of dan and in that glimpse I see no malice, bitterness, or hate. But what I do see is a man who enjoys life and people and a person who is rather accepting of people's ideas. Why would dan be overly concerned about Will and his internet posting style? But he would be concerned about Will, the human being and as a brother in the gospel. But in this, Will would not be the exception but the norm.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Blixa wrote: I hear ya, Kish. I think it was either Pokatator or Malkie who first noted this by now common response.
Well, comrade, I don't see where I could have been wrong. Don has given us a glimpse of dan and in that glimpse I see no malice, bitterness, or hate. But what I do see is a man who enjoys life and people and a person who is rather accepting of people's ideas. Why would dan be overly concerned about Will and his internet posting style? But he would be concerned about Will, the human being and as a brother in the gospel. But in this, Will would not be the exception but the norm.
What are you on about? I made a comment about YOU not Dan. I endorsed Kish and other's characterization of your posting style. I have zero interest in whatever DCP might think of Will.
But, true to form, you've gone ahead and commented on things you know nothing about.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
DOCTOR and Elder SHADES, probably a "CAT"... as could not be the beautiful nice-looking Girl, according to the picture provided to identify you in the Forum as member...
I already explained the big difference. Do you understand the difference between Anglo-Saxon and Latin Civilizations? Well, they are too recent to be linked to CARACTORS and CHARACTERS differences...
Joseph Smith was also a very SMART, INTELLIGENT and practical person. He was not linguistically an IGNORANT PERSON as so many persons, mainly the WISERS and SCIENTISTS, think about him... And thus they spend their lives trying to "correct him and his teachings", even about the Geography of Book of Mormon and its Translation... being totally ignorant about the CARACTORS and true MEANING of it.
If Joseph Smith provided a HEAD TITLE, with his own hands, writing CARACTORS and not CHARACTERS, for a list of CHARACTERS he made copy directly from GOLD PLATES of the Book of Mormon, it is because there is so great difference between CHARACTERS and CARACTORS when they are put as HEAD TITLE of such LIST.
Thus Joseph Smith was very correct and SMART man and true prophet, proving to be such so great linguistic man. And not being as ignorant as so many person reasons about him and not being even prophet and not being also good scientists and nor good linguistics.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Blixa wrote: What are you on about? I made a comment about YOU not Dan. I endorsed Kish and other's characterization of your posting style. I have zero interest in whatever DCP might think of Will.
But, true to form, you've gone ahead and commented on things you know nothing about.
And what is wrong with my posting style when I addressed the poster? I see nothing wrong with style or with what I said. So, you disagree with me about dan and will?
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
This is a summary of a new message, "Translation of CARACTORS and KINDERHOOK". Such activities are going on, handling what was already translated with the whole contents of CHARACTERS from the list known as CARACTORS and from the 6 plates (12 faces) KINDERHOOK, also subjected to translation process, as disclosed to the MormonDiscussion, in this message body.
As it was explained, each type of CHARACTERS is being gathered side by side to allow easy comparison of them, to make possible the discovery what is reasonable and what is plain HOAX. That is the intention by adding several sources of same type of CHARACTERS, not only from CARACTORS and KINDERHOOK, but from EUROPE and from other sources or CHARACTERS in USA (maybe Canada).
We are working now with "A" characters. Those from the list CARACTORS already are gathered and reproduced in next document, and also Characters from the first of 6 plates of KINDERHOOK.
You can see that the "A" characters from CARACTORS document is clearly from MODERN SABELLICUS of "exactly 600 years B.C. period Tiberina = Roman" In such period the usual horizontal bar line between the two inclined lines was replaced by a DOT in the middle of the horizontal bar line.. (why?).
In the list of CARACTORS one "A" is alike Kinderhook, being from very OLD SABELLICUS (quite like very OLD Phoenician type).
The "A" from one plate examined (front and Back Kinderhook) is mainly with A old Phoenicians. See the very much enlarged of A copied by Joseph Smith and Kinderhook with your own eyes for examining details.
