Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Maksutov]

Show me where Philip Jenkins was speaking out of prejudice when he trounced Bill Hamblin. Let's see you do some research and reading for a change.

I followed each 'back and forth' while it was going on. It was over on Patheos wasn't it? Don't ask me to remember much of what I read.

Everyone is biased and/or prejudiced.

http://archive.boston.com/news/science/ ... /blog.html

Prejudice is the process of making decision or judging something with a premature mind and making your own facts instead of knowing the real truth about a person or a thing. Bias can be referred to as a process where you prefer one thing over another thing. Prejudice is the word used to refer to something that you hate completely. Bias can be referred to as a prejudice in some specific sense. This is the priority that you feel about one thing as compared to other.

You are saying that Philip Jenkins isn't either one or both?

Regards,
MG

Nope.

I'm questioning your distrust of academics. It seems you like LDS academics just fine but not nonMormons. Looks prejudicial to me.

The Book of Mormon is a channeled text. There's no original, nothing was "translated". None of the events, people, places mentioned correspond to anything in the real world. Only special pleading would treat it differently from all of the other channeled texts out there. Or prejudice. Or bias.

[_mentalgymnast]

What you’re saying is that there are a whole bunch of religions. Some of them have a lot more written about them than Mormonism—and some of them have less written about them than Mormonism...MG: ummm, no, that's not what I've been saying. Your point is that it’s amazing that Mormonism has more written about it than those religions that have less written about them.

Not exactly. The Book of Mormon and other scripture/sacred text is what I've been talking about. The scriptural foundation/artifact/keystone of the church. I think I've made my point fairly clear during this thread.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm questioning your distrust of academics. It seems you like LDS academics just fine but not nonMormons. Looks prejudicial to me.

So Jenkins is prejudiced? We can agree on that?

by the way, I don't distrust academics. I have family members who work in academia.

I am saying that Jenkins is either biased and/or prejudiced.

Does that matter if he is?

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

I'm questioning your distrust of academics. It seems you like LDS academics just fine but not nonMormons. Looks prejudicial to me.

So Jenkins is prejudiced? We can agree on that?

by the way, I don't distrust academics. I have family members who work in academia.

I am saying that Jenkins is either biased and/or prejudiced.

Does that matter if he is?

Regards,
MG

Show me where he was in the exchange. Just assuming everyone is doesn't get us anywhere.

You still haven't shown why we should treat the Book of Mormon any differently than any other channeled text.

[_mentalgymnast]

[Hubbard's] writings from what I know are very subjective and not testable ...

If that is indeed the case, then the Book of Mormon has a 'leg up', right? It is susceptible to a greater degree of analysis/exegesis?

Are you saying then, that we find ourselves in a position where we place Dianetics in one category/class and the Book of Mormon in another?

They're different, right?

Maybe it isn't any great surprise if no one is willing/able to really 'proof text' Dianetics because it lacks cohesiveness in any kind of a narrative that can be connected with a' before and after'? More or less random ideas strung together?

Hubbard was rather well known to be somewhat strung out

I suppose you've read Dianetics and can tell us why you would put this book and the Book of Mormon in the same class? I think you agreed earlier that they belong together, right?

So which is it, together or apart?

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

[Hubbard's] writings from what I know are very subjective and not testable ...

If that is indeed the case, then the Book of Mormon has a 'leg up', right? It is susceptible to a greater degree of analysis/exegesis?

Are you saying then, that we find ourselves in a position where we place Dianetics in one category/class and the Book of Mormon in another?

They're different, right?

Maybe it isn't any great surprise if no one is willing/able to really 'proof text' Dianetics because it lacks cohesiveness in any kind of a narrative that can be connected with a' before and after'? More or less random ideas strung together?

Hubbard was rather well known to be somewhat strung out

I suppose you've read Dianetics and can tell us why you would put this book and the Book of Mormon in the same class? I think you agreed earlier that they belong together, right?

So which is it, together or apart?

Regards,
MG

Special pleading doesn't work, MG. Once again you expect everyone else to do all the work and you can duck and dodge their answers.
Quit being so lazy. Do some homework or just admit that you aren't serious.

[_mentalgymnast]

Just assuming [Jenkins is prejudiced and/or biased]...doesn't get us anywhere.

No?

I think it would be important to factor that in.

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

Just assuming [Jenkins is prejudiced and/or biased]...doesn't get us anywhere.

No?

I think it would be important to factor that in.

Regards,
MG

How will you do that? Show me.

[_mentalgymnast]

Special pleading doesn't work, MG. Once again you expect everyone else to do all the work and you can duck and dodge their answers.
Quit being so lazy. Do some homework or just admit that you aren't serious.

Hey Mak,

This kind of stuff doesn't really help the conversation.

You were doing pretty well there for a while. Reminds me of a presidential candidate...

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

Just assuming [Jenkins is prejudiced and/or biased]...doesn't get us anywhere.

No?

I think it would be important to factor that in.

Regards,
MG

Why did you put a fake phrase in the parentheses? You changed my words. I said "everyone". You changed it. Do you have to resort to fabrication to try to defend your holy church? Why am I not surprised.