Grant Palmer is attacked by Brian Hales and Gregory L. Smith

[Guest]

If any of you are wondering what Bob's credentials are for criticizing someone's research, please take a look at the following link. You'll see he's an immensely qualified and intellectually honest amateur historian:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... f=1&t=3703

Hah hah; the three elipses again! Not even Bagley accuses me of error with this quote. He accuses me of other error, but not this. Only Scratch. (Of course, Bagley missed the document entirely even though I could see that he signed into the Huntington file where this document was kept in a stack of about 100 pages.)

Again, I am not a historian. I only pretend to be one.

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[_son of Ishmael]

If someone plagiarizes someone else, does that mean that what they wrote (plagiarized)is not true? It seems that the academic types get wrapped around the axle about the little things but completely over look the facts. Its like when DCP was busting on the CES letter because it wasn't written like an academic paper.

[_grindael]

I agree that the Van Wagoner/Quinn comparison is not good for Van Wagoner. But writing books that long and detailed isn't easy. A lot of things get overlooked. There are even editors, and friends that look for such things. Mike Marquardt told me the other day that he (at Van Wagoner's request) read through Mormon Polygamy and Mike found a lot of errors, but that Van Wagoner went back and had them all corrected. Mike could not remember the "F" initial for Benjamin Winchester though. Nobody is perfect. At least Richard made an effort to have his work proofed and corrected, so this indicates (to me) that he did not purposefully plagiarize.

It is very hilarious though, that because someone has made a mistake of this nature, or other minor ones that involve sources, it is pounced upon as a reason to discredit all of a person's work and the basis for ad homenim attacks that are only to try and poison people against these authors.

Grant Palmer wasn't criticized, his CHARACTER was attacked. There is a big difference. This is the whole purpose of what Hales and Smith wrote. Just like when Hales attacked Jeremy Runnells, and called him a liar and a tool of Satan. http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/08/04/t ... -runnells/

[_Yahoo Bot]

It is very hilarious though, that because someone has made a mistake of this nature, or other minor ones that involve sources, it is pounced upon as a reason to discredit all of a person's work and the basis for ad homenim attacks that are only to try and poison people against these authors.

Grant Palmer wasn't criticized, his CHARACTER was attacked. There is a big difference. This is the whole purpose of what Hales and Smith wrote. Just like when Hales attacked Jeremy Runnells, and called him a liar and a tool of Satan. http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/08/04/t ... -runnells/

Wow. Again. You minimize Van Wagoner's thievery.

Plagiarism is a very big deal. It shows a defect of CHARACTER. It shows a defect of process. It shows that absence of an editor. Whereas I had my suspicions about Van Wagoner before, I will absolutely never trust him.

(Similarly, I have pointed out where Will Bagley used language from another author without quote marks, Robert Dwyer, although he footnoted his source.)

Ambrose has never been the same since his minor plagiarism faux pas, and all he did was fail to put in quotes what he had fully attributed.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Has anyone else tried to have a rational discussion with an apologist about whether lifting portions of the KJV translation and placing them in the Book of Mormon, while insisting that the Book of Mormon is an original translation of an ancient manuscript constitutes plagiarism?

That's not plagiarism for a number of reasons, the least of which is that the ultimate author of the Bible is the ultimate author of the Book of Mormon.

If that is not the case, the problem with the Book of Mormon is much much deeper than plagiarism.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Poor Bot, the FAIR/FARMS rejection still smarts.

Joseph started the stealing of other's ideas and wives, and daughters.

At least Palmer or Van Wagoner did not seduce your wife or daughter.

[_grindael]

Wow. I'm not minimizing anything but advocating caution. In his Acknowledgements, Mike Quinn names Van Wagoner as contributing suggestions in writing and research to the book. They both had the same book publisher. They may have traded ideas. I advocate caution because I don't know all the facts and what research was contributed to who and what may have been passed from author to author. That is all.

[_Kevin Graham]

Has anyone else tried to have a rational discussion with an apologist about whether lifting portions of the KJV translation and placing them in the Book of Mormon, while insisting that the Book of Mormon is an original translation of an ancient manuscript constitutes plagiarism?

That's not plagiarism for a number of reasons, the least of which is that the ultimate author of the Bible is the ultimate author of the Book of Mormon.

If that is not the case, the problem with the Book of Mormon is much much deeper than plagiarism.

This is a funny argument to make in light of the direction LDS apologetics has been headed in modern times. You have apologists/scholars from every corner now arguing that the process of revelation is imperfect, that we should expect mistakes in even the simplest revelations because the human factor will only produce an imperfect result. This is the basis for their claim that Joseph Smith could have misunderstood his own revelations about Lamanites being Indians, or the Book of Abraham coming from the papyri, etc etc.

Yet, here you are suggesting that we should reasonably expect Mormon revelation, such as the translation of the Book of Mormon, to be able to produce literally thousands and thousands of words exactly as they appear in the KJV. This means God was careful to transmit these exact words to Joseph Smith's mind, word for word. And Joseph didn't make a single mistake!

I mean it isn't like the KJV and Book of Mormon was both translated from the same autograph, right? So why in the world is Nephi writing verbatim that which appears in Isaiah? It makes no sense. Saying God is the author is a lame cop out that not only begs the question, but creates more problems than it solves.

The only consistency with Mormon apologetics is its inconsistency.