It is currently Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:00 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 15539
Along with Lemmie I just want to point out MG is simply incapable, intellectually, to compete with Mikwut's post. I mean, he's going on what? 10 years of being absolutely mystified by whatever the ____ middle ground - slash - deep doctrines - slash - made up bull ____ FAIR craps out?

Then again we already knew he doesn't read substantive posts. He just skims over them quickly because he's, you know, limited by his own faculties to do anything else.

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:39 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 7074
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Along with Lemmie I just want to point out MG is simply incapable, intellectually, to compete with Mikwut's post.

I'm the first to admit that...and have at least a couple of times now in this thread. Over the years I've read many of mikwut's posts. They are deep and require a skill set that I honestly don't have. Oh wait, have I already said that?

I would say, however, that I have little doubt you would find many of those discussions which have taken place above your pay grade. :smile: Then again, maybe you can link us to some of those conversations where you have gone the distance with him? I may be mistaken in my estimation of your intellectual prowess. I'm simply going off what I've seen you write.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
I mean, he's going on what? 10 years of being absolutely mystified by whatever the ____ middle ground - slash - deep doctrines - slash - made up bull ____ FAIR craps out?

I've mentioned, only recently, that I look at FAIR as a springboard/baseline to start from. Not finish at.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Then again we already knew he doesn't read substantive posts. He just skims over them quickly because he's, you know, limited by his own faculties to do anything else.

I read through mikwut's post three times to be exact. And I mentioned that he brought up some specific dilemmas that crop up during word print study analysis.

You're really into this ad hominem stuff, aren't you? Quite the critic.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:55 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 7074
Themis wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
My point in the original thread that ended up being split up was that we ought to look inside the BofM along with looking at the outside. And that was pretty much all I was suggesting.


But you were never willing to when I went into some detail about it, and now that Mikwit has given you even more, you take the cowards way out. If you really were honest you would do as you want everyone else to and engage the subject and answer the questions asked you in our posts. In particular Mikwut's which really goes into some detail of the issues. Maybe you could learn something, but knowing your history I won't bet on it.


Hi Themis,

I have engaged to the extent that I am able at this time. There is a scripture in the D&C that says we ought not to try and run faster than we have strength. The experts have spoken in regards to word print studies. I have linked to those studies. Others are able to then link to those studies and then...as I said upthread...decide what meaning/importance those studies may or may not have.

I am willing to take the 'ding' for the fact that I am not one of those experts and do not have the skill set of knowledge/expertise to go the complete distance in arguing on behalf of the scale of 1-10 efficacy (it's a sure 9...it's a sure 3...it's a 0) as it relates to stylometric analysis and how it may relate to BofM historicity. I point to the studies and then let the dust settle where it may. For me, I see these studies as an indicator of the complex compositional nature of the BofM narrative along with the other internal indicators that the BofM isn't a production pawned off by an uneducated farm boy.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:57 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 7074
Maksutov wrote:
Give us a list of things we aren't allowed to mock. Please.

You will mock whatever you decide to mock. That's a given. I believe, however, that it is inappropriate to mock God.

It's a pretty short list.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:08 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12466
mentalgymnast wrote:
The experts have spoken in regards to word print studies. I have linked to those studies. Others are able to then link to those studies and then...as I said upthread...decide what meaning/importance those studies may or may not have.


Nothing in your links deals with the obvious problems invalidating those studies. That you will not engage those problems is just the usual you will believe what you want to, but that is not a surprise when you want to believe something is true much more then you want to know what is true.

_________________
42


Last edited by Themis on Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10478
Location: Multiverse
mentalgymnast wrote:
Maksutov wrote:
Give us a list of things we aren't allowed to mock. Please.

You will mock whatever you decide to mock. That's a given. I believe, however, that it is inappropriate to mock God.

It's a pretty short list.

Regards,
MG


I distinguish between God and "God". A mere human can't mock a supreme being but can offend another human who is claiming a supreme being as their sock puppet. Mortals claiming to speak for God or to understand God deserve all the mocking they can get. If that means mocking their ridiculous claims of what they "know", especially when they're selling or legislating that nonsense, sign me up for mocking every time. It's my duty as a loyal American and a conscious human being.

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:17 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 7379
mentalgymnast wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Along with Lemmie I just want to point out MG is simply incapable, intellectually, to compete with Mikwut's post.

I'm the first to admit that...and have at least a couple of times now in this thread. Over the years I've read many of mikwut's posts. They are deep and require a skill set that I honestly don't have.


What specific skill(s) set do you think you are missing, whose absence means you cannot address mikwut’s posts?

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:55 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 7796
Location: What does the fox say?
mentalgymnast wrote:

Hi Themis,

I have engaged to the extent that I am able at this time. There is a scripture in the D&C that says we ought not to try and run faster than we have strength. The experts have spoken in regards to word print studies. I have linked to those studies. Others are able to then link to those studies and then...as I said upthread...decide what meaning/importance those studies may or may not have.

I am willing to take the 'ding' for the fact that I am not one of those experts and do not have the skill set of knowledge/expertise to go the complete distance in arguing on behalf of the scale of 1-10 efficacy (it's a sure 9...it's a sure 3...it's a 0) as it relates to stylometric analysis and how it may relate to BofM historicity. I point to the studies and then let the dust settle where it may. For me, I see these studies as an indicator of the complex compositional nature of the BofM narrative along with the other internal indicators that the BofM isn't a production pawned off by an uneducated farm boy.

Regards,
MG


In the absence of actual physical evidence to establish context and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (DNA evidence, anachronisms, Isiah inclusions, obvious cribing of the KJV, etc):

Stylometric analysis has zero bearing on historicity. Complexity has zero bearing on historicity. Mostly because, you can't establish that the Book of Mormon is an actual ancient work. The internal analysis does not serve that purpose.

Compare it to the OT, many sections of the OT are viewed as Ahistrorical. The creation, stuff about the patriarchs, the Exodus, and other segments have 0 in the ground archaeology to support them, yet we can at least point to an actual culture and place to look for historical evidence. There are physical anchors against which the internal studies can be weighed. The Book of Mormon lacks this. There is no culture anywhere in the Americas that correlates to the narrative. Internal complexity, stylometric, and other analysis become meaningless as they are un anchored with any real place setting. They do nothing to establish historicity for the Book of Mormon as there is no provenance for the Book of Mormon.

It is the apologists who try to pawn off the story of Joseph Smith as an uneducated farm boy, not the critics.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:54 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
I think it was to grindael that I mentioned that getting into the nuts and bolts of Stylometric Analysis Studies is a bit above my pay grade...as I'm sure it is his.


You have no idea what is "above my pay grade". Don't try to drag me down with you, because you can't comprehend something. You can't even comprehend simple Mormon History. That's WAY above your pay grade as you've shown us over and over again.

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:25 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
Mikwut wrote, (After my comments below)

Quote:
Therefore, if DNA (known historical fact) demonstrates the Book of Mormon false this supersedes wordprint analysis not the other way around as your attempting to do. This seems obvious to most, hence the harsh criticism you have received on this thread. This is fairly elementary. Kishkumen makes the valuable point that there is no verification for the Book of Mormon so the falsification isn't even necessary. Your attempting to provide minimal verifying evidence but ignore that DNA evidence is a falsifier and that supersedes verifying type evidences. This is so in this case of the Book of Mormon because if shown to be fiction minimal verifications are not relevant.


grindael wrote,

Quote:
As many Scientologists have said over and over again. Is this what it all boils down to, over and over again? Seems so. All of Simon's great, real, scientific points glossed over[the DNA] for another regurgitation of "why I stay in the church", complete with link to a GA's speech, and of course the try at diverting to wordprint studies that have absolutely no evidentary value at all and are basically worthless drivel. It's the classic, "don't look there, look here", because if you look there you will see the truth instead of the obfuscation they want you to see and believe.

The precious Book of Mormon. PROVEN to be a fraud over and over again. Yet, here we are once again having to sit through testimonies ("I feel...") and trivial BS.

And,

Quote:
And there you have it, Runtu, every argument that apologists or critics pick up to implicate multiple authors uses an inordinate amount of subjectivity. To say such arguments are strong or even a starting point, is disingenuous. We don't know and will never know how the Book of Mormon was produced. Smith wanted it that way and that's that. That's why he sealed up the original manuscript in the base of the Nauvoo House. He had enough trouble with it, as he put it.


And,

Quote:
Pinning your faith in that production on things like wordprint studies is ludicrous. But these kinds of desperate exercises are all they can offer. When it comes to hard evidence, the evidence that really matters, like Simon produces, they have to change the subject back to the esoteric BS they feel comfortable with, and add that "oh, there will never be any archaeological evidence", like it is nothing that there isn't any. The anachronisms, the plagiarism, the silly supernatural stories don't matter because to SEE them, would be too much. They have to be shelved, in favor of things that people can manipulate. As Kish put it, the Book of Mormon is just a non starter. The Community of Christ figured that out years ago. The LDS though, want to continue to perpetuate the hoax, and it only hurts them and their credibility as honest purveyors of the gospel of Christ.


Mikwut then gives example after example of how wordprint studies in relation to the Book of Mormon are simply a waste of time because of these problems,

Quote:
"It is only when translations of the same author are compared is there any hope for stylometric machine-learning methods to tell translator from translator (Rybicki 2012) http://www.dh2012.uni-hamburg.de/confer ... ion.1.html. If we can't tell who is Mormon, Moroni and/or Joseph Smith are because we can't compare translations because we don't have them we certainly can't have confidence in independent authors. John Hilton's BYU article on wordprints only controlled for one translator. http://davies-linguistics.BYU.edu/ling4 ... Hilton.pdf.



Reformed Egyptian
"And it came to pass"
King James Elizabethan language
Editing
Smith's plagiarism.
anachronisms

And this important problem:

Quote:
It is well known that even with computer technology inherent problems with stylometry itself still exists. I am unaware of any wordprint that is immune from James Croft's confession back in 1981 from Book Of Mormon "Wordprints" Reexamined by D. James Croft, Sunstone, March 1981, Vol. 6:2, p. 15-22, "Close scrutiny of the methodology of the BYU authorship study reveals several areas which seem vulnerable to criticism."


And of course the freaking DNA! This is a hurdle you simply cannot get over. It puts ANY apologetics dead in the water. You can't have a starting point, because you have already lost the war. All the rest is simply posturing.

You bringing this up in the face of Simon's stellar scientific EVIDENCE is a red herring. Therefore as I said above wordprint studies in relation to the Book of Mormon are a silly waste of time. And the final nail,

Quote:
...the criticisms you have received on this thread are more than appropriate, your position on a weak piece of evidence as somehow countervailing or balancing a very strong piece of evidence is just inappropriate and misplaced.


There, I've broken it down for you. Please give us a detailed response on how Mikwut is mistaken. You must have the comprehension skills of a five year old if you are claiming that this is above the average person's "paygrade". It isn't. You just have no possible way of answering his astute observations. Par for the course.

And Waterdog's post put the coffin in the ground where it belongs, and like Smith's "slippery treasures", you can try and grasp it and bring it back into the light, but it will continue to slip through your grasp, because it is all based on make believe.

Mikwut is being very gracious. I don't want to be, because you are a troll so I will amend his last bit to this,

"...your position on esoteric BS as somehow countervailing conclusive scientific evidence is the desperate act of a wanna stay apologist who cannot even comprehend the apologetic nonsense you purvey."

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:53 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 6700
I have a question wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
I'm the first to admit that...and have at least a couple of times now in this thread. Over the years I've read many of mikwut's posts. They are deep and require a skill set that I honestly don't have.


What specific skill(s) set do you think you are missing, whose absence means you cannot address mikwut’s posts?

In a previous iteration of his wordprint studies derails, he said this:
mentalgymnast, 2016, wrote:
That's why I brought it up. To get some kind of thinking/rationale that I haven't seen before.

I looked at all these word print studies somewhat in depth years ago.

I think there something there worth paying attention to.
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 67#p948967

It would be helpful if the opening post could explain, based on his "in depth" studies, why he thinks there is something there to pay attention to.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 15539
He can't. He won't. He lied. Around and around we gooooo....

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:07 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 6700
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
He can't. He won't. He lied. Around and around we gooooo....

- Doc

:lol: the great Darth J called it, way, way way back in 2010:
Darth J wrote:
Mentalgymnast, do you have a response to this thread or not?

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13168&hilit=chiasmus


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:35 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
Themis wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
My point in the original thread that ended up being split up was that we ought to look inside the BofM along with looking at the outside. And that was pretty much all I was suggesting.

But you were never willing to when I went into some detail about it, and now that Mikwit has given you even more, you take the cowards way out. If you really were honest you would do as you want everyone else to and engage the subject and answer the questions asked you in our posts. In particular Mikwut's which really goes into some detail of the issues. Maybe you could learn something, but knowing your history I won't bet on it.


And no one would take that bet. Why? Because he claims to have studied the matter "in depth", but then claims that he doesn't understand it, but will link to it and expect others to accept that it has real meaning. It doesn't. But that won't stop him from continually regurgitating this esoteric nonsense over and over again, because he is a wanna stay grasping at straws. What value do those "studies" offer? None. There are so many problems with them, that it boggles the mind that anyone would recommend wasting their valuable time reading that doggerel. The basic premise of stylometric analysis as mikwut explained is in this sentence: "It is only when translations of the same author are compared is there any hope for stylometric machine-learning methods to tell translator from translator (Rybicki 2012)" No one that I know of, has overcome this. Where are the other examples of the multiple authors they claim wrote the claimed original text that resided on the gold plates in an unknown language? No one can ever produce them. And there are massive problems with trying to attribute the Book of Mormon to authors other than Joseph Smith as mikwut pointed out:

Quote:
For example, one of the reasons the Jocker's study is problematic is because Sidney Rigdon's supposed wordprint doesn't match his theology. The portions of the wordprint attributed to him in Jocker's study also attribute to him theology that is literal when his Campbellite theology was figurative. This dissonance is problematic for wordprint analysis which is secondary to known historical fact.


I again reiterate that Smith didn't want anyone to know anything about the Book of Mormon text and we never will other than that the text itself is a 19th century creation. It is not a "translation" of an ancient document or series of documents, the internal problems with the text have PROVEN this. What is the point of trying to prove Sidney Rigdon, or Oliver Cowdery had something to do with it? It just doesn't matter. I repeat, it just doesn't matter because the book is a FRAUD. It is painfully obvious, and more so every day with the advanced DNA evidence.

One cannot ignore what the text SAYS or supplant that with bogus "studies" analyzing the style of it, or the supposed "hebraisms" or chiasmus or other esoteric nonsense. It is an exercise in futility and will continue to be. The best explanation we have is that Smith wrote it. If he had help, so what? It doesn't matter because that can't trump that the text itself is a 19th century creation of Joseph Smith and whoever might have helped him (if anyone did).

The Book of Mormon is Smith's pseudepigrapha. As I said above, the Community of Christ realized this long ago and made took appropriate steps to accept it as such. The Utah branch continues to hold on to their pipe dream that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, but cannot overcome the evidence that proves it is not and thus they continue to knowingly perpetuate Smith's fraud on the world. That throws doubt on everything else they do, and they will continue to be looked upon as disingenuous until they admit the truth as did the Community of Christ.

MG knows this, but his wanna stay desire overcomes his desire to know the truth every time. His "shelf" can't support the weight he has placed on it and so he continues to deceive himself and tries to deceive others to try and stifle his own dissonance.

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Uther and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group