Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Goya]

No, one doesn't just assume that someone else has a bias. You need to show how they're demonstrating bias.

Saying that Jenkins is biased because of his purported religious affiliation is like saying someone is racist because they are white.

Is it not OK to ask and/or find out whether or not Jenkins is a practicing Christian and believer in Jesus as Savior?

Simple question. Simple answer? Is it not 'politically correct' to even be asking this? : wink:

Regards,
MG

The simple answer is that it has it has no relevance. That's as simple as it gets. You are asking as a way of avoiding addressing the larger issue of whether or not Dr Jenkins is actually showing bias.

[_Maksutov]

Good God. Why don't you show the religion enough respect to go and read some of their texts yourself. You expect the whole freaking world to memorize the Book of Mormon and you're too lazy to do the polite and decent thing here? Everything has to be spoonfed you and then you diss it anyway.

Quit looking for another Grant Hardy/Teryl Givens type. There is a vast field of Religious Studies that you aren't even bothering to look at. It addresses what you SAY you are looking for. But you have to have the energy, desire and time to pursue it.

Earlier...

I'm not going to play your little 'label' games. I told you earlier, Mak, this doesn't help conversation. But I'm willing to bypass the 'accusation and/or label game' every time you do it without making comment if that floats your boat and gives you an 'edge'.

I may just have to accept it and grin and bear it.

I think that is the best continued course of action. That leaves things wide open for you.

I'm not going to diss you. And I will continue to turn the other cheek.

OK. Here come the jokes...

Oh, by the way, I did respond in a respectful/honest way to the post you are referring to. Most folks will be able to see that.

Regards,
MG

I don't think you get to speak for what "most folks" see or think.

You still haven't addressed the issues of your lies. No labels needed. You edited my words and you keep lying about it and trying to deflect it. This just renews the perception of your dishonesty with each evasion/denial.

Jokes? I can give you jokes or I can tell you straight.

Your idea of "respectful/honest" is to evade. You won't go read someone else's texts but you expect them to ooh and ahh over yours. Get over yourself. This is one of the ugliest aspects of Mormonism: to refuse to learn from the world, always out there pushing itself, always talking and never listening, not studying the lives, histories, thoughts of others but smugly dismissing them all because they don't fall within the fake little subculture here in the Mountain West.

[_Lemmie]

No, one doesn't just assume that someone else has a bias. You need to show how they're demonstrating bias.

Saying that Jenkins is biased because of his purported religious affiliation is like saying someone is racist because they are white.

Is it not OK to ask and/or find out whether or not Jenkins is a practicing Christian and believer in Jesus as Savior?

Simple question. Simple answer? Is it not 'politically correct' to even be asking this?

Regards,
MG

In the context of your accusation of bias on Jenkins' part, your rewriting of your
accusation 3 times when asked about it, your asking this over and over without giving a reason, and the fact that it is not relevant make this NOT a simple question with a simple answer. It does, however, make you look habitually disingenuous.

And what on earth does 'political correctness' have to do with this? Do you honestly not see the intellectual dishonesty you are displaying here?

Eta: apparently not, as you just added this:

But yes, I will continue to act in a way so that my personal sense of integrity remains intact

I'm going with my original idea that you have been assigned as an online missionary and have to say these things. There is no other way you could post with such dishonesty and disingenuousness and say your personal integrity is intact.

Oh, by the way, I did respond in a respectful/honest way to the post you are referring to. Most folks will be able to see that.

Since you bring it up, let's do a poll of the folks. This 'folk' saw disingenuous deflection and intellectual dishonesty in that post.

[_mentalgymnast]

You were the one that used "games" first.

Please continue to act however you please. Your integrity? Really.

Of course we're all biased. But you are the one imputing bias to Jenkins and editing my words to do so. So your "personal integrity" allows you to forge exchanges and lie about it and pretend that it's somehow morally acceptable. Oh, and then rewrite the whole history of the thread, an even more extensive lie. But you pepper it with smilies to make it "civil".

I see your "personal integrity" for what it's worth.

I'm not going to play your little 'label' games. I told you earlier, Mak, this doesn't help conversation. But I'm willing to bypass the 'accusation and/or label game' every time you do it without making comment if that floats your boat and gives you an 'edge'.

I may just have to accept it and grin and bear it.


I think that is the best continued course of action. That leaves things wide open for you.

Regards,
MG

[_Goya]

I have a question...are any of the scriptural/sacred texts of the Bahai faith composed in narrative form where a story is being told that expands and/or takes place linearly over a period of time? Or are the texts more of an inspirational/homily nature?

Are you serious? How the hell does being in a narrative form mean anything special?

[_Maksutov]

Is it not OK to ask and/or find out whether or not Jenkins is a practicing Christian and believer in Jesus as Savior?

Simple question. Simple answer? Is it not 'politically correct' to even be asking this?

Regards,
MG

In the context of your accusation of bias on Jenkins' part, your rewriting of your
accusation 3 times when asked about it, your asking this over and over without giving a reason, and the fact that it is not relevant make this NOT a simple question with a simple answer. It does, however, make you look habitually disingenuous.

And what on earth does 'political correctness' have to do with this? Do you honestly not see the intellectual dishonesty you are displaying here?

Eta: apparently not, as you just added this:

But yes, I will continue to act in a way so that my personal sense of integrity remains intact

I'm going with my original idea that you have been assigned as an online missionary and have to say these things. There is no other way you could post with such dishonesty and disingenuousness and say your personal integrity is intact.

Oh, by the way, I did respond in a respectful/honest way to the post you are referring to. Most folks will be able to see that.

Since you bring it up, let's do a poll of the folks. This 'folk' saw disingenuous deflection and intellectual dishonesty in that post.

It might be frowned on. However, this sort of data is still available. Just take the last 3 threads that MG has started and see how many different individuals accuse him of dishonesty, misrepresentation, etc. within each thread.

How many instances do you suppose it would take before MG is willing to admit something that a multitude has witnessed and will attest to? The answer depends on his "personal integrity", and I think we already know.

[_Chap]

Just read WHAT HE SAYS, and see if you can find any faults in:

1. The validity of his arguments.

2. The evidence he uses.

If you can't, then why wouldn't you accept his conclusions? Oh yes, because of your 'biases/prejudices', I suppose. Figures.

Back to a question I asked earlier:

by the way, does anyone know if Jenkins' considers himself to be a practicing Christian?

He obviously believes Jesus Christ existed. Does he view him as Savior/God?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... cal-jesus/

Whether he does or doesn't would possibly inform any biases/prejudices he may have or not have as he goes about his scholarly ways/work?

Regards,
MG

The Battle of Hastings was won by William Duke of Normandy in 1066.

And my (or anybody else's) religious beliefs are relevant to the truth of that statement how?

[_canpakes]

...the Book of Mormon has not received, but deserves, treatment as a literary document on its own terms and that in order to do so the questions of historicity need to be bracketed.

As you know, this seems to be the new wave/path that many of the younger set of Mormon historians are riding/traveling. I think there is a danger in compartmentalizing like this in that by avoiding context and only looking at bits and pieces of a puzzle in isolation and staying within that sphere of inquiry to the exclusion of the other pieces and how they may or may not fit. There is a larger picture being missed and not being assembled/viewed correctly with 20/20 vision. Better to use both eyes and having to read all the letters on the chart rather than using one eye and pick and choosing which letters are being read.

Regards,
MG

MG -

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is, as it states itself, to provide a second witness to Jesus Christ as told through the historical anecdotes of supposedly actual people.

If you're going to use the analogy of an eye exam to dismiss my comment, what you're really asking to do via bracketing is to claim whatever you tell us that you see on the chart is 'true' regardless of what the chart actually states - whether you are using one eye, or two.

[_Lemmie]

True, Maks. So, no poll. But I agree with you that mg doesn't get to say what folks are thinking.

Speaking of writing, here's another re-write as he tries again to cover for his bias charge against Jenkins:

As I mentioned earlier, we ALL...at times... may make what are considered to be errors in judgment and we may lack propriety. You/me/others included. We are ALL biased.

Fourth re-write as you continue to try to weasel out of being accountable for what you said:

The fact is, we can be fairly certain that Jenkins is biased and/or prejudiced.

[Guest]

True, Maks. So, no poll. But I agree with you that mg doesn't get to say what folks are thinking.

Speaking of writing, here's another re-write as he tries again to cover for his bias charge against Jenkins:

As I mentioned earlier, we ALL...at times... may make what are considered to be errors in judgment and we may lack propriety. You/me/others included. We are ALL biased.

Fourth re-write as you continue to try to weasel out of being accountable for what you said:

The fact is, we can be fairly certain that Jenkins is biased and/or prejudiced.

I've wondered if his 'purpose' is just to distract and derail and infuriate. He isn't seeking knowledge, although that's always his opening line, but he's trying to hand out tracts and sermons. When the Mopologists keep losing they have to try to edit the scores, work the refs, or do dirty tricks on the other team. I'm sure they have a lot of resentment built up, because they're little gods at home but laughed at everywhere else. That alone could fuel a lot of these missions to the trailer park.

On the other hand, I haven't seen Tobin lately. Maybe MG is his replacement?