Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[_Jersey Girl]

Let me try this another way. You inferred that his use of language was a form of over compensation for lack of intellectual prowess and you fall short of your intended mark in that regard.

His use of language is an indicator of giftedness and has nothing to do with whatever position he attempts to make.

He produces language (in this case written/typed) rapidly and effortlessly.

If you're going to attempt to ding his intellect based on the language that you see, you should know that the language that you see is produced by his intellectual abilities and not the product of painstaking use of a thesaurus in order to impress, but his ability to rapidly produce lengthy passages of narrative or what you call "purple prose".

In other words, you can't use an ability to demonstrate inability.

Doesn't fly.

[_Jersey Girl]

You weren't referring to his position. You referred to his use of language. You implied that his use of language was a form of compensation for lack of intellectual prowess, did you not?

That is what I addressed.

No. I'm referring to using "ooh, big words" to create the illusion of actually saying something.

And I'm telling you that the "ooh, big words" fly out of his head to his keyboard within brief seconds/minutes.

Politics aside, what you're seeing is phenomenal, were you to bother yourself to observe it instead of batting at it.

[_Darth J]

And I'm telling you that the "ooh, big words" fly out of his head to his keyboard within brief seconds/minutes.

Politics aside, what you're seeing is phenomenal, were you to bother yourself to observe it instead of batting at it.

Jersey Girl, I'm sure this is impressive to you, but out West there is a saying: "All hat, no cattle."

[_Jersey Girl]

And I'm telling you that the "ooh, big words" fly out of his head to his keyboard within brief seconds/minutes.

Politics aside, what you're seeing is phenomenal, were you to bother yourself to observe it instead of batting at it.

Jersey Girl, I'm sure this is impressive to you, but out West there is a saying: "All hat, no cattle."

Observable strengths and abilities are always impressive to me.

[_Darth J]

Observable strengths and abilities are always impressive to me.

Ersatz strengths and abilities are never impressive to me.

[_AlmaBound]

Oh, I don't think "ignored" is the right word. The discussion is taking place on a new thread in Celestial. You might ask the question there.

Thanks. I'll take a look at it.

[_marg]

I don't like fabricated missing manuscripts,

I see. So you think Smith simply with no pre-done manuscript in front of him, dictated the Book of Mormon and with no reviews and revisions?

We could have our usual gymnastic exercise about all of this, which will end in the usual mutual expressions of disdain, but I prefer to skip all of that, if you don't mind. We're not getting anywhere with each other on this topic. That much is obvious.

What I have done Trevor is look at all the evidence objectively and realistically and allowed it to lead to the best explained theory. You apparently are willing to accept the sole author Smith theory despite the fact that there is no evidence he prepared in advance any manuscript for the Book of Mormon and despite it being ridiculous to assume an alternative that he dictated off the cuff with no review and revisions. I agree though, I prefer to skip discussion on the S/R theory with you. You were the one to bring it up and it seemed to me you were dismissing the theory because it involved a conspiracy. And so that's why I commented to that.

What does "inspired translation" mean? That sounds highly speculative Trevor. Are you saying that Smith was inspired by a God? If not, then why even use the word "inspired"? In what other sense are you intending that word to be taken as? He saw the papyri, and claimed he could translate it..what does inspiration have to do with anything? The evidence is he couldn't translate it.

Marg, meet thews; thews, meet marg. I have to be careful what I say, because the word police are out sniffing out any foul odor of my crypto-Mormon-ness.

Trevor on a number of occasions, you have pointed out that you are a historical scholar and that that is how you approach Mormonism. But many times I notice you don't approach discussion on issues pertaining to Mormonism as an objective historical scholar would. In this case for example your approach seems apologetic. You are using a loaded word "inspired" which has connotations of speculating involving a diety particularly in the context of the claims made by J. Smith regarding his translation abilities.

[_Darth J]

Trevor.....Spalding......assume various meetings and conspiracies......dearth of evidence.......how dare you suggest that some kind of deity might exist......Trevor must be a TBM

Yes, marg. Anyone who doesn't believe in your theory of how the Book of Mormon was produced necessarily must believe that it is an ancient record that was translated by the power of God.

Earlier, I said something about atheist jihad. You have certainly proven me wrong on that one.

[_marg]

Trevor.....Spalding......assume various meetings and conspiracies......dearth of evidence.......how dare you suggest that some kind of deity might exist......Trevor must be a TBM

Yes, marg. Anyone who doesn't believe in your theory of how the Book of Mormon was produced necessarily must believe that it is an ancient record that was translated by the power of God.

Earlier, I said something about atheist jihad. You have certainly proven me wrong on that one.

I try to approach issues regarding Mormonism objectively. Trevor has claimed numerous times he's a historical scholar, so I expect a historical scholar who claims that's how he approaches issues in Mormonism to also use statements which demonstrate objectivity which excludes the assumption of the divine.

So that is why I asked for clarification. I want to know what he means especially since he claims to approach these issues as a historical scholar, when he says ... "Since I have no problem with the KEP being an exercise in "inspired translation"..."

And by the way this was what I wrote : "What does "inspired translation" mean? That sounds highly speculative Trevor. Are you saying that Smith was inspired by a God? If not, then why even use the word "inspired"? In what other sense are you intending that word to be taken as? He saw the papyri, and claimed he could translate it..what does inspiration have to do with anything? The evidence is he couldn't translate it."

No where do I say that if you don't accept the S/R theory the only alternative is you must be a TBM. And it's also not something that I think.

Trevor.....Spalding......assume various meetings and conspiracies......dearth of evidence.......how dare you suggest that some kind of deity might exist......Trevor must be a TBM

Please use the quote function of the board when you are truly quoting me not when you are making it up.

[_Trevor]

I see. So you think Smith simply with no pre-done manuscript in front of him, dictated the Book of Mormon and with no reviews and revisions?

That is a fair question. And my answer is that I do not know. I don't believe he would necessarily have had a manuscript in front of him when he dictated the Book of Mormon. Just as I do not believe he had a complete manuscript before him when he dictated those manuscripts among the KEP.

So, I guess your theory has the virtue of coming up with some answer to the question. The downside is that you have to conjure up a number events that could have happened but may not have, and I see one of the biggest failures of it, and this is something I remarked on for Roger long ago, is its failure to account for the Masonic nature of the text. I told Roger that the Book of Mormon had a mixture of positive and negative material about Freemasons, to which he never adequately responded, since he was operating in the "anti-Masonic" model, and with the understanding, based on very tenuous evidence, that Spalding was an anti-Mason. As I told him then, that does not solve the problem.

And now along comes George, confirming all of my intuitions based on my reading of the Book of Mormon, George who has the wherewithal in Freemasonic knowledge to explain adequately exactly how Freemasonic the Book of Mormon was. And there you have it, the failure of the Spalding hypothesis. I would love to see how you guys explain your way out of George's research. An anti-Masonic Spalding does not help.

What I have done Trevor is look at all the evidence objectively and realistically and allowed it to lead to the best explained theory. You apparently are willing to accept the sole author Smith theory despite the fact that there is no evidence he prepared in advance any manuscript for the Book of Mormon and despite it being ridiculous to assume an alternative that he dictated off the cuff with no review and revisions. I agree though, I prefer to skip discussion on the S/R theory with you. You were the one to bring it up and it seemed to me you were dismissing the theory because it involved a conspiracy. And so that's why I commented to that.

OK, marg. Again, fair enough. I deserved that little ding, I suppose. I am not very sympathetic to the S/R theory. I don't see that it has very good evidence backing it up, or that it explains the text in ways that account for what I am seeing there, and what George is unfolding. I look forward to seeing your response to his publications, because he has a historical scenario that is worked out so tightly that next to it the S/R theory pales.

Trevor on a number of occasions, you have pointed out that you are a historical scholar and that that is how you approach Mormonism. But many times I notice you don't approach discussion on issues pertaining to Mormonism as an objective historical scholar would. In this case for example your approach seems apologetic. You are using a loaded word "inspired" which has connotations of speculating involving a deity particularly in the context of the claims made by J. Smith regarding his translation abilities.

Yes. I am not embarrassed to use the word "inspired." I don't feel it necessary to choose my words such that I wipe them clean of any religious taint. If that means that atheists like you will criticize me for not using the ideologically appropriate expression, so be it. Joseph Smith and his colleagues used that kind of terminology, and I see no reason to garble that by finding something that won't offend the secularist word police. I make no apologies for that. If you want to draw conclusions about my personal beliefs from that, and completely ignore the historical basis for the usage, then I certainly won't try to stop you.

I don't think you are really all that interested in history, so much as (ab)using history to debunk Joseph Smith, anyway.